Thriving Spiritually

A significant number of men and women whom I have met over the years from different parts of the world have been deeply hurt while associated with various religious movements. For some, their experiences have been of a nature that seems to have robbed them of every vestige of faith they once may have had. Others, within these movements or presently no longer associated with them, find themselves in a state of emotional and mental upheaval. Among those undergoing distress are exemplary men and women who sincerely want to live lives that reflect favorably on God and on his Son, the one whom they recognize as having died for them. At times, they feel very much alone, fearful, and helpless. God and his Son do know how many such men and women there are in the world and their need for a compassionate response.

The information in this section, A New Start in the Spiritual Journey (also in Chinese), A Look at Revelation, and Jesus Christ, God’s Unique Son (based on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), is being provided in the hope that it may serve to comfort and reassure persons who are no strangers to suffering but who desire to grow and flourish spiritually.

A New Start in the Spiritual Journey

For many people, membership in a religious movement is a major part of their identity. The doctrinal framework, services, and activities associated therewith are regarded as being of God. Therefore, the loyal members come to regard anything less than wholehearted support of the movement and its leadership as disloyalty to the Most High, and the leadership repeatedly reinforces this view by appealing to examples from the Bible. The message is: Do not be like rebellious Dathan, Abiram, and Korah. Remember what happened to them. Submit to God’s arrangement.

The result is an environment where people begin to doubt their ability to make sound judgments, and the expressions heard within the group are conditioned responses. While some may sense within themselves that something is amiss, they suppress this by rationalizations derived from the environmental conditioning. When, however, the rationalizations no longer calm the internal discomfort, the tolerable becomes increasingly more intolerable. A sense of fear, alarm, and disquieting aloneness, coupled with doubts, may create tremendous emotional and mental stress. Depending on the policies of the movement respecting those who leave it or are expelled for not conforming to its unique doctrines or directives, the person who comes to see that the group’s claims are seriously flawed may be terrified about the prospect of losing dear friends and becoming an outcast even among close family members, perhaps being cut off from seeing parents, grandparents, children, or grandchildren. At the same time, having been subjected to the repeated conditioning that the group’s leaders are divinely appointed, those struggling with matters of conscience may also be plagued by the unsettling feeling that they may possibly be in error — in danger of jeopardizing their eternal future.

Many decades ago, David Thomas (in a homiletical comment on Revelation 17:1-6 found in the Pulpit Commentary) was moved to write about the intolerant and loveless spirit existing in “conventional Christianity” with its numerous sects and denominations. After mentioning that “Christianity corrupted has always been cruelly intolerant,” he continued, “True, it does not shed blood so much as of yore, but if it does not take away life it may inflict life annoyances and disabilities in many respects more painful than bloodshedding.” In his view, each sect has an intolerant spirit, “each according to its measure as a persecutor, and as a rule, the smaller and more virulent the spirit. Curs snarl and bark more as a rule than mastiffs. Large and affluent congregations can afford to overlook denominational circumstances that irritate the smaller and the poorer to wrath and rage.” Untold thousands today by reason of what they have experienced through association with religious movements would not consider the comments of David Thomas outdated or exaggerated. Any victims of the kind of abuse to which he alluded are in desperate need of love and compassion, and any who may see themselves as potentially facing such abuse need comfort and reassurance.

The Source of Unfailing Comfort

For individuals to thrive spiritually outside religious movements, it is essential to distinguish between what is of men and what is of God. The famous English mathematician and physicist Sir Isaac Newton who chose not to be a church member recognized this distinction: “The authority of Emperors, Kings, and Princes, is human. The authority of Councils, Synods, Bishops, and Presbyters, is human. The authority of the Prophets is divine, and comprehends the sum of religion, reckoning Moses and the Apostles among the Prophets; and if an Angel from Heaven preach any other gospel, than what they have delivered, let him be accursed. Their writings contain the covenant between God and his people, with instructions for keeping this covenant; instances of God’s judgments upon them that break it: and predictions of things to come. While the people of God keep the covenant, they continue to be his people: when they break it they cease to be his people or church.”

To benefit from the assurances contained in the Scriptures, we cannot afford to let another human or group of humans reinterpret them and nullify their power to bring comfort. God’s view of us as individuals is what counts, not some humanly devised standard based on unqualified acceptance of a particular belief system that goes far beyond divine revelation.

The apostle John’s first letter can be of great help in calming any uneasiness and assuring us of the abiding love of our heavenly Father. This love is not based on our being part of a particular movement. It is a love for us as individuals, persons for whom his Son died. Our living in harmony with his Son’s teaching and example serves as tangible evidence that we, in faith, have accepted his sacrificial death in our behalf and him as our Lord. Consequently, we are no longer alienated from his Father and under condemnation of sin but are members of the family of God’s beloved children. (Romans 8:1-4, 12-17) Therefore, as trusting children, we rightfully accept what is set forth in plain language in the Scriptures instead of any reinterpretation originating with uninspired humans (however plausible or impressive their argumentation may seem to be or despite their claiming to have been divinely appointed).

John tells us: “See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God.” (1 John 3:1, RSV) The fact that we flawed humans could be called “children of God” is something to look at in wonderment. It is truly amazing that the One who is so pure, so loving, and so good accepts us as his own children because we, in faith, have accepted his Son and all that he has done in our behalf. The very thought that this is so seems overwhelming. Yet, according to the most ancient manuscripts, the apostle’s statement is followed by unquestioning assurance, “and we are,” that is, we are indeed God’s children.

Our being loving as God and Christ are loving is the means by which to reassure ourselves of our standing as beloved children, dispelling from our “hearts,” our deep inner selves, doubts and feelings of unworthiness. As the apostle John wrote: “Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth. Now this [by our thus loving in the real sense of the word] is how we shall know that we belong to the truth and reassure our hearts before him in whatever our hearts condemn, for God is greater than our hearts and knows everything.” (1 John 3:18-20, NAB) Though we may be assailed by self-doubts, we can take comfort in the fact that our heavenly Father is far more generous with us as his children than we are in our deep inner selves.

In keeping with the spirit of the apostle John’s words, we can allay our troubling doubts by asking ourselves: Do we want to be more like our heavenly Father and his Son in attitude, word, and action? Is the desire of our hearts to imitate their love? Has our faith in God and Christ made us loving, caring persons?

In view of our possessing only imputed righteousness, however, our walk as God’s children is not flawless. Because of our repeated failings, we may at times question whether we really are his children. Especially Christians who have sinned grievously in the past may be plagued by serious doubts about their standing before the Most High. They may be burdened with feelings of shame and guilt. In this case, too, one needs to keep in mind that our heavenly Father is much more forgiving than “our hearts” are.

There is a big difference between choosing to live a life of sin and, in times of weakness, giving in to the powerful craving of fallen human nature. The apostle John made this distinction very clear in his first letter. “God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say, ‘We have fellowship with him,’ while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. If we say, ‘We are without sin,’ we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. . . . My children, I am writing this to you that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.” (1 John 1:5-2:2, NAB)

Our heavenly Father “is light” — pure, clean, holy — in the absolute sense. There is not the slightest taint of darkness — evil, depravity, corruption, ignorance, impurity, or uncleanness. Accordingly, for God’s beloved children, a habitual walk in darkness (impurity, uncleanness, and corruption) is inconceivable. Still, our walk in the light is but a poor reflection of our heavenly Father’s holiness. We continue to be in need of the cleansing power of Jesus Christ’s blood, and that blood purifies us from all sin, that is, from all defilement resulting from our failure to meet the divine standard of holiness in word, thought, and action.

If we confess our sins, we can rest assured of complete forgiveness. This is because God is faithful, dependable, trustworthy. Since he has declared that forgiveness is possible on the basis of his Son’s shed blood, we can have absolute confidence in what he has said. The Most High is also just or righteous. He will always act in harmony with what he has revealed himself to be. He has manifested himself to be forgiving and merciful to repentant sinners. So his righteousness guarantees that we will be forgiven.

While giving assurance that the blood of God’s Son makes possible cleansing from all wrongdoing, the apostle’s words serve as an encouragement for us not to sin but to maintain upright conduct. If we do sin, aid is available in the person of a paraclete, a helper, an intercessor, an advocate. This one, Jesus Christ, enjoys an intimate relationship with the Father, and his righteousness is absolute, not imputed. Because he is righteous, his intercession for repentant sinners will always receive his Father’s favorable attention.

Dealing with Hurt and Anger

Upon discovering serious flaws in a particular group or movement, one may become angry and feel deeply hurt about having been deceived. One may be inclined to see the decision-making members of the movement as sinister, deliberate manipulators. Often, however, some of the staunchest defenders of a particular organization are pitiable victims themselves, acting much like family members who shield and cover over for an alcoholic father or mother. Even when one has firsthand knowledge about the individuals involved and their distortion of the facts, care must be exercised that one’s strong feelings are not vented against individuals. There is a tremendous difference between exposing serious misrepresentation out of genuine concern for the welfare of others and condemning individuals. All final judgment rests with our heavenly Father and his Son.

Group dynamics are complex. The pressures and restraints exerted on individuals are great indeed. With few exceptions, individual conscience seems to be in a state of suspended animation, and often sound reasoning is supplanted by emotion. No one appears to take personal responsibility for group decisions (which may not even be unanimous) and for any negative effect such may have. The collective whole takes on a personality all its own and a power greater than the sum total of its parts. In the collective whole, whether ethnic, national, tribal, religious, or commercial, everything becomes subservient to what is perceived as its interests, either real or imagined. In its extreme form, the conscienceless collective whole commits atrocities. Yet, the individuals involved may not see themselves as guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. Thus, as members of a group, people may act without any compassion and in ways that would be impossible for them individually.

An outstanding champion of Christian freedom, the apostle Paul, once found himself in that pitiable state as a zealous Jew desperately fighting against a perceived threat — the growing number of his own people who had accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah. It would have been easy to judge the vicious persecutor as a horrible, merciless man who deserved to die. What happened to him, however, should give us pause for serious reflection in the case of anyone who might mistreat us.

Our Master called upon us to pray for those who seek our injury, not to vent expressions of ill will toward them. (Matthew 5:44, 45) Heeding Christ’s teaching, Stephen made his appeal, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60, NIV) The compassionate appeal of the dying Stephen was answered, as confirmed by Paul’s own words: “I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and an arrogant man, but I have been mercifully treated because I acted out of ignorance in my unbelief.” (1 Timothy 1:13, NAB)

Not Forsaken

When we feel very much alone, we can benefit greatly by reflecting on what servants of the Most High faced in ancient times. A remarkable example is that of a young girl. Captured by a Syrian marauder band, she found herself ripped away from everything that was dear to her — family, friends, and familiar surroundings — and reduced to the position of a slave in the home of idolaters. While the Scriptural record is silent about the death and destruction that the Syrian marauder band may have left in its wake and what may or may not have happened to her parents, there is little doubt that this young girl witnessed scenes of horror. Moreover, compared to what the Christian has today for comfort and encouragement, she had very, very little.

Nevertheless, she maintained her faith in God and, remarkably, a spirit of deep compassion for a man who was a prominent representative of the very people responsible for the terrible tragedy that befell her and her parents.

The man was Naaman, the commander of the Syrian king’s army. He was afflicted with a loathsome, disfiguring disease that, in Israel, would have required his living in isolation. Moved with compassion, the Israelite girl very much desired that he be cured of his dreadful disease and said to his wife: “If only my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.” (2 Kings 5:3, NRSV)

Truly, the faith of that nameless young girl sparkles like a costly gem, for she was an exception among the Israelites of her day, the vast majority of whom had no regard for YHWH nor his prophet and, instead, venerated lifeless idols. (For an explanation of the divine name represented by the four consonants YHWH, see Psalm 1 in the Commentary section.) Imagine her joy on seeing her faith rewarded! Naaman returned from Israel physically healed and, more importantly, as a humble worshiper of the true God.

Who could have conceived of such an outcome for what started out as a terrible tragedy? As in the case of Joseph who was not abandoned by God when sold into slavery, this girl also was not forsaken. Never, no never, will our heavenly Father abandon anyone who is loyal to him. (Psalm 27:10; Romans 8:38, 39)

Then, too, aloneness can benefit us. We may find that we have more time for reading the Scriptures and for undistracted reflection, drawing us closer to our heavenly Father. In the case of Joseph, his experiencing enslavement and imprisonment tested his faith in God’s word that had been conveyed to him through prophetic dreams. (Psalm 105:17-19) Doubtless because Joseph maintained his faith under trial, his confidence in God’s promise to Abraham remained strong throughout his life. His final words were an expression of faith: “I am about to die; but God will be sure to remember you kindly and take you out of this country to the country which he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” “When God remembers you with kindness, be sure to take my bones away from here.” (Genesis 50:24, 25, NJB; Hebrews 11:22) Years later, during Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, the bones of Joseph were a silent testimony to the faith that the people should have had in the sure fulfillment of the divine promise. (Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32) Aloneness, therefore, is not to be feared but may be looked upon as something that can contribute to our spiritual advancement. (Compare James 1:2-4, 12.)

The Right Foundation

To grow spiritually, we must make sure that our foundation is solid. Pointing to this foundation, the apostle Paul wrote: “There can be no other foundation than the one already laid: I mean Jesus Christ himself.” (1 Corinthians 3:11, REB) Our aim should be to have a strong, firsthand faith based on our personal examination of the evidence contained in the Gospel accounts.

Some who have become embittered by treatment received from members of a particular group never have given, nor do give, careful thought to the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While perhaps expressing belief that Jesus is God’s Son, they do not have a strong personal conviction based on the evidence and are easily influenced by unscriptural teachings. One Christian said to a young man in this situation: “If, on the basis of the evidence found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you are convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead, proving to you undeniably that he is indeed the Son of God, then his example and teaching should govern the way you live your life.” More fascinated with the mystical aspects of Eastern religions, this young man brushed that comment aside, feeling that more had to be involved.

Individuals who have undergone any kind of mauling within a movement professing to be Christian are in a vulnerable condition. They can ill afford not to put forth effort to confirm and strengthen their faith.

For many, letting the Scriptures speak directly to them is not easy. Long accustomed to repeatedly using and hearing the same passages, they may find it hard to look at each Bible book as a whole, with the familiar verses being just a small part of the message. Not infrequently, one’s past use of isolated texts may cause one to miss the important relationship of the individual passages with the words that precede and follow. It is important to jettison the “proof text” method when considering the Scriptures, especially since this very method may have originally been the means that persuaded one to accept mere interpretations as God’s revealed truth.

Each book of the Bible needs to be examined as a whole so that one does not use individual passages out of harmony with their context, which includes their historical setting and the audience to which the words were originally directed. To this end, one should keep in mind that the chapter divisions often are not in the best places. So it is advisable to treat them as nonexistent when reading the Scriptures, preferably stopping only at points where the subject matter does indeed change. For Christians, the study of the Scriptures as a whole serves as the best safeguard against error and, when the instruction is applied, makes them truly wise, noble, compassionate, and loving.

B. F. Westcott, in his book, The Bible in the Church, made this perceptive comment: “No temptation is more subtle or more potent than that which bids us judge everything by one standard. Practically we are inclined to measure others by ourselves, other ages by our own, other forms of civilization by that under which we live, as the true and final measure of all. Against this error, which is sufficient almost to cloud the whole world, the Bible contains the surest safeguard. In that we see side by side how God finds a dwelling-place among nations and families in every stage of social advancement, and recognizes faithful worshippers even where they are hidden from the eyes of prophets. The absorbing cares of daily life, the imperious claims of those immediately around us, tend to narrow our sympathies, but the Bible shows to us, in an abiding record, every condition and every power of man blessed by the Divine Spirit. It lifts us out of the circle of daily influences and introduces us to prophets and kings and deep thinkers and preachers of righteousness, each working in their own spheres variously and yet by one power and for one end. It may be objected that devout students of the Bible have often proved to be the sternest fanatics. But the answer is easy. They were fanatics because they were students not of the whole Bible but of some one fragment of it to which all else was sacrificed. The teaching of one part only, if taken without any regard to its relative position in connexion with other times and other books, may lead to narrowness of thought, but the whole recognizes and ennobles every excellence of man.”

To thrive outside religious movements, individuals must be willing to take personal responsibility for their spiritual life through regular and prayerful consideration of the Bible, patiently letting it teach them progressively. Having looked to others without putting forth much effort to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures, one may be spiritually impoverished. When a person acknowledges being spiritually destitute and makes this a subject of prayer, a spiritual life follows only if there is a willingness to act in harmony with the appeal. This is clearly set forth in the book of Proverbs (2:2-5, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]): “If you make your ear attentive to wisdom and your mind open to discernment; if you call to understanding and cry aloud to discernment, if you seek it as you do silver and search for it as for treasures, then you will understand the fear of [YHWH] and attain knowledge of God.”

Although a person may have great difficulty in reading and, consequently, limited comprehension, he or she does not need to lose out. By repeatedly listening to the reading of the Bible (for example, by means of electronic media) and then thinking about what is heard, many have been spiritually enriched. It was, in fact, primarily through hearing, not reading, that first-century Christians became acquainted with the contents of the inspired Scriptures.

Not Limiting Oneself to One Translation

Because of familiarity with the words and phrases of a particular translation, a person may fall into the trap of just reading or hearing words. One thing that has aided many to minimize this is to consider the same account in several translations (even possibly including versions in languages with which they may not be as proficient as their native tongues). By reading the same section in a variety of translations, one is more likely to have one’s attention arrested by thoughts expressed in ways other than the familiar terms and phrases.

Whereas no translation is perfect, one does not need to be apprehensive about reading or listening to the reading of various commonly used translations. For the most part, translators have been keenly aware of the seriousness of their difficult task and have proceeded accordingly. As evident from an examination of their forewords, translators vary in their approach and objective. Some paraphrase or present a very loose rendition of the text. These versions may not be suitable for serious study but can be useful in getting an overall view of a particular Bible book.

Whether choosing a more or less literal method, translators are faced with the challenge of preserving as much of the flavor of the original as possible without obscuring the meaning in another language. To be benefited, people need to be able to understand what they read or what is read to them. For many Christians in the first century, the situation differed little from that of the majority today. They did not understand the Hebrew text and depended on a translation (the Septuagint). Extant manuscripts of this Greek version contain wording in some texts differing considerably from that in the extant Hebrew text. Still, the message is basically the same, and Christian readers or hearers of the Greek text enjoyed the same standing with the Most High as did their brothers who understood Hebrew. (Note: The commentary section of this site is designed to help English readers to see the differences in the Hebrew and Greek texts. See, for example, Habakkuk.)

Just as Hebrew and Greek differ markedly from one another, so do most of the languages into which the Bible has been translated. What adds to the difficulty is the absence of all punctuation marks in the ancient texts, requiring decisions about where to end sentences, to position or punctuate modifying phrases, or to break up one very long sentence into shorter sentences to facilitate easier reading and comprehension. (For example, the words of Ephesians 1:3-14 constitute just one sentence in Greek.) Since translators have not made the same choices, one’s reading a number of translations can make one more aware of areas that are open to question. Even when able to read the original text with reasonably good comprehension, a person, at best, may be able to present reasons for favoring one choice over another.

If we had personally heard the apostle Paul speak and were intimately acquainted with his expressions and all the circumstances that prompted him to write, we would be in a far better position to make the preferable decisions when translating his letters. Because no human is a definitive authority, we wisely avoid quibbling over precise details. Our focus always should be on what contributes to our having a stronger faith and being loving, obedient children in God’s family.

Partial Knowledge

When it comes to Christianity in the first century, we are in possession of a comparatively small collection of writings and our understanding of these is limited by what we do not know because of what the written word simply cannot communicate. Therefore, the accounts about Jesus, the developments related in the book of Acts, the letters (of which most, if not all, were dictated), and the book of Revelation (presented in signs and symbols) must be read with an awareness that no one today can understand certain portions of the Bible as well as did the original readers and hearers.

Consider the account about what Jesus said in response to the question directed to him regarding the coming destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Only four of the apostles heard Jesus’ words — Peter, Andrew, James, and John. The question that was directed to Jesus was framed according to the then-existing view of the apostles. As typical of other answers Jesus gave, he provided information they needed to know to guide them in their life as believers until the fulfillment of his words.

What has been preserved for us of Jesus’ answer? A written account, in another language, by believers who did not personally hear his answer. What is missing? We do not know which words or phrases Jesus stressed. We do not know where he paused. We do not know how he drew a distinction between the events preceding the destruction of Jerusalem and the points about not knowing the day and the hour.

Throughout the centuries, there have been those who have treated the account as much more than what it is and even used it as a basis for identifying the very generation that would witness Christ’s return in glory, leading to disappointments among those who accepted their interpretations and creating an environment in the movements that developed around these interpreters that proved to be spiritually, mentally, and emotionally damaging.

Although Jesus did not say there would be wars, earthquakes, and famines on a larger scale than ever before as “the sign” of his coming, there have been those who read that into his words. The words that have been preserved in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are, “the end is not yet,” and these are “the beginning of the labor pains,” and “the end [will not come] immediately.” In other words, such developments were not the indicators of his imminent return. Not until much later in Matthew’s account is there a reference to the “sign of the son of man.” For the disciples, their focus was to be on proclaiming the “glad tidings” (and how that was done is clearly set forth in the book of Acts, with accounts about the basic message that was proclaimed about Jesus Christ). The proclamation of that message would bring upon them persecution, and that persecution is described in terms of a first-century setting.

One event that Jesus said to watch for concerned a development respecting Jerusalem, a development that should prompt speedy flight from city. For us today, just how these words were understood by those who originally heard them and how they were later acted upon do not have the same relevance.

As to his return, the emphasis was, nobody (only the Father) knows the day and the hour, and the parables that Jesus thereafter related provided guidance for what would be expected of those who would be found approved upon his return. He warned against abusing fellow believers, urged spiritual wakefulness, highlighted making full use of entrusted “talents,” and emphasized the importance of responding compassionately to those in need, with particular stress on those who are most likely to be neglected — the least or most insignificant of his brothers.

Strangely, one of the parables which warned against assuming an authority greater than a slave has been interpreted by some as authorizing the existence of an administrative body whose officially recognized beliefs and directives must be accepted without question and any conscientious objection based on prayerful and careful contextual study of the Scriptures is regarded as meriting excommunication and shunning. To the loyal membership, the individual who is mentally and emotionally “beaten” and “abused” because of not being able to reconcile an official belief and directive with his conscience and the Scriptures is, as an excommunicated heretic, represented as the perpetrator of the beating and not as the victim. And the loyal membership, completely unaware of the facts in the case, faithfully perpetuates the misrepresentation.

When correcting a wrong view about Christ’s return in glory, Paul wrote in his second letter to the Thessalonians (2:3-6, NRSV): “Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. Do you not remember that I told you these things when I was still with you? And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes.” No one today knows what additional details Paul shared with the Thessalonians when he was with them. On the basis of what the apostle said, they knew what was then serving as a restraint, but we are not privy to that information. This illustrates the importance of focusing also on what we do not know and cannot possibly know in order to avoid reaching wrong conclusions or being led astray by ministers or religious writers implying that they are in possession of unique knowledge respecting future developments.

Other Sources

The resources for the pursuit of Biblical study are legion. Hundreds of commentaries have been published in English and other languages, and there are numerous study Bibles, lexicons, and a great variety of other reference works. Many provide helpful insights, opening doors for productive thought and contributing to an increased understanding of the Bible’s message. Others, however, marred by dogmatism, wild conjectures, and theological concepts that are foreign to primitive Christianity, have greatly reduced value. Once individual Christians have absorbed the Bible’s message through careful consideration of the Scriptures, they are in a far better position to be judicious in selecting and using reference works. The sheer volume of what is available and the wide gap in the quality of what has been written make selectivity imperative.

No reference work should ever be allowed to be anything other than what it is — a reflection of limited human knowledge. Ernest Best, in the preface to his commentary on Ephesians, made these observations: “All exegesis [exposition or critical interpretation of a text] is controlled by the situation of those who write. They will necessarily view the text on which they work from the angle of the age in which they live and this may lead them to see new aspects of it and put fresh questions to it. They will also be affected by their church allegiance, if any. . . . The coloured glasses we wear, usually without realising we do so, affect the way we read texts.” Church loyalty can seriously impair one from seeing what the Bible says or often, even more importantly, what it does not specifically state.

Since there are limitations in what humans have written, we wisely let ourselves be guided by the principle set forth in the Scriptures: “We know only imperfectly.” “We know partially.” (1 Corinthians 13:9, NJB; NAB) A vigilant awareness of the partial nature of all human knowledge can restrain us from making mere assertions or accepting as facts the conjectures, theories, or interpretations of others.

Association

For children of God to want association with fellow believers is only natural. The basis for fellowship, however, must be rooted in our relationship with our heavenly Father and his Son. Our hearts need to be wide enough to embrace all who acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord, recognize God as the One who raised him from the dead, and, in word, attitude, and action, seek to be imitators of God and Christ. (Romans 10:9, 10; Galatians 5:13-26; Ephesians 4:17-6:10; 1 John 1:5-5:21)

Because of the traditional mentality that has been perpetuated over the centuries, many are not able to grant full acceptance to another person who is not identified as approved by their particular group standard. Therefore, their aim will always be to have others become members of their movement — denominational or nondenominational. Sadly, this sectarian spirit makes it difficult for them to accept as children of God persons who do not belong to their movement and often confines them to association that narrows their love and stunts their spiritual growth.

They are much like many disciples of John the Baptist. Despite John’s clear identification of Jesus as the bridegroom, they allowed their personal attachment to John to interfere with their acceptance of Christ and his disciples. (Mark 2:18-22; John 3:25-30) Even after John’s imprisonment and death, they continued to be a group separate from Jesus’ followers. (Matthew 11:2-5; Acts 19:1-7)

Whatever form a sectarian spirit may take, it is spiritually detrimental and is one that all seeking to be loyal disciples of Jesus Christ must resist. When the fragmentation of professing believers into distinct groups manifested itself among the Corinthians in the first century, the apostle Paul exposed this as unspiritual, infantile, and injurious. (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-9, 21-23; 11:17-34)

Many people do rise above extreme manifestations of the sectarian spirit but are still negatively impacted by theological views that developed after the first century. A conditioned doctrinal orientation may interfere with their being able to develop a heartfelt appreciation of Christ’s role in leading them to the Father. (1 Peter 3:18) As a result, they may not see themselves in the family arrangement as both sons of God and brothers of Christ. (Galatians 3:26-29; Hebrews 2:10-18) What is often lost sight of is that teachings considered to be based on the Bible and accepted by many millions as truth were formulated centuries ago by a single individual or by comparatively few men and only had the support of a small majority of them. Thereafter all were required to accept these teachings, and any dissenters were faced with severe punishment. Religious movements that blur the distinction between the clear statements of the Scriptures and their particular statement of beliefs often create an environment that is spiritually toxic.

A proper recognition of who we are can prevent elevating any individual or group of individuals, attributing to them the kind of teaching authority that belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ. No human has the right to claim preeminence, for Christ alone is “the firstborn among many brothers.” (Romans 8:29, NIV)

Individually, we are fellow brothers, listening to our Lord’s teaching. While some of us may grasp his instruction a little better and, in turn, may be able to teach fellow believers by calling to their attention what he taught, we remain fellow learners. Any fellowship among members of the family of God’s children should harmonize with Jesus’ words: “You are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant.” (Matthew 23:8-12, NIV)

This teaching of God’s Son is often ignored, and much of what is labeled Christian today would be incomprehensible to the apostles. This does not mean that the first-century congregations enjoyed an ideal situation. They did not. The preserved letters reveal the existence of serious problems and that individual choice had to be made about the kind of fellowship which would or would not be spiritually beneficial. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; 2 Timothy 2:20-22; 3:1-7; 4:1-4; 1 John 2:18; Revelation 2:1-3:22)

When it comes to fellowship, many today are inclined to think in terms of a fixed place or a specific routine. They may recall that Jesus customarily went to synagogues on the Sabbath and to the temple for the annual festivals. Still, Jesus’ doing so did not identify him as belonging to or being supportive of a particular division of Judaism. His being among worshipers in a synagogue or at the temple in no way distorted his true identity but provided opportunities for teaching the truth about his Father. Today, however, membership in a movement professing to be Christian may involve taking on a denominational identity. Even members of “nondenominational churches” take on an identity that sets them apart from individuals who are members of either denominational or other nondenominational groups. The services customarily follow a fixed routine and provide no opportunity for visiting strangers to address assembled worshipers as did the apostle Paul and others in various Jewish synagogues. (Acts 13:15-45; 14:1; 17:1-4, 10-12; 18:1-6, 19-22, 24-26)

For Paul, what counted was being able to share his precious hope with assembled worshipers. Once the opportunity for doing so ended in a particular city, he stopped going to the synagogue there and made arrangements for those who wanted to hear the glad tidings about Jesus Christ. (Acts 18:7-11; 19:8-10) Nevertheless, Paul and other believing Jews did not deliberately choose to be outcasts, which would have made it difficult for them to share the Scriptures with fellow countrymen. They knew, however, that being disciples of God’s Son could lead to their being expelled from the synagogue, but they chose to remain loyal to him regardless of what men might do to them. (Matthew 10:17; 23:34; Luke 8:22; 21:12; John 9:22; 12:42, 43; 16:2) Those who valued their relationship to their Lord responded to mistreatment like the apostles when flogged at the order of the Sanhedrin. They “left the Sanhedrin rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.” (Acts 5:40, 41, NIV)

Because denominational and nondenominational movements are frequently identified with buildings and activities conducted therein, many lose sight of the fact that externals actually belong to a past arrangement for worship. To a Samaritan woman, Jesus revealed that true worship would not be dependent upon nor confined to any fixed geographical location or edifice. “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain [Gerizim, the site of a Samaritan temple that had been destroyed about a century and a half earlier] nor in Jerusalem [the location of the original temple and its replacement]. . . . But the hour is coming — indeed is already here — when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father seeks. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:21-24, NJB)

Since the Father “is spirit,” he desires worship of a spiritual kind. While the Law given to Israel did fix upon one central location for worship that involved ceremony and ritual, this was to be temporary. Through Malachi, the Father, in terms of the then-existing arrangement for worship, revealed that the time would come when non-Jewish peoples from one end of the earth to the other end would worship him acceptably in their respective locations. “My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations.” (Malachi 1:11, NIV) With the coming of the Messiah, the “hour” or time for this change arrived. For the child of God, therefore, worship is not a matter of looking for or going to a place, there to follow some traditional routine or a program outlined by human authority. Worship “in spirit and truth” does not consist of externals. Being “in truth,” such worship is genuine, real, not just an expression of the lips. (Compare 1 John 3:18.) Our heavenly Father, in fact, has never been pleased with mere ceremony — festivals, fasting, prayer, and sacrifice — devoid of love for him and his ways as manifest in compassionate care for the needy and afflicted. (Isaiah 1:10-17) For our worship to be “in spirit,” it must of necessity be an acknowledgment of who he is and reflect our highest regard for him as our loving Father to whom we owe everything we have and are. (Colossians 1:12; 3:17; Revelation 4:11; 5:13; 15:3, 4; 16:5-7) The genuineness of our praise, thanksgiving, and appeals directed to him would be evident in our daily life. (James 1:22-27)

The apostle Paul encouraged fellow believers: “As long as we have the opportunity let all our actions be for the good of everybody, and especially of those who belong to the household of the faith.” (Galatians 6:10, NJB) We are not to blind ourselves to the needs of fellow humans. Our duty is to respond in a loving, caring way to all persons. Members of “the household of the faith,” however, have a prior claim. As members of the same spiritual family, we are obligated to assist one another in time of need. (Matthew 25:34-40; Acts 9:36, 39; 1 John 3:17, 18)

Where are the children of God to whom we have a prior obligation? Where is this spiritual family? Jesus’ explanation of the parable of the wheat and the weeds provides the answer: “He who sows good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world, the good seed the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil.” (Matthew 13:37-39, NAB) Accordingly, true children of God are to be found in the world of mankind, growing as genuine wheat in the midst of weeds. They are, however, not identifiable by the application of a humanly devised standard and may even be mistakenly identified as “weeds” by misguided humans who presumptuously assume the role of weed pullers. (Matthew 13:24-30) Thus, children of God may be associated with what is commonly called “the visible church,” which consists of the various denominational and nondenominational groups professing to be Christian, or they may be individuals without such affiliation or membership.

The situation in which God’s children find themselves differs little from that existing in ancient Israel. Not all were Israelites, God’s people, in the real sense of the word. The prophet Elijah, on one occasion, was so disheartened that he felt he was the only worshiper of YHWH in the ten-tribe kingdom. Unknown to him, there was a faithful remnant — “seven thousand in Israel, all who [had] not bowed the knee to Baal.” (1 Kings 19:9-18, REB) Centuries later, not long after the return of a remnant from exile in Babylon, many did not prove to be genuine worshipers of YHWH. Nevertheless, faithful Israelites did find others who shared their love for the Creator, and their association with one another did not go unnoticed by our heavenly Father.

The contrast between mere professors and genuine worshipers of the Most High is revealed in the book of Malachi: “‘You have said harsh things about me, says Yahweh. And yet you say, ‘What have we said against you?’ You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God; what is the good of keeping his commands or of walking mournfully before Yahweh Sabaoth? In fact, we now call the proud the happy ones, the evil-doers are the ones who prosper; they put God to the test, yet come to no harm!’” “Then those who feared Yahweh talked to one another about this, and Yahweh took note and listened; and a book of remembrance was written in his presence recording those who feared him and kept his name in mind. ‘On the day when I act, says Yahweh Sabaoth, they will be my most prized possession, and I shall spare them in the way a man spares the son who serves him.’” (Malachi 3:13-18, NJB)

While many went through the motions of worship and looked enviously at the prosperity of the “irreligious,” those who had a profound awe for YHWH made heartfelt expressions about how they felt. Being familiar with the psalms and the words of the prophets, they doubtless talked about aspects that fit the then-existing situation, resulting in mutual upbuilding. (Psalms 37 and 73; Isaiah 58:2-14) Similarly, centuries later, the aged widow Anna, who was divinely privileged to see the infant Jesus, found those with whom she could share this joyful news. “She talked about the child to all who were looking for the liberation of Jerusalem.” (Luke 2:36-38, REB)

Trusting in our heavenly Father’s providential care and leading, we can rest assured that, in the world of mankind, we will find others who want to be exemplary, obedient children and who will be delighted to associate with us. Like first-century Christians, we can eat meals at one table, read God’s Word, talk about the Scriptures, share in expressions of praise and thanksgiving, raise our voices in song, and, in remembrance of what Jesus Christ has done for us in laying down his life in sacrifice, partake of the one loaf and the one cup as members of his body. (Acts 2:46; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17; Ephesians 5:19) All can contribute by expressing themselves spontaneously from the heart, not in the stilted manner common to arrangements devised by human authority.

The apostle Paul provided the guiding principle for making any gathering of believers a faith-strengthening experience: “When you assemble, one has a psalm, another an instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Everything should be done for building up.” (1 Corinthians 14:26, NAB) Among Christians who assemble for mutual upbuilding, some will manifest themselves as possessing God-given abilities and wisdom and will be willing and eager to render unassuming service to fellow believers. Like the household of Stephanus in ancient Corinth, they will take upon themselves “the responsibility of a ministering service.” (1 Corinthians 16:15, 16, Wuest; compare the case of Apollos [Acts 18:24-28; 1 Corinthians 3:5, 6, 21-23; 16:12].)

As members of a loving family look for opportunities to be together, children of God, of their own volition, seek out fellow children and talk about what is dear to their hearts and pour out their concerns. Like first-century Christians, they value their times together for mutual upbuilding and, therefore, do not neglect assembling with fellow believers. This harmonizes with the inspired admonition: “Let us keep firm in the hope we profess, because the one who made the promise is trustworthy. Let us be concerned for each other, to stir a response to love and good works. Do not absent yourself from your own assemblies, as some do, but encourage each other; the more so as you see the Day drawing near.” (Hebrews 10:23-25, NJB)

Many believe that regular attendance at services in a particular building fulfills this requirement. Often, though, attendance at such meetings is primarily a matter of compliance with a prescribed routine and involves sitting in rows as passive listeners or as participants in controlled group discussions. Attendance is not really prompted by genuine concern for others, a concern that engenders spontaneous expressions which “stir a response to love and good works.” To be concerned about fellow believers and in a position to make expressions that are genuinely motivating, we need to know others as members of our beloved family. The prevailing spirit among those assembling should be one where no one is afraid to voice deep inner feelings, even doubts. (Compare how openly Jeremiah expressed himself to God [Jeremiah 15:15-18].)

While faith-strengthening fellowship serves an important role in our life as children of God, it does not always follow immediately upon one’s becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ. The case of an Ethiopian court official illustrates this well. “He had been to Jerusalem to worship God and was going back home in his carriage. As he rode along, he was reading from the book of the prophet Isaiah. The Holy Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over to that carriage and stay close to it.’ Philip ran over and heard him reading from the book of the prophet Isaiah. He asked him, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ The official replied, ‘How can I understand unless someone explains it to me?’ And he invited Philip to climb up and sit in the carriage with him. The passage of scripture which he was reading was this: ‘He was like a sheep that is taken to be slaughtered, like a lamb that makes no sound when its wool is cut off. He did not say a word. He was humiliated, and justice was denied him. No one will be able to tell about his descendants, because his life on earth has come to an end.’ The official asked Philip, ‘Tell me, of whom is the prophet saying this? Of himself or of someone else?’ Then Philip began to speak; starting from this passage of scripture, he told him the Good News about Jesus. As they traveled down the road, they came to a place where there was some water, and the official said, ‘Here is some water. What is to keep me from being baptized?’ The official ordered the carriage to stop, and both Philip and the official went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took Philip away. The official did not see him again, but continued on his way, full of joy.” (Acts 8:26-39, TEV)

Philip did not urge this newly baptized man to return from Ethiopia as quickly as possible to be able to associate regularly with believers. Though this Ethiopian did not have all the answers and possibly not even all the existing books of the Hebrew Scriptures, he was a child of God, joyfully traveling far away from the nearest group of believers but doubtless eager to share what he had learned with others. Some in Ethiopia probably responded as he had, opening up opportunities for fellowship with others of God’s family. If our fellowship is comparatively limited, we, like the Ethiopian court official, can proceed on our way on the road leading to life, rejoicing that we have come to know the Son of God and his Father through him. In time, others will recognize who we are from the way we live our lives and the expressions we make, and many opportunities for wholesome spiritual fellowship will result.

As beloved children, we can rest assured of our Father’s loving care. His Son, as our Shepherd, will never fail to guide, protect, and nourish us as his dear sheep. When the man to whom he had restored sight was expelled from the Jewish synagogue, the Son of God looked for him and provided encouragement. Evidently, in the presence of the former blind man, Jesus identified himself as the good shepherd who would lay down his life for the sheep. (John 9:1-10:21) Just as the former blind man must have been comforted and reassured by Jesus’ words regarding his concern for the sheep, so can we be.

With God as our Father and Jesus as our brother, we will never be abandoned orphans. Perhaps our visible spiritual family may seem small — almost nonexistent when compared to sizeable movements professing to be Christian. Besides the many fellow children in the world of mankind, however, we also have a great host of angels in our family. They care deeply about any hurt experienced by believers who may seem insignificant in the eyes of others. Jesus said: “See that you never despise any of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels in heaven are continually in the presence of my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 18:10, NJB) As part of such a marvelous, loving family, we can flourish spiritually.

Revised edition, copyright 2006.

属灵旅途的新起点

对许多人而言，成为宗教团体的成员与一个人对自身价值的定位密不可分。团体里的信条纲领、崇拜形式、以及相关的活动均被视为来自于上帝。结果是忠贞的信徒认为如果不全心拥护该团体及其领导层，就等同于不忠于至高的上帝。为了给成员灌输这种想法，领导层再三举出各种圣经的例子，比如：不要像大坦、亚比兰和可拉那样大逆不道，要以他们为戒，务要顺服上帝的安排，等等。

在这种环境下，团体里的反应都变成套路式的观点和表达方式，人也开始怀疑自己的判断力。这时候有些人的内心能感觉到有点不对劲，但还是用在这种环境中所训练出来的各种推理模式加以自我压制。当这些推理模式不再能抚慰内在的不安的时候，能忍受的，变得越来越不能忍受。恐惧、惊慌、孤独，伴随着疑惑，可造成极其沉重的感情和精神压力。一个人一旦看出团体的主张有严重的破绽，就可能惊恐不安。假如他不再能接受团体的独特教义和指引而离开或被开除，就可能导致他失去亲朋好友，被亲戚抛弃，甚至与父母和子女隔绝。与此同时，由于他接受的教育一直都是团体的领导层是神委任的，结果他可能良心纠结万分，担心万一自己错了，永恒的前途就会受到危害。

一百多年前，大卫托马斯 （出自讲道坛圣经注释，启示录17:1-6的讲道注释）说主流基督教心胸狭隘，缺乏爱心，教派不胜枚举。他感慨地写道：“腐败的基督教一直以来残忍而不容异议。” 他接着写道：“诚然，它不像以往那样流血害命。但即便不夺取性命，它给生活带来的各种烦恼和枷锁却比流血还痛苦。” 在他看来，个个教派心胸狭窄，“各按不同程度施加迫害。一般而言，教派规模越小越心狠手毒，'狗越小叫得越凶。'” 富裕的大教足以容忍的各种情况，贫穷的小教却无法容忍。今天，数以千计的人因为各自在与某宗教团体的来往中有类似体验，所以能理解大卫托马斯的评论相当适时且毫不夸张。那么如果有人面临托马斯所描述的这种对待，或担心自己可能有这种潜在的境遇，就急需安慰和保障。

带来安慰的真源泉

一个人的灵性要在宗教团体外茁壮成长，就必须分辨何为源自人，何为源自神。著名的英国数学家兼物理学家艾萨克牛顿爵士，选择不加入任何教会，他辨析道：“皇帝、国王、王子拥有的是人的权柄，基督教大公会、教廷、主教、长老拥有的也是人的权柄，众先知（包括摩西和众使徒）拥有的却是来自神的权柄。如果天上的天使传扬其他的福音，与他们所传的不同，就愿他受咒诅。他们的著作包括上帝与他子民的约、遵守约的指示、违背约而受审判的实例。他们也预告了将要发生的事。如果上帝的子民遵守约，就能继续做他的子民，如果他们违背上帝的约，就不再是他的子民。”

要从圣经里面的保证得益，就不能容许任何人或团体重新解释经文而扼杀其安慰人的力量。上帝对我们各人的看法才算数，接受人所设立的标准没有用处，这种标准往往建基于远远超出神的启示的某种特定的信仰体系。

使徒约翰的第一封书信有助于消除我们的不安，确信天父的爱留在我们里面。他的爱不以归属某个宗教团体为条件，而是对各人的爱。他的儿子为各人而死。我们的生活符合他儿子的教诲和榜样就是我们怀具信心的确据，表明我们接受了他为我们所做的牺牲而奉他为主。因此，我们不再与他的父亲疏远，也不再被定罪，而成了上帝家庭里的成员，是他蒙爱的儿女。（罗马书8:1-4，12-17）既然我们身为信靠他的儿女，就该接受圣经以浅显的语言写下来的本意，而不该接受非受启示之辈的重新诠释（无论他们的论证似乎多有道理还是自称是神委任的，都不例外）。

约翰告诉我们：“你们看父赐给我们的是何等的慈爱，让我们得以称为上帝的儿女。”（约翰一书3:1，和合本修订版）人类虽然百般缺点，却仍能称为神的儿女，实在不可思议。上帝如此纯洁，如此慈爱，如此良善，却愿意因为我们信他儿子而接纳我们，这实在奇妙，想到这种情形令人难以置信。不过，根据最古老的手抄本，使徒接着写下来的话不容怀疑：“我们也真是他的儿女。”

我们的爱，像上帝和基督的爱一样，就能确信自己是蒙爱的儿女，也能铲除内心深处的怀疑和自卑。使徒约翰写道：“孩子们哪，让我们不在语言或口头上相爱，而在行为和真理中相爱，从这一点（即表现名符其实的爱）我们就会知道我们属于真理。就算我们的心责备自己，我们在神面前也可以安心，因为神比我们的心更大，并且他知道一切。（约翰一书3:18-20，中文标准译本）。虽然我们可能怀疑自己，但是我们可以感到安慰，因为我们的天父视我们为儿女，他比我们的内心深处更能接纳我们。为了消除烦扰我们心灵的自我质疑，我们可以考虑自己在态度，言语，和行为上是否渴望像天父和他的儿子一样，是否从心底里渴望效法他们的爱，也可以考虑我们对上帝和基督的信心是否使我们变得有爱心，关心别人。

虽然我们被算为义人，但是我们身为上帝的儿女与他同行还是会犯罪。因为我们会不断失败，所以不时怀疑自己是否真是神的儿女，尤其是那些曾经犯过重罪的基督徒更会被各种怀疑所困扰，担心自己在至高者面前没有立足之地。羞耻和愧疚犹如重担压在他们身上。他们需要知道，天父比“我们的心”更乐意宽恕人。

选择活在罪里和一时软弱而向堕落人性的强烈欲望妥协迥然有别。使徒约翰在他的第一封书信里清楚指出两者的区别说：“上帝是光，在祂里面毫无黑暗。如果我们说与祂相交，却仍过着黑暗的生活，就是撒谎，没有遵行真理。如果我们生活在光明之中，像上帝在光明中一样，就能够彼此相交，上帝儿子耶稣的血能洗净我们一切的罪。如果我们说自己没有罪，便是自欺，真理就不在我们心中。如果我们承认自己的罪，上帝是信实公义的，必赦免我们的罪，洗净我们一切的不义...祂为我们的罪作了赎罪祭，不只是为我们的罪，也是为全人类的罪。”（约翰一书1:5-2:2，当代译本修订版）

我们的天父“就是光”—是绝对意义上的纯净、毫无污秽和圣洁，他没有半点黑暗、邪恶、堕落、腐败、无知。既然如此，上帝蒙爱的儿女就不可能惯常行于黑暗（污秽、不洁、腐败）。不过，我们在光里行走的时候还是会与天父的圣洁相差甚远。我们仍旧需要耶稣基督的血洗净我们，他的血能除净我们的一切罪，即我们因为达不到言谈、思想和行为的神圣标准所带来的污秽。

如果我们承认自己的罪，就能确信会被彻底宽恕，因为上帝是忠信、可靠、信实的。既然他已经宣告说，他儿子流出来的血能叫人得蒙宽恕，我们就应当对他的话坚信不移。至高者也是公正、正义的，他的行动总跟他所显明的自己相符。他已经表明自己乐意宽恕罪人，对他们充满慈悲。因此，他的正义是我们得蒙宽恕的保障。

使徒的话使我们确信上帝儿子的血能除净一切不义，从而激励我们避免犯罪，行事正直。万一我们犯罪，就会有来自一个护卫者、帮助者、代祷者、中保的扶持。这个基督耶稣，与父亲亲密无间，他的正义是绝对的，而不是算为正义的，因为他就是正义的，他为悔罪的人代祷将总会蒙父垂听。

应付伤痛与怨气

当人发现一个团体有严重的破绽时，可能因受骗而感到愤怒和伤痛，认为领导层阴险可恶，蓄意操纵人。不过，一个组织最忠诚的捍卫者往往也是可怜的受害者。他们的行为好比家人想方设法为酗酒成性的父母亲掩盖酒瘾。就算这个醒悟者直接认识歪曲事实的相关人士，但还是要避免向个人泄怒。真诚关心别人而揭发曲解事实的行为与定人有罪有非常大的区别。最终，审判权在天父和他的儿子手里。

群体心理错综复杂，对当中个体产生的压力和束缚实在很大。在群体当中，个体的良心似乎被冻结了，健全的思维经常由情绪所代替，例外屈指可数。没有人愿意为群体的决策及其后果负责任（群体决策也未必是意见完全一致的结果）。群体形成了自己的独特行为模式，其力量大于各部分的总和。无论是种族、国族、部族、宗教团体还是商业组织，一切都会服务于群体的利益，不管利益是真实的还是想象的。在极端情况下，丧失良心的群体能犯下弥天大罪，个体成员却看不出自己犯了违反人道的可憎罪行，甚至会变得冷酷无情，能做出单独行事时做不出来的事。

使徒保罗，拥护基督教自由的那杰出榜样，曾经是这类可怜之辈。这个热心的犹太分子看到了接受耶稣为弥赛亚的同胞数目不断增长，于是竭力消除这种威胁。把这个凶狠的迫害者视为一个可怖、无情、该死的歹徒很容易，然而，当我们也面对一个这样对待我们的人的时候，后来在保罗身上所发生的事，实在应该让我们审慎反思。

主吩咐我们要为迫害我们的人祷告，而不是咒骂他们 （马太福音5:44，45）。司提反遵守了基督的这个教诲，请求说：“主啊，不要将这罪归於他们！”（使徒行传7:60，和合本修订版） 司提反临死前的这仁慈请求得蒙垂听，因为保罗后来亲口说道：“我从前是亵渎神的、迫害人的、凌辱人的，然而我还蒙了怜悯，因为我是在不信的时候，由于无知而作的。”（提摩太前书1:13，新译本）

没有被撇弃

当我们孤单的时候，沉思至高者的古代忠仆能叫我们受益匪浅。一个少女的榜样特别值得留意：这个少女被一群叙利亚匪徒俘获，与所爱的一切分离，包括她的家人、朋友、熟悉的环境，她甚至被迫成为一个拜偶像的家族的奴隶。圣经没有记录那群叙利亚匪徒所造成的伤亡和破坏，也没有谈及她父母有了什么遭遇，不过这个少女肯定目睹过不少令人惊骇的景象。另外，比起今天的基督徒，她所得到的安慰和鼓励少之又少。

不过，她仍然对上帝保持信心。不但如此，尽管叙利亚人给她带来家庭悲剧，她竟然还是向一个地位显赫的叙利亚男子显出怜悯之心。

这个男子就是叙利亚的元帅乃曼。乃曼患上了麻风病，一种令人厌恶，毁坏容貌的疾病。在以色列，麻风病患者必须与世隔绝。以色列的少女却对乃曼动了怜悯的心，希望他的恶疾能得到医治。于是她对乃曼的妻子说：“要是我主人去见撒玛利亚的那位先知就好了！他一定能治好我主人的麻风病。”（列王纪下5:3，当代译本修订版）

这个不知其名的少女的信心就像一颗闪烁的宝石，与当时的以色列人成了鲜明的对比。那时大多数以色列人不理会YHWH和他的先知，反倒敬拜没有生命的偶像。（YHWH四个辅音所代表的圣名的有关解释，参见评注部分的诗篇1）我们可以想象她的信心得到奖赏时的那种喜乐！乃曼从以色列回来时已经被治好了，更重要的是，他也成了真神的一个谦卑的仆人。

谁能预料一个可怕的悲剧会有如此美好的结局？正如约瑟被卖到埃及做奴隶后没有被上帝遗弃，上帝也没有撇弃这个少女。我们的天父绝不会撇弃忠于他的人。（诗篇27:10；罗马书8:38，39）

话说回来，一人的孤独对我们有益处。我们也许会发现阅读圣经和专心沉思的时间多起来了，从而拉近我们与天父的距离。以约瑟为例，上帝通过异梦向约瑟启示了自己的话语。不过，不久后约瑟被奴役、入狱，结果对上帝话语的信心受到了考验。（诗篇105:17-19）毫无疑问，由于约瑟在考验下保持忠贞，他一生对上帝给亚伯拉罕的应许的信心也因此坚定不移。他的遗言表现了他的这种信心：“我要死了，但神必定看顾你们，领你们从这地上去，到他起誓所应许给亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各之地。” “神必定看顾你们；你们要把我的骸骨从这里搬上去。”（创世记50:24,25，和合本；希伯来书11:22） 多年后，以色列流浪在旷野时，约瑟的骸骨为以色列本该拥有的信心默默做了见证。（出埃及记13:19；约书亚记24:32）这样看来，孤独不必畏惧，反能让我们仰仗它促进属灵的进步。（参看雅各书1:2-4，12）

正确的根基

一个人要在灵性上成长，就必须确定自己有稳固的根基。关于这个根基，使徒保罗写道：“因为除了那已经立好的根基，就是耶稣基督以外，没有人能立别的根基。”（哥林多前书3:11，恢复本） 我们该追求的是，亲自查考福音书的内容而培养稳固的第一手信心。

有一些人遭到过某个团体的恶待，结果充满了怨气，但是，他们从来没有仔细考虑过马太，马可，路加，和约翰的见证。虽然他们表示自己相信耶稣是上帝的儿子，可是他们缺乏基于证据的坚定信念，也容易被不符合圣经的教诲左右。一个基督徒对一个身处此境的年轻男子曾经说：“假如你根据马太福音、马可福音、路加福音和约翰福音的证据，确信耶稣从死里复活，而你因此认为耶稣身为上帝的儿子是无法质疑的事实，那么，他的榜样和教诲就该支配你的生活方式。不过，这个男子觉得东方宗教的神秘主义更迷人一些，于是没理会那位基督徒的话，反而感觉真理不可能像他说的那么简单。凡是被一个自称为基督教团体伤害过的人，都深处险境。对他们而言，努力确立和强化信心义不容辞。

对许多人而言，让圣经直接对自己说话不是一件容易的事。他们习惯反反复复使用和听到同样的圣经片段，结果难以掌握圣经书卷的整体信息，也不习惯将一节熟悉的经文看作只是整体信息中的一小部分而已。人如果养成了断章取义的习惯，就会经常忽略经文与上下文的紧密联系。此外，考虑经文时一定要弃绝所谓“引证经文”法（译者注：即经文为证明某种观点服务），因为正是这个运用经文的方法导致了把人的解释错当神的启示。

圣经的每一卷书必须整体分析，以免断章取义，使之脱离叙事环境（叙事环境包含历史背景和原本的写作对象）。要谨记目前圣经中章节的划分点往往不在最佳的位置上，因此读经时最好假定没有章节存在，只以内容的转折为划分点。对基督徒来说，研读整本圣经是防止错解经文的最佳策略。这样，把圣经的指引应用出来才能真正有智慧、有爱心、品德高尚。

B.F.魏斯科在《教会中的圣经》一书中有以下精辟之言：以单一标准衡量万事隐含着巨大而不易察觉的诱惑力。现实生活中，我们倾向于以自己衡量他人，以自己的时代衡量其他时代，以自己所处的文明衡量其他文明，甚至视之为衡量一切的终极标准。对这个足以影响全世界的错误思维，圣经能提供最佳的免疫。在圣经里，我们能看到无论人类社会处于什么阶段，上帝总能在不同国族和家族之中停留，也总能认得连先知也未必能辨认出来的忠贞仆人。日常生活的各种忧虑和周遭人专横自大的主张使我们的同情心变得狭隘，然而，圣经那永存的记载表明，人无论高低贵贱都能蒙上帝的灵赐福。圣经能使我们超越日常生活的各种影响，使我们介入先知、君王、思想家，以及传讲正义的人的生命之中，他们各在自己的特定环境下为上帝效劳，力量的源泉和追求的目标也始终如一。有些人可能提出异议说，那些最虔心研究圣经的人往往都是最严苛的狂热分子。不过，原因显而易见：他们之所以狂热，是因为他们没有以整本圣经为研究对象，而只紧盯圣经的某一碎片，且以牺牲其余内容为代价。只教导圣经的局部而不留意其他时代、其他书卷，会使人思想狭隘。只有整体圣经才能使人辨识并升华各种美德。”

要在宗教团体外茁壮成长，人就必须为自己的属灵生活负起个人的责任，且经常怀着虔诚的态度沉思圣经，表现耐心，允许圣经循序渐进地教导自己。倘若一个人总是指望别人而从未付出太多努力理解圣经的含义，就无法在灵性上富足。当他承认自己灵性穷乏而为此祈求的时候，只有他拥有采取相应行动的愿望，才会在灵性上活着。箴言清晰地陈述了这个道理：“若呼求明哲，扬声求聪明，你若寻找它，如寻找银子；搜求它，如搜求隐藏的珍宝，你就明白如何敬畏耶和华，得以认识有关神的知识。”（箴言 2:2-5， 网中译本）

一个人如果发现独自阅读艰难，且理解力有限，也无需沮丧。反复听圣经朗读，思考所听到的内容，足以使人在灵性上饱足。其实，一世纪的基督徒主要是通过聆听，而不是阅读，来了解圣经的内容。

不局限于单一译本

熟悉某个特定译本的表达方式，就可能掉进只读其词的陷阱，多读几个译本就能减少这个危险。即便外语能力欠佳，仍然可以尝试阅读非母语译本，因为多种译本的不同表达方式更能使读者留意到未曾发现过的思想。

没有完美的圣经译本，我们也不必排斥那些基督教领域的常用译本。绝大多数译者清楚认识到自己的责任重大，工作艰难，因此在翻译上更为认真。留意译本的前言就能知道翻译的策略和目标因译者而不同，有些译本更倾向意译，翻译得更宽泛一些，此类译本也许不适合仔细地研读，但是对于掌握一个圣经书卷的整体思想还是有用处的。

不论采取释义还是直译的翻译策略，译者都会面临一种挑战: 在清晰传达原著意思的同时，又尽可能保留原文的味道。可是要使人受益，就必须在阅读或聆听上让人容易理解。对许多一世纪的基督徒而言，情况与今天的多数人大同小异。他们不懂希伯来文本，因此必须依靠一个译本，即七十子译本。这个希腊文译本仍然存在的手抄本表明，措辞的选择有时与希伯来文本有着相当的差别，然而，基本信息是一样的，那些读或听希腊文译本的基督徒与其他会希伯来文的弟兄一样，在至高者面前享受同等地位。（本网站的圣经注释是为了协助英文读者留意希伯来文本和希腊文本的差异。例如，可参看哈巴谷书的注释。）

希伯来文和希腊文有显著的差别，圣经被译成的其他语言也各有其独特之处。雪上加霜的是，古代文本中均无标点符号，译者必须决定如何断句，以及修饰语在句中的位置、为修饰语加什么标点符号、该不该把长句分为几个短句以方便阅读和理解，等等。（例如，在原文中，以弗所书1:3-14节是一个长句）既然译者的决定各有不同，多读几个译本就能知道哪些地方存在异议。即使一个人的阅读和理解原文的能力达到了一定的水平，他也最多只能提出理由，解释为什么自己倾向于某个译法。

假如我们能亲自听到使徒保罗说话且很熟悉他的语言习惯，并清楚知道他写作的出发点，我们翻译他的书信时，就会具备很好的条件选择最准确的译法。然而，由于没有任何人堪称最终的权威，避免争论细节才是明智的做法。我们总该把焦点集中在如何强化信心，以及如何在神的家庭里做慈爱顺从的儿女上面。

片面的知识

关于一世纪的基督教，现有的文献不多。另外，我们对这些文献的理解也受到书面表达方式特点的限制。因此，当我们阅读福音书、使徒行转所记录的各种发展、书信（大部分，也许全部，都是念给笔录者）、或启示录（以征兆和象征启示出来的）的时候，就必须记住，原来的读者和听者有时比今天的人更清楚明白圣经的意思。

请考虑使徒问及耶路撒冷极其圣殿将临的毁灭时，耶稣怎样回答。当时，只有四个使徒在场—彼得、安德烈、雅各和约翰。使徒所提出的问题以他们当时对事情的认知为出发点，而耶稣这次也采用一贯的回答方式，按听者所需要知道的提供信息，去指引他们以信徒的身份生活，直到他的话语应验。

那么现在耶稣的回答以什么形式保存下来了呢？只有文字记录，而且用另一种语言记录下来，而记录的人并没有直接听到耶稣的回答。（译者注：耶稣说话时用阿拉米语，福音书的原文却是希腊文）这样的文字记载缺少什么呢？我们不知道耶稣强调那些字词，在哪里停顿。我们也不知道他如何区分他所说的那些征象和事件，哪些是在耶路撒冷毁灭之前发生，哪些是在那个无人知道的时日之前发生。

一直以来，有些人过度渲染这段记载，甚至把它当作辨认哪一代人会目睹基督荣耀复临的理论基础，使得相信这种解释的人大失所望。以这类诠释家为中心的属灵环境总会令人在灵性、精神和感情上受到创伤。

虽然耶稣没有说战争、地震和粮荒的规模达到前所未有的地步是他来临的预兆，但是有些人把这个意思读到他的话里面去了。四福音书保存的原话包括“末期还没有到”、“产痛的开始”、以及“只是末期还没有到”。换言之，这些事不是耶稣要马上回来的征兆。马太在该记载稍后的部分才提及“人子的兆头”。对于当时的门徒，焦点倒该放在传讲耶稣基督的“好消息”上。使徒行转清楚地叙述了门徒的传讲方式以及传讲的基本信息，而他们也因为宣告了这个信息蒙受迫害。

耶稣吩咐，当观察到耶路撒冷城有某种动向时，门徒就该立刻逃到城外。耶稣的警告对当时亲耳听到的门徒和对现今的我们应该产生不同的影响，因为耶稣的表达方式是以一世纪为背景的。

至于耶稣的复临，耶稣强调的是没有人（只有父亲）知道那个日子和时辰，接着，耶稣用比喻告诉门徒自己回来时，人要符合哪些要求才能蒙悦纳。耶稣警告他们，不要鞭打和恶待信徒同工、要在属灵上保持警醒、要善用主人所托付的银元，以及要对有需要的人表现怜悯之心，尤其是对那些最容易被忽略的人，即那些最小、最微不足道的弟兄。

奇怪的是，其中一个比喻本来是要警告人要安守奴隶的本份，但是这个比喻却被某些人用来授权一个领导阶级，且要求人无条件地接受其教义和指引。假如有人怀着虔诚的态度细心全面研究圣经而对这些教义和指引产生良心上的抵触，就会被视为应当除去团体资格且加以回避。一个人如果因无法将团体的教义和指引与圣经及自己的良心融合一体，而在内心饱受“鞭打”和“恶待”，团体中的忠信成员就会认为他是一个理应被开除的叛道者，也会视其为施罪者，而非受害者。其他成员对实情完全无从知晓，只一味忠诚地延续这样的曲解。

为了纠正关于基督荣耀复临的一个错误理解，保罗在写给帖撒罗尼迦的第二封书信里写道：“不要让任何人用任何方法把你们欺骗了；因为那日子来临以前 ，必定先有离道反教之事来到，并且那不法之人，就是那灭亡之子也会被显露出来。他反对一切被称为神的，或受人敬拜的，他又高抬自己在这一切之上，甚至坐在神的圣所里宣称自己是神。我还在你们那里的时候，一直告诉你们这些事，你们不记得吗？你们也知道，现在什么拦阻了他，好使他在所定的时候被显露出来。”（帖撒罗尼迦后书2:3-6，中文标准译本） 今天，无人知道保罗与帖撒罗尼迦人在一起时还谈到了哪些相关细节。根据使徒的话，帖撒罗尼迦人知道 “什么阻拦了他”，我们却无从得知。这说明，我们一定要留意自己不知道什么以及无法知道什么，以免导致错误的结论，或被那些自称拥有特殊知识、知道未来发展状况的“圣经导师”导入迷途。

其他资源

研究圣经的资源为数众多，英文和其他语言的圣经注释数以百计，学习版圣经、圣经词典，以及其他类型的参考工具也不计其数，其中不乏建设性的见解，颇具启发性，也有助于我们更深入地了解圣经的信息。但有的却渗透着教条主义、疯狂的臆测，以及偏离原始基督教的神学概念，其价值因而大打折扣。一个基督徒在经过仔细思考而吸收圣经的信息之后，选择和使用哪些参考书的判断力就会大有提高。这类著作的可选数量和彼此之间的质量悬殊都非常大，因此必须审慎选择。

不该高估任何参考著作的影响力，因为它们无非是血肉之躯的不完美知识。欧尼斯特·贝斯特（Ernest Best）在以弗所书的注释前言中有以下观察：“解经者对经文的解释总是受他的生活环境影响，他的时代必然决定他看待经文的视角，当然这也可能使他提出新颖的观点和问题，不过对某个教派的效忠也会影响解经的结果...总之，我们所戴的有色眼镜往往会不知不觉影响对经文的解读。” 对所属教派的忠诚会严重妨碍我们看出圣经说的是什么，更要命的是，能令我们误以为圣经明确说了什么。

既然人类的著作不完美，明智的做法是留意以下圣经原则：“我们现在的知识有限” 、“我们现在所知道的，只是一部分”（哥林多前书13:9，当代译本修订版、新译本）。我们总要保持清醒，记住人类的所有知识都是片面的，这样就能避免冒然立论，或把人的臆测、推论和诠释当作真理。

基督徒间的交流（团契）

神的儿女渴望与信徒同工交往是再自然不过的了。然而，团契必须以我们与天父和他儿子的关系为基础。我们必须心胸宽阔，凡是承认耶稣基督为主、承认使他复活的是上帝，在言语、态度和行为上努力效法上帝和基督的人都该被我们接纳。（罗马书10:9, 10; 加拉太书5:13-26; 以弗所书4:17-6:10; 约翰一书1:5-5:21）

许多人受流传数百年的传统思维影响，无法完全接纳一个不符合自己所属团体标准的人，结果，他们的目的永远会是使人归信自己的团体，即便“无教派”团体也是如此。可悲的是，这种分党结派的精神导致他们难以接纳不属于自己团体的人为神的儿女。这样，他们的交往圈受到局限，爱心变得狭隘，也因而阻碍了他们自己的属灵成长。

他们很像施浸者约翰的一些门徒。虽然约翰清楚指明耶稣是新郎，但他们容许自己对约翰的个人情感干扰他们接受基督和他的门徒。（马可福音2:18-22; 约翰福音3:25-30） 甚至到了约翰被监禁和去世后，他们仍然独立于耶稣的门徒之外，自成一体。（马太福音11:2-5; 使徒行转19:1-7）

无论分党结派的精神以什么样的形式存在，都会危害灵性，是所有努力保持忠贞的基督徒必须抵御的。当第一世纪的哥林多会众开始出现各种分裂时，保罗曾斥之为不属于灵的、不成熟、有害的。（哥林多前书1:10-13; 3:1-9, 21-23; 11:17-34）

诚然，不少人能避免分党结派的极端行为，但是一世纪后形成的神学观念仍然对他们产生负面的冲击。有些根深蒂固的教义使他们无法对耶稣在得救上所起的作用培养感恩之心，看不出他是要带领他们到父亲那里去。（彼得前书3:18）结果，他们可能无从发觉在这个家庭安排中，自己既是上帝的儿子，也是基督的弟兄。（加拉太书3:26-29; 希伯来书2:10-18） 一个最容易能蒙蔽人的情况是，所有的教导都是被当作有圣经根据的，并且被数百万人接受为真理。其实，这些教义只是多个世纪前，由一个人或很少的几个人制订的，当时也只得到了少数人的支持，之后，所有人却被强制接受这些教义，持异议者也遭受了严厉的惩罚。如果一个团体将圣经浅显易明的话语与团体所宣扬的信条混为一谈，所营造的崇拜环境往往会毒害灵性。

我们如果认识到大家都是凡人，就能避免把个人或群体抬高，赋予他们只有耶稣基督才有的教导权。没有人可以自居高位，只有基督才是那个“在许多弟兄中作长子”的。（罗马书8:29，和合本修订版）

以个人来讲，我们都是弟兄，都要听从主的教导。虽然我们当中有些人对他教诲的掌握可能稍微好些，结果也许能够使信徒同工多留意主的教导，但其实，我们仍然都同为主的学生。神的儿女的任何团契都该与耶稣的话吻合：“但你们呢，不要受称呼为老师（希腊文作『拉比』），因为只有一位是你们的教师；你们都是弟兄。也不要称地上的为父；因为只有一位，那天上的，才是你们的父。也不要受称呼为导师，因为只有一位，那被膏立者基督，才是你们的导师。你们中间较大的必须做你们的仆役。”（马太福音23:8-11，吕振中译本）

耶稣的这个吩咐常被忽视。今天的很多所谓的基督教的状况可能会让耶稣的使徒感到无法接受，当然这并不是说一世纪会众的情况就很理想，得以保存的书信透露了当时这种严重问题的存在，显示他们也需要辨别哪种团契有益灵性，哪种有害。（帖撒罗尼迦后书3:6-15; 提摩太后书2:20-22; 3:1-7; 4:1-4; 约翰一书2:18; 启示录2:1-3:22）

谈到团契，今天很多人会想到固定的地点或常规。也许他们会想起耶稣照他素常的规矩在安息日去犹太会堂和去圣殿庆祝节期。耶稣这样做并没有因此表明他归属或支持犹太教的某个分支。他在犹太会堂或圣殿与其他信徒同在，可是他的身份没有别人误解，反而让他有机会教导人认识关于他父亲的真理。但是在今天，成为某个基督教团体的成员，就意味着持有该教派的身份。即使是“无教派”的教会，成员也会有一个与其他教会区分开来的身份。一般而言，他们的宗教活动都按照传统，以固定的模式举行，而没有提供机会给到访的陌生人向会众发言，像保罗和其他人在会堂里所做的那样。（使徒行转13:15-45; 14:1; 17:1-4, 10-12; 18:1-6, 19-22, 24-26）

对保罗而言，重要的是能够把自己的宝贵希望分享给聚集起来的信徒。一旦机会过去，他就不会再去该城的犹太会堂，而是为那些想听基督的好消息的人另做安排。（使徒行转18:7-11; 19:8-10） 保罗和其他信主的犹太人没有故意选择被逐出会堂，因为这样就会造成他们难以分享圣经给同胞。不过，他们也知道做耶稣的门徒就可能会被会堂开除。尽管如此，他们还是选择对耶稣保持忠贞，无论人怎样对待他们。（马太福音10:17; 23:34; 路加福音8:22; 21:12; 约翰福音9:22; 12:42, 43; 16:2） 那些珍惜与主耶稣关系的人对迫害的反映如同耶稣的使徒，当公议会吩咐人鞭打他们时，他们就 “欢欢喜喜从公议会里出来，因为他们算是配得为主的名受辱。” （使徒行转5:40, 41, 新译本）

许多宗教团体以建筑场所以及在里面举行的活动为标志，结果使许多人忘却，外在的崇拜安排其实早已废除。耶稣曾经向一个撒马利亚妇人透露，真崇拜将不会有赖于、也不会局限于某个地理位置或建筑物。“妇人，你当信我，时候将到，那时你们敬拜父，不在这山上（基利心山，撒马利亚圣殿的遗址，150年之前被毁），也不在耶路撒冷。（原圣殿以及取而代之的第二座圣殿的位置）...时候将到，如今就是了，那真正敬拜父的，要在灵和真实里敬拜祂，因为父寻找这样敬拜祂的人。（约翰福音4:21-24，恢复本）

既然父亲“是灵”，他就希望得到属灵的崇拜。虽然律法为以色列定了中心地点举行崇拜仪式，但这个安排是暂时的。天父通过玛拉基透露，时候要到，世界各地的人会在自己所在之地以蒙悦纳的方式崇拜他。玛拉基借用当时的崇拜模式来预告这点：“万军之耶和华说：‘从日出之地到日落之处，列国必尊崇我的名。世上每个角落都有人向我焚香，献上洁净的供物。因为我的名必受列国尊崇。’”（玛拉基书 1:11，当代译本修订版） 弥赛亚来临时，这个改变的时刻到了。因此，对神的儿女来说，崇拜并非等于寻找或去某个地方，在那里按照传统习俗或权威人士所定的模式进行崇拜。“在灵和真实里” 并非以外在的为内容。在“真实里”代表崇拜是内在的，真诚的，不只是嘴上说的。（参看约翰一书3:18）其实，仪式本身，（如节期，禁食，祈祷，献祭）从来没有叫天父喜悦，而必须连同对父亲及其道的爱。这爱是通过怜悯凄苦遭难的人而表现出来的。（以赛亚书1:10-17）我们的崇拜要在“灵里”，就必须真正认识上帝，且尊崇他为仁爱的父亲，意识到我们的一切都源自于他。 （歌罗西书1:12; 3:17; 启示录4:11; 5:13; 15:3, 4; 16:5-7） 我们的赞美，感恩，和祈求是否诚恳，通过我们的日常生活会显示出来。

使徒保罗敦促信徒同工说：“所以，一有机会就要向众人行善，向信徒一家的人更要这样。”（加拉太书6:10，和合本修订版） 我们对他人的需要不该避而不看，我们有义务对所有人表现爱心和关怀，不过必须以信徒一家为优先。既然我们属于同一个属灵的家庭，就有责任彼此辅助。（马太福音25:34-40; 使徒行转9:36, 39; 约翰一书3:17, 18）

既然我们有责任优先关心上帝的儿女，就要考虑在哪里能够找出他们并且建立起一个属灵的家庭。耶稣解释小麦和毒麦的比喻时，回答了这个问题。“那撒下好种子的就是人子， 麦田代表整个世界，那些好种子就是天国的子民。毒麦就是那些属于魔鬼的人， 撒毒麦的仇敌就是魔鬼。”（马太福音13:37-39，当代译本修订版） 神的真儿女在世界当中，像真正的小麦长在毒麦当中。但是，我们无法用人设立的标准来辨认他们。有些人甚至可能受误导而自立为除草工，把这些小麦般的人当作毒麦。（马太福音13:24-30） 这样上帝的子民有的可能会属于所谓“可见的教会” （这可见的教会由基督教的各种有教派和无教派团体组成），但是他们也有可能不属于任何教派。

今天，神的儿女与古代以色列的情形大同小异 — 并非全都是真正意义上的以色列人，即上帝的子民。有一次，先知以利亚灰心丧气，以为除了自己一人之外，十部族组成的北方王国里没有其他人敬拜YHWH。可是，仍然有忠信的剩余份子存在：“我在以色列人中为自己留下七千人，是未曾向巴力屈膝的。”（列王纪上 19:9-18，和合本） 数百年后，在剩余份子从巴比伦的放逐中返回后不久，不少人显示出自己不是真正崇拜YHWH的。尽管如此，忠信的以色列人还是找到了其他爱戴造物主的人，他们彼此间的交谊并没有被天父忽略。

玛拉基书透露了至高者的真心崇拜者和伪称敬拜他的人有什么区别：“耶和华说：‘你们出言毁谤我’，还问，‘我们怎么毁谤你了？’ 你们说，‘事奉上帝是虚空的。遵从上帝的吩咐，在万军之耶和华面前痛悔有什么益处？如今我们称狂傲的人有福，因为作恶的人凡事顺利，他们虽然试探上帝，却仍能逃过灾祸。’ 那时，敬畏耶和华的彼此交谈，耶和华必留心倾听，祂面前的纪念册上记录着敬畏祂和尊崇祂名的人。万军之耶和华说：‘到我所定的日子，他们必成为我宝贵的产业，我要怜悯他们，如同父亲怜悯他的孝顺儿子。’”（玛拉基书 3:13-17，当代译本修订版）

虽然不少人在崇拜上仅是走走过场，也嫉妒不信神的人繁荣茂盛，可是深深敬畏YHWH的人却由衷表露他们的虔诚。他们熟悉诗篇和众先知的话，无疑彼此间谈论了周遭环境怎样与这些话相符合，得以互相强化。（诗篇37，73; 以赛亚58:2-14）。类似地，数百年后，安娜，一个年纪老迈的寡妇，蒙恩而见到婴儿耶稣，后来寻找适宜的人分享这喜乐的消息。“她...向所有期待着耶路撒冷得救赎的人讲说这孩子的事。”（路加福音 2:36-38，中文标准译本）

因为我们相信天父的摄理（译者注：providence，统摄管理之意）和引导，就能安心，在人类世界当中，总会有其他虔心服从神的儿女乐意与我们交流。就如一世纪的基督徒，我们可以共享一桌，阅读神的话语，探讨经文，一起赞美感恩，扬声歌颂。既然属于耶稣基督的身体，也可以同领一个杯，一个饼来纪念他。（使徒行转2:46; 哥林多前书10:16, 17; 以弗所书5:19），所有人都能畅所欲言，而不是被某种权威所设立的呆板模式所压制。

如果留意使徒保罗的指导，信徒聚集在一起总能强化信心。“你们聚会的时候，不管是唱诗、教导、讲启示、说方言或翻译方言，都应该是为了造就人。”（哥林多前书 14:26, 当代译本修订版） 为了互相鼓励，基督徒会聚在一起，而当中，有些人具备神所赐的能力和智慧。他们会渴望谦虚地服事信徒同工，就如司提反一家，“他们专以服事圣徒为念。”（哥林多前书16:15，和合本；参看亚波罗 [使徒行转18:24-28; 哥林多前书3:5, 6, 21-23; 16:12].）

上帝的儿女属于一个充满爱的家庭，会自发地寻找其他儿女，谈论内心所珍视的事，所关心的事。跟一世纪的基督徒一样，他们珍惜聚集起来互相鼓励的机会，因此不会忽略与其他信徒的聚集。这跟默示的劝告相吻合：“又应该坚持我们所宣认的盼望，毫不动摇，因为那应许我们的是信实的。 我们又应该彼此关心，激发爱心，勉励行善。 我们不可放弃聚会，好象有些人的习惯一样；却要互相劝勉。你们既然知道那日子临近，就更应该这样。”（希伯来书 10:23-25，新译本）

许多人相信，遵照常规到一个特定的场所做礼拜便能满足以上要求。但是，这类聚会的目的是遵循一个固定的模式，成排坐着、被动地聆听和参与受操控的集体讨论，参加这类活动不是出自对他人的关怀。因此我们只有真诚地关怀别人，言谈才“激发爱心，勉励行善。” 如果想关心其他信徒并真正激励他们，我们对他们的认识就该像家人之间的认识一样。聚会的气氛不该令人害怕表达内心深处的情感，哪怕是疑问。（参看耶利米如何向上帝畅所欲言 [耶利米书 15:15-18]。）

身为上帝的儿女，强化信心的团契在生活当中扮演着重要的角色。然而，成为基督的门徒后，未必能立刻得着此类团契。以埃塞俄比亚的太监为例。“有主的一个使者对腓利说：‘起来！向南走，往那从耶路撒冷下迦萨的路上去。’ 那路是旷野。 腓利就起身去了。不料，有一个 埃塞俄比亚人，是个有大权的太监，在埃塞俄比亚女王甘大基的手下总管银库，他上耶路撒冷去礼拜。 回程中，他坐在车上，正念着以赛亚先知的书，圣灵对腓利 说：‘你去！靠近那车走。’ 腓利就跑到太监那里，听见他正在念以赛亚先知的书，就说：‘你明白你所念的吗？’ 他说：‘没有人指教我，怎能明白呢？’ 于是他请腓利上车，与他同坐。他所念的那段经文是这样：‘他像羊被牵去宰杀，又像羔羊在剪毛的人手下无声，他也是这样不开口。他卑微的时候，得不到公义的审判，谁能述说他的身世？因为他的生命从地上被夺去。’ 太监回答腓利说：‘请问，先知说这话是指谁，是指自己，还是指别人呢？’ 腓利就开口，从这段经文开始，对他传讲耶稣的福音。二人正沿路往前走，到了有水的地方，太监说：‘看哪！这里有水，有什么能阻止我受洗呢？’ 于是他吩咐把车停下来，腓利和太监二人一同下到水里，腓利就给他施洗。他们从水里上来，主的灵把 腓利提了去，太监再也看不见他了，就欢欢喜喜地上路。”（使徒行传8:26-39，和合本修订版）

腓利没有催促这位刚刚受浸的男子尽快从埃塞俄比亚返回，好能与其他信徒经常交往。虽然这个埃塞俄比亚人并未得到所有问题的答案，甚至不一定拥有希伯来语经卷的所有书卷，但他是上帝的儿子，虽然他的所在地离其他信徒很远，但是他满怀喜乐远行，回去肯定很期待与其他人分享他新得来的知识。在埃塞俄比亚，其他人的反应很可能与他相同，这样，他就有机会与上帝家庭的其他成员团契。假如我们的团契规模有限，就仍然可以像埃塞俄比亚的太监那样，在通往生命的道路上继续行走，并因认识神的儿子及父亲而欢欣。随着时间的推移，我们的生活方式和言谈会使别人认出我们，许多属灵团契的机会就会随之而到。

身为蒙爱的儿女，我们能确信父亲的爱心看护。他的儿子，即我们的牧人，总会带领、保护和喂养他疼爱的绵羊。当那个被耶稣恢复视力的盲人被逐出会堂时，耶稣找到了他并给予安慰。看来，耶稣向他表明了自己的牧人身份，也将会为自己的绵羊舍命。（约翰福音9:1-10:21）耶稣如此关心他的绵羊，这个恢复视力的盲人必定大感安慰。我们同样从耶稣的话能得到慰藉。

我们从不会落为背弃的孤儿，因为我们是神的儿女、耶稣的弟兄。比起那些自称为基督教的各大团体，我们可见的属灵家庭似乎看上去微乎其微。但在人类世界当中，除了神的儿女之外，我们的家庭中也有天使大军。这些天使深深关心受过创伤的信徒，哪怕他们在别人眼里微不足道。耶稣说：“你们要注意，不可轻视这些卑微人中的一个。我告诉你们：他们的天使在天上常常看见我天父的面。”（马太福音18:10，中文标准译本）我们作为如此奇妙、蒙爱的家庭的一份子，定能在灵性上茁壮成长。

屬靈旅途的新起點

對許多人而言，成為宗教團體的成員與一個人對自身價值的定位密不可分。團體裡的信條綱領、崇拜形式、以及相關的活動均被視為來自於上帝。結果是忠貞的信徒認為如果不全心擁護該團體及其領導層，就等同於不忠於至高的上帝。為了給成員灌輸這種想法，領導層再三舉出各種聖經的例子，比如：不要像大坦、亞比蘭和可拉那樣大逆不道，要以他們為戒，務要順服上帝的安排，等等。

在這種環境下，團體裡的反應都變成套路式的觀點和表達方式，人也開始懷疑自己的判斷力。這時候有些人的內心能感覺到有點不對勁，但還是用在這種環境中所訓練出來的各種推理模式加以自我壓制。當這些推理模式不再能撫慰內在的不安的時候，能忍受的，變得越來越不能忍受。恐懼、驚慌、孤獨，伴隨著疑惑，可造成極其沉重的感情和精神壓力。一個人一旦看出團體的主張有嚴重的破綻，就可能驚恐不安。假如他不再能接受團體的獨特教義和指引而離開或被開除，就可能導致他失去親朋好友，被親戚拋棄，甚至與父母和子女隔絕。與此同時，由於他接受的教育一直都是團體的領導層是神委任的，結果他可能良心糾結萬分，擔心萬一自己錯了，永恆的前途就會受到危害。

一百多年前，大衛托馬斯 （出自講道壇聖經注釋，啟示錄17:1-6的講道注釋）說主流基督教心胸狹隘，缺乏愛心，教派不勝枚舉。他感慨地寫道：“腐敗的基督教一直以來殘忍而不容異議。” 他接著寫道：“誠然，它不像以往那樣流血害命。但即便不奪取性命，它給生活帶來的各種煩惱和枷鎖卻比流血還痛苦。” 在他看來，個個教派心胸狹窄，“各按不同程度施加迫害。一般而言，教派規模越小越心狠手毒，'狗越小叫得越凶'。” 富裕的大教足以容忍的各種情況，貧窮的小教卻無法容忍。今天，數以千計的人因為各自在與某宗教團體的來往中有類似體驗，所以能理解大衛托馬斯的評論相當適時且毫不夸張。那麼如果有人面臨托馬斯所描述的這種對待，或擔心自己可能有這種潛在的境遇，就急需安慰和保障。

帶來安慰的真源泉

一個人的靈性要在宗教團體外茁壯成長，就必須分辨何為源自人，何為源自神。著名的英國數學家兼物理學家艾薩克牛頓爵士，選擇不加入任何教會，他辨析道：“皇帝、國王、王子擁有的是人的權柄，基督教大公會、教廷、主教、長老擁有的也是人的權柄，眾先知（包括摩西和眾使徒）擁有的卻是來自神的權柄。如果天上的天使傳揚其他的福音，與他們所傳的不同，就願他受咒詛。他們的著作包括上帝與他子民的約、遵守約的指示、違背約而受審判的實例。他們也預告了將要發生的事。如果上帝的子民遵守約，就能繼續做他的子民，如果他們違背上帝的約，就不再是他的子民。”

要從聖經裡面的保証得益，就不能容許任何人或團體重新解釋經文而扼殺其安慰人的力量。上帝對我們各人的看法才算數，接受人所設立的標准沒有用處，這種標准往往建基於遠遠超出神的啟示的某種特定的信仰體系。

使徒約翰的第一封書信有助於消除我們的不安，確信天父的愛留在我們裡面。他的愛不以歸屬某個宗教團體為條件，而是對各人的愛。他的兒子為各人而死。我們的生活符合他兒子的教誨和榜樣就是我們懷具信心的確據，表明我們接受了他為我們所做的犧牲而奉他為主。因此，我們不再與他的父親疏遠，也不再被定罪，而成了上帝家庭裡的成員，是他蒙愛的兒女。（羅馬書8:1-4，12-17）既然我們身為信靠他的兒女，就該接受聖經以淺顯的語言寫下來的本意，而不該接受非受啟示之輩的重新詮釋（無論他們的論証似乎多有道理還是自稱是神委任的，都不例外）

約翰告訴我們：“你們看父賜給我們的是何等的慈愛，讓我們得以稱為上帝的兒女。”（約翰一書3:1，和合本修訂版）人類雖然百般缺點，卻仍能稱為神的兒女，實在不可思議。上帝如此純潔，如此慈愛，如此良善，卻願意因為我們信他兒子而接納我們，這實在奇妙，想到這種情形令人難以置信。不過，根據最古老的手抄本，使徒接著寫下來的話不容懷疑：“我們也真是他的兒女。”

我們的愛，像上帝和基督的愛一樣，就能確信自己是蒙愛的兒女，也能鏟除內心深處的懷疑和自卑。使徒約翰寫道：“孩子們哪，讓我們不在語言或口頭上相愛，而在行為和真理中相愛，從這一點（即表現名符其實的愛）我們就會知道我們屬於真理。就算我們的心責備自己，我們在神面前也可以安心，因為神比我們的心更大，並且他知道一切。（約翰一書3:18-20，中文標准譯本）。雖然我們可能懷疑自己，但是我們可以感到安慰，因為我們的天父視我們為兒女，他比我們的內心深處更能接納我們。為了消除煩擾我們心靈的自我質疑，我們可以考慮自己在態度，言語，和行為上是否渴望像天父和他的兒子一樣，是否從心底裡渴望效法他們的愛，也可以考慮我們對上帝和基督的信心是否使我們變得有愛心，關心別人。

雖然我們被算為義人，但是我們身為上帝的兒女與他同行還是會犯罪。因為我們會不斷失敗，所以不時懷疑自己是否真是神的兒女，尤其是那些曾經犯過重罪的基督徒更會被各種懷疑所困擾，擔心自己在至高者面前沒有立足之地。羞恥和愧疚猶如重擔壓在他們身上。他們需要知道，天父比“我們的心”更樂意寬恕人。

選擇活在罪裡和一時軟弱而向墮落人性的強烈欲望妥協迥然有別。使徒約翰在他的第一封書信裡清楚指出兩者的區別說：“上帝是光，在祂裡面毫無黑暗。如果我們說與祂相交，卻仍過著黑暗的生活，就是撒謊，沒有遵行真理。如果我們生活在光明之中，像上帝在光明中一樣，就能夠彼此相交，上帝兒子耶穌的血能洗淨我們一切的罪。如果我們說自己沒有罪，便是自欺，真理就不在我們心中。如果我們承認自己的罪，上帝是信實公義的，必赦免我們的罪，洗淨我們一切的不義...祂為我們的罪作了贖罪祭，不隻是為我們的罪，也是為全人類的罪。”（約翰一書1:5-2:2，當代譯本修訂版）

我們的天父“就是光”—是絕對意義上的純淨、毫無污穢和聖潔，他沒有半點黑暗、邪惡、墮落、腐敗、無知。既然如此，上帝蒙愛的兒女就不可能慣常行於黑暗（污穢、不潔、腐敗）。不過，我們在光裡行走的時候還是會與天父的聖潔相差甚遠。我們仍舊需要耶穌基督的血洗淨我們，他的血能除淨我們的一切罪，即我們因為達不到言談、思想和行為的神聖標准所帶來的污穢。

如果我們承認自己的罪，就能確信會被徹底寬恕，因為上帝是忠信、可靠、信實的。既然他已經宣告說，他兒子流出來的血能叫人得蒙寬恕，我們就應當對他的話堅信不移。至高者也是公正、正義的，他的行動總跟他所顯明的自己相符。他已經表明自己樂意寬恕罪人，對他們充滿慈悲。因此，他的正義是我們得蒙寬恕的保障。

使徒的話使我們確信上帝兒子的血能除淨一切不義，從而激勵我們避免犯罪，行事正直。萬一我們犯罪，就會有來自一個護衛者、幫助者、代禱者、中保的扶持。這個基督耶穌，與父親親密無間，他的正義是絕對的，而不是算為正義的，因為他就是正義的，他為悔罪的人代禱將總會蒙父垂聽。

應付傷痛與怨氣

當人發現一個團體有嚴重的破綻時，可能因受騙而感到憤怒和傷痛，認為領導層陰險可惡，蓄意操縱人。不過，一個組織最忠誠的捍衛者往往也是可憐的受害者。他們的行為好比家人想方設法為酗酒成性的父母親掩蓋酒癮。就算這個醒悟者直接認識歪曲事實的相關人士，但還是要避免向個人泄怒。真誠關心別人而揭發曲解事實的行為與定人有罪有非常大的區別。最終，審判權在天父和他的兒子手裡。

群體心理錯綜復雜，對當中個體產生的壓力和束縛實在很大。在群體當中，個體的良心似乎被凍結了，健全的思維經常由情緒所代替，例外屈指可數。沒有人願意為群體的決策及其后果負責任（群體決策也未必是意見完全一致的結果）。群體形成了自己的獨特行為模式，其力量大於各部分的總和。無論是種族、國族、部族、宗教團體還是商業組織，一切都會服務於群體的利益，不管利益是真實的還是想象的。在極端情況下，喪失良心的群體能犯下彌天大罪，個體成員卻看不出自己犯了違反人道的可憎罪行，甚至會變得冷酷無情，能做出單獨行事時做不出來的事。

使徒保羅，擁護基督教自由的那杰出榜樣，曾經是這類可憐之輩。這個熱心的猶太分子看到了接受耶穌為彌賽亞的同胞數目不斷增長，於是竭力消除這種威脅。把這個凶狠的迫害者視為一個可怖、無情、該死的歹徒很容易，然而，當我們也面對一個這樣對待我們的人的時候，后來在保羅身上所發生的事，實在應該讓我們審慎反思。

主吩咐我們要為迫害我們的人禱告，而不是咒罵他們 （馬太福音5:44，45）。司提反遵守了基督的這個教誨，請求說：“主啊，不要將這罪歸於他們！”（使徒行傳7:60，和合本修訂版） 司提反臨死前的這仁慈請求得蒙垂聽，因為保羅后來親口說道：“我從前是褻瀆神的、迫害人的、凌辱人的，然而我還蒙了憐憫，因為我是在不信的時候，由於無知而作的。”（提摩太前書1:13，新譯本）

沒有被撇棄

當我們孤單的時候，沉思至高者的古代忠仆能叫我們受益匪淺。一個少女的榜樣特別值得留意：這個少女被一群敘利亞匪徒俘獲，與所愛的一切分離，包括她的家人、朋友、熟悉的環境，她甚至被迫成為一個拜偶像的家族的奴隸。聖經沒有記錄那群敘利亞匪徒所造成的傷亡和破壞，也沒有談及她父母有了什麼遭遇，不過這個少女肯定目睹過不少令人驚駭的景象。另外，比起今天的基督徒，她所得到的安慰和鼓勵少之又少。

不過，她仍然對上帝保持信心。不但如此，盡管敘利亞人給她帶來家庭悲劇，她竟然還是向一個地位顯赫的敘利亞男子顯出憐憫之心。

這個男子就是敘利亞的元帥乃曼。乃曼患上了麻風病，一種令人厭惡，毀壞容貌的疾病。在以色列，麻風病患者必須與世隔絕。以色列的少女卻對乃曼動了憐憫的心，希望他的惡疾能得到醫治。於是她對乃曼的妻子說：“要是我主人去見撒瑪利亞的那位先知就好了！他一定能治好我主人的麻風病。”（列王紀下5:3，當代譯本修訂版）

這個不知其名的少女的信心就像一顆閃爍的寶石，與當時的以色列人成了鮮明的對比。那時大多數以色列人不理會YHWH和他的先知，反倒敬拜沒有生命的偶像。（YHWH四個輔音所代表的聖名的有關解釋，參見評注部分的詩篇1）我們可以想象她的信心得到獎賞時的那種喜樂！乃曼從以色列回來時已經被治好了，更重要的是，他也成了真神的一個謙卑的仆人。

誰能預料一個可怕的悲劇會有如此美好的結局？正如約瑟被賣到埃及做奴隸后沒有被上帝遺棄，上帝也沒有撇棄這個少女。我們的天父絕不會撇棄忠於他的人。（詩篇27:10﹔羅馬書8:38，39）

話說回來，一人的孤獨對我們有益處。我們也許會發現閱讀聖經和專心沉思的時間多起來了，從而拉近我們與天父的距離。以約瑟為例，上帝通過異夢向約瑟啟示了自己的話語。不過，不久后約瑟被奴役、入獄，結果對上帝話語的信心受到了考驗。（詩篇105:17-19）毫無疑問，由於約瑟在考驗下保持忠貞，他一生對上帝給亞伯拉罕的應許的信心也因此堅定不移。他的遺言表現了他的這種信心：“我要死了，但神必定看顧你們，領你們從這地上去，到他起誓所應許給亞伯拉罕、以撒、雅各之地。” “神必定看顧你們﹔你們要把我的骸骨從這裡搬上去。”（創世記50:24,25，和合本﹔希伯來書11:22） 多年后，以色列流浪在曠野時，約瑟的骸骨為以色列本該擁有的信心默默做了見証。（出埃及記13:19﹔約書亞記24:32）這樣看來，孤獨不必畏懼，反能讓我們仰仗它促進屬靈的進步。（參看雅各書1:2-4，12）

正確的根基

一個人要在靈性上成長，就必須確定自己有穩固的根基。關於這個根基，使徒保羅寫道：“因為除了那已經立好的根基，就是耶穌基督以外，沒有人能立別的根基。”（哥林多前書3:11，恢復本） 我們該追求的是，親自查考福音書的內容而培養穩固的第一手信心。

有一些人遭到過某個團體的惡待，結果充滿了怨氣，但是，他們從來沒有仔細考慮過馬太，馬可，路加，和約翰的見証。雖然他們表示自己相信耶穌是上帝的兒子，可是他們缺乏基於証據的堅定信念，也容易被不符合聖經的教誨左右。一個基督徒對一個身處此境的年輕男子曾經說：“假如你根據馬太福音、馬可福音、路加福音和約翰福音的証據，確信耶穌從死裡復活，而你因此認為耶穌身為上帝的兒子是無法質疑的事實，那麼，他的榜樣和教誨就該支配你的生活方式。不過，這個男子覺得東方宗教的神秘主義更迷人一些，於是沒理會那位基督徒的話，反而感覺真理不可能像他說的那麼簡單。凡是被一個自稱為基督教團體傷害過的人，都深處險境。對他們而言，努力確立和強化信心義不容辭。

對許多人而言，讓聖經直接對自己說話不是一件容易的事。他們習慣反反復復使用和聽到同樣的聖經片段，結果難以掌握聖經書卷的整體信息，也不習慣將一節熟悉的經文看作隻是整體信息中的一小部分而已。人如果養成了斷章取義的習慣，就會經常忽略經文與上下文的緊密聯系。此外，考慮經文時一定要棄絕所謂“引証經文”法（譯者注：即經文為証明某種觀點服務），因為正是這個運用經文的方法導致了把人的解釋錯當神的啟示。

聖經的每一卷書必須整體分析，以免斷章取義，使之脫離敘事環境（敘事環境包含歷史背景和原本的寫作對象）。要謹記目前聖經中章節的劃分點往往不在最佳的位置上，因此讀經時最好假定沒有章節存在，隻以內容的轉折為劃分點。對基督徒來說，研讀整本聖經是防止錯解經文的最佳策略。這樣，把聖經的指引應用出來才能真正有智慧、有愛心、品德高尚。

B.F.魏斯科在《教會中的聖經》一書中有以下精辟之言：以單一標准衡量萬事隱含著巨大而不易察覺的誘惑力。現實生活中，我們傾向於以自己衡量他人，以自己的時代衡量其他時代，以自己所處的文明衡量其他文明，甚至視之為衡量一切的終極標准。對這個足以影響全世界的錯誤思維，聖經能提供最佳的免疫。在聖經裡，我們能看到無論人類社會處於什麼階段，上帝總能在不同國族和家族之中停留，也總能認得連先知也未必能辨認出來的忠貞仆人。日常生活的各種憂慮和周遭人專橫自大的主張使我們的同情心變得狹隘，然而，聖經那永存的記載表明，人無論高低貴賤都能蒙上帝的靈賜福。聖經能使我們超越日常生活的各種影響，使我們介入先知、君王、思想家，以及傳講正義的人的生命之中，他們各在自己的特定環境下為上帝效勞，力量的源泉和追求的目標也始終如一。有些人可能提出異議說，那些最虔心研究聖經的人往往都是最嚴苛的狂熱分子。不過，原因顯而易見：他們之所以狂熱，是因為他們沒有以整本聖經為研究對象，而隻緊盯聖經的某一碎片，且以犧牲其余內容為代價。隻教導聖經的局部而不留意其他時代、其他書卷，會使人思想狹隘。隻有整體聖經才能使人辨識並升華各種美德。”

要在宗教團體外茁壯成長，人就必須為自己的屬靈生活負起個人的責任，且經常懷著虔誠的態度沉思聖經，表現耐心，允許聖經循序漸進地教導自己。倘若一個人總是指望別人而從未付出太多努力理解聖經的含義，就無法在靈性上富足。當他承認自己靈性窮乏而為此祈求的時候，隻有他擁有採取相應行動的願望，才會在靈性上活著。箴言清晰地陳述了這個道理：“若呼求明哲，揚聲求聰明，你若尋找它，如尋找銀子﹔搜求它，如搜求隱藏的珍寶，你就明白如何敬畏耶和華，得以認識有關神的知識。”（箴言 2:2-5， 網中譯本）

一個人如果發現獨自閱讀艱難，且理解力有限，也無需沮喪。反復聽聖經朗讀，思考所聽到的內容，足以使人在靈性上飽足。其實，一世紀的基督徒主要是通過聆聽，而不是閱讀，來了解聖經的內容。

不局限於單一譯本

熟悉某個特定譯本的表達方式，就可能掉進隻讀其詞的陷阱，多讀幾個譯本就能減少這個危險。即便外語能力欠佳，仍然可以嘗試閱讀非母語譯本，因為多種譯本的不同表達方式更能使讀者留意到未曾發現過的思想。

沒有完美的聖經譯本，我們也不必排斥那些基督教領域的常用譯本。絕大多數譯者清楚認識到自己的責任重大，工作艱難，因此在翻譯上更為認真。留意譯本的前言就能知道翻譯的策略和目標因譯者而不同，有些譯本更傾向意譯，翻譯得更寬泛一些，此類譯本也許不適合仔細地研讀，但是對於掌握一個聖經書卷的整體思想還是有用處的。

不論採取釋義還是直譯的翻譯策略，譯者都會面臨一種挑戰: 在清晰傳達原著意思的同時，又盡可能保留原文的味道。可是要使人受益，就必須在閱讀或聆聽上讓人容易理解。對許多一世紀的基督徒而言，情況與今天的多數人大同小異。他們不懂希伯來文本，因此必須依靠一個譯本，即七十子譯本。這個希臘文譯本仍然存在的手抄本表明，措辭的選擇有時與希伯來文本有著相當的差別，然而，基本信息是一樣的，那些讀或聽希臘文譯本的基督徒與其他會希伯來文的弟兄一樣，在至高者面前享受同等地位。（本網站的聖經注釋是為了協助英文讀者留意希伯來文本和希臘文本的差異。例如，可參看哈巴谷書的注釋。）

希伯來文和希臘文有顯著的差別，聖經被譯成的其他語言也各有其獨特之處。雪上加霜的是，古代文本中均無標點符號，譯者必須決定如何斷句，以及修飾語在句中的位置、為修飾語加什麼標點符號、該不該把長句分為幾個短句以方便閱讀和理解，等等。（例如，在原文中，以弗所書1:3-14節是一個長句）既然譯者的決定各有不同，多讀幾個譯本就能知道哪些地方存在異議。即使一個人的閱讀和理解原文的能力達到了一定的水平，他也最多隻能提出理由，解釋為什麼自己傾向於某個譯法。

假如我們能親自聽到使徒保羅說話且很熟悉他的語言習慣，並清楚知道他寫作的出發點，我們翻譯他的書信時，就會具備很好的條件選擇最准確的譯法。然而，由於沒有任何人堪稱最終的權威，避免爭論細節才是明智的做法。我們總該把焦點集中在如何強化信心，以及如何在神的家庭裡做慈愛順從的兒女上面。

片面的知識

關於一世紀的基督教，現有的文獻不多。另外，我們對這些文獻的理解也受到書面表達方式特點的限制。因此，當我們閱讀福音書、使徒行轉所記錄的各種發展、書信（大部分，也許全部，都是念給筆錄者）、或啟示錄（以征兆和象征啟示出來的）的時候，就必須記住，原來的讀者和聽者有時比今天的人更清楚明白聖經的意思。

請考慮使徒問及耶路撒冷極其聖殿將臨的毀滅時，耶穌怎樣回答。當時，隻有四個使徒在場—彼得、安德烈、雅各和約翰。使徒所提出的問題以他們當時對事情的認知為出發點，而耶穌這次也採用一貫的回答方式，按聽者所需要知道的提供信息，去指引他們以信徒的身份生活，直到他的話語應驗。

那麼現在耶穌的回答以什麼形式保存下來了呢？隻有文字記錄，而且用另一種語言記錄下來，而記錄的人並沒有直接聽到耶穌的回答。（譯者注：耶穌說話時用阿拉米語，福音書的原文卻是希臘文）這樣的文字記載缺少什麼呢？我們不知道耶穌強調那些字詞，在哪裡停頓。我們也不知道他如何區分他所說的那些征象和事件，哪些是在耶路撒冷毀滅之前發生，哪些是在那個無人知道的時日之前發生。

一直以來，有些人過度渲染這段記載，甚至把它當作辨認哪一代人會目睹基督榮耀復臨的理論基礎，使得相信這種解釋的人大失所望。以這類詮釋家為中心的屬靈環境總會令人在靈性、精神和感情上受到創傷。

雖然耶穌沒有說戰爭、地震和糧荒的規模達到前所未有的地步是他來臨的預兆，但是有些人把這個意思讀到他的話裡面去了。四福音書保存的原話包括“末期還沒有到”、“產痛的開始”、以及“隻是末期還沒有到”。換言之，這些事不是耶穌要馬上回來的征兆。馬太在該記載稍后的部分才提及“人子的兆頭”。對於當時的門徒，焦點倒該放在傳講耶穌基督的“好消息”上。使徒行轉清楚地敘述了門徒的傳講方式以及傳講的基本信息，而他們也因為宣告了這個信息蒙受迫害。

耶穌吩咐，當觀察到耶路撒冷城有某種動向時，門徒就該立刻逃到城外。耶穌的警告對當時親耳聽到的門徒和對現今的我們應該產生不同的影響，因為耶穌的表達方式是以一世紀為背景的。

至於耶穌的復臨，耶穌強調的是沒有人（隻有父親）知道那個日子和時辰，接著，耶穌用比喻告訴門徒自己回來時，人要符合哪些要求才能蒙悅納。耶穌警告他們，不要鞭打和惡待信徒同工、要在屬靈上保持警醒、要善用主人所托付的銀元，以及要對有需要的人表現憐憫之心，尤其是對那些最容易被忽略的人，即那些最小、最微不足道的弟兄。

奇怪的是，其中一個比喻本來是要警告人要安守奴隸的本份，但是這個比喻卻被某些人用來授權一個領導階級，且要求人無條件地接受其教義和指引。假如有人懷著虔誠的態度細心全面研究聖經而對這些教義和指引產生良心上的抵觸，就會被視為應當除去團體資格且加以回避。一個人如果因無法將團體的教義和指引與聖經及自己的良心融合一體，而在內心飽受“鞭打”和“惡待”，團體中的忠信成員就會認為他是一個理應被開除的叛道者，也會視其為施罪者，而非受害者。其他成員對實情完全無從知曉，隻一味忠誠地延續這樣的曲解。

為了糾正關於基督榮耀復臨的一個錯誤理解，保羅在寫給帖撒羅尼迦的第二封書信裡寫道：“不要讓任何人用任何方法把你們欺騙了﹔因為那日子來臨以前 ，必定先有離道反教之事來到，並且那不法之人，就是那滅亡之子也會被顯露出來。他反對一切被稱為神的，或受人敬拜的，他又高抬自己在這一切之上，甚至坐在神的聖所裡宣稱自己是神。我還在你們那裡的時候，一直告訴你們這些事，你們不記得嗎？你們也知道，現在什麼攔阻了他，好使他在所定的時候被顯露出來。”（帖撒羅尼迦后書2:3-6，中文標准譯本） 今天，無人知道保羅與帖撒羅尼迦人在一起時還談到了哪些相關細節。根據使徒的話，帖撒羅尼迦人知道 “什麼阻攔了他”，我們卻無從得知。這說明，我們一定要留意自己不知道什麼以及無法知道什麼，以免導致錯誤的結論，或被那些自稱擁有特殊知識、知道未來發展狀況的“聖經導師”導入迷途。

其他資源

研究聖經的資源為數眾多，英文和其他語言的聖經注釋數以百計，學習版聖經、聖經詞典，以及其他類型的參考工具也不計其數，其中不乏建設性的見解，頗具啟發性，也有助於我們更深入地了解聖經的信息。但有的卻滲透著教條主義、瘋狂的臆測，以及偏離原始基督教的神學概念，其價值因而大打折扣。一個基督徒在經過仔細思考而吸收聖經的信息之后，選擇和使用哪些參考書的判斷力就會大有提高。這類著作的可選數量和彼此之間的質量懸殊都非常大，因此必須審慎選擇。

不該高估任何參考著作的影響力，因為它們無非是血肉之軀的不完美知識。歐尼斯特·貝斯特（Ernest Best）在以弗所書的注釋前言中有以下觀察：“解經者對經文的解釋總是受他的生活環境影響，他的時代必然決定他看待經文的視角，當然這也可能使他提出新穎的觀點和問題，不過對某個教派的效忠也會影響解經的結果...總之，我們所戴的有色眼鏡往往會不知不覺影響對經文的解讀。” 對所屬教派的忠誠會嚴重妨礙我們看出聖經說的是什麼，更要命的是，能令我們誤以為聖經明確說了什麼。

既然人類的著作不完美，明智的做法是留意以下聖經原則：“我們現在的知識有限” 、“我們現在所知道的，隻是一部分”（哥林多前書13:9，當代譯本修訂版、新譯本）。我們總要保持清醒，記住人類的所有知識都是片面的，這樣就能避免冒然立論，或把人的臆測、推論和詮釋當作真理。

基督徒間的交流（團契）

神的兒女渴望與信徒同工交往是再自然不過的了。然而，團契必須以我們與天父和他兒子的關系為基礎。我們必須心胸寬闊，凡是承認耶穌基督為主、承認使他復活的是上帝，在言語、態度和行為上努力效法上帝和基督的人都該被我們接納。（羅馬書10:9, 10; 加拉太書5:13-26; 以弗所書4:17-6:10; 約翰一書1:5-5:21）

許多人受流傳數百年的傳統思維影響，無法完全接納一個不符合自己所屬團體標准的人，結果，他們的目的永遠會是使人歸信自己的團體，即便“無教派”團體也是如此。可悲的是，這種分黨結派的精神導致他們難以接納不屬於自己團體的人為神的兒女。這樣，他們的交往圈受到局限，愛心變得狹隘，也因而阻礙了他們自己的屬靈成長。

他們很像施浸者約翰的一些門徒。雖然約翰清楚指明耶穌是新郎，但他們容許自己對約翰的個人情感干擾他們接受基督和他的門徒。（馬可福音2:18-22; 約翰福音3:25-30） 甚至到了約翰被監禁和去世后，他們仍然獨立於耶穌的門徒之外，自成一體。（馬太福音11:2-5; 使徒行轉19:1-7）

無論分黨結派的精神以什麼樣的形式存在，都會危害靈性，是所有努力保持忠貞的基督徒必須抵御的。當第一世紀的哥林多會眾開始出現各種分裂時，保羅曾斥之為不屬於靈的、不成熟、有害的。（哥林多前書1:10-13; 3:1-9, 21-23; 11:17-34）

誠然，不少人能避免分黨結派的極端行為，但是一世紀后形成的神學觀念仍然對他們產生負面的沖擊。有些根深蒂固的教義使他們無法對耶穌在得救上所起的作用培養感恩之心，看不出他是要帶領他們到父親那裡去。（彼得前書3:18）結果，他們可能無從發覺在這個家庭安排中，自己既是上帝的兒子，也是基督的弟兄。（加拉太書3:26-29; 希伯來書2:10-18） 一個最容易能蒙蔽人的情況是，所有的教導都是被當作有聖經根據的，並且被數百萬人接受為真理。其實，這些教義隻是多個世紀前，由一個人或很少的幾個人制訂的，當時也隻得到了少數人的支持，之后，所有人卻被強制接受這些教義，持異議者也遭受了嚴厲的懲罰。如果一個團體將聖經淺顯易明的話語與團體所宣揚的信條混為一談，所營造的崇拜環境往往會毒害靈性。

我們如果認識到大家都是凡人，就能避免把個人或群體抬高，賦予他們隻有耶穌基督才有的教導權。沒有人可以自居高位，隻有基督才是那個“在許多弟兄中作長子”的。（羅馬書8:29，和合本修訂版）

以個人來講，我們都是弟兄，都要聽從主的教導。雖然我們當中有些人對他教誨的掌握可能稍微好些，結果也許能夠使信徒同工多留意主的教導，但其實，我們仍然都同為主的學生。神的兒女的任何團契都該與耶穌的話吻合：“但你們呢，不要受稱呼為老師（希臘文作『拉比』），因為隻有一位是你們的教師﹔你們都是弟兄。也不要稱地上的為父﹔因為隻有一位，那天上的，才是你們的父。也不要受稱呼為導師，因為隻有一位，那被膏立者基督，才是你們的導師。你們中間較大的必須做你們的仆役。”（馬太福音23:8-11，呂振中譯本）

耶穌的這個吩咐常被忽視。今天的很多所謂的基督教的狀況可能會讓耶穌的使徒感到無法接受，當然這並不是說一世紀會眾的情況就很理想，得以保存的書信透露了當時這種嚴重問題的存在，顯示他們也需要辨別哪種團契有益靈性，哪種有害。（帖撒羅尼迦后書3:6-15; 提摩太后書2:20-22; 3:1-7; 4:1-4; 約翰一書2:18; 啟示錄2:1-3:22）

談到團契，今天很多人會想到固定的地點或常規。也許他們會想起耶穌照他素常的規矩在安息日去猶太會堂和去聖殿慶祝節期。耶穌這樣做並沒有因此表明他歸屬或支持猶太教的某個分支。他在猶太會堂或聖殿與其他信徒同在，可是他的身份沒有別人誤解，反而讓他有機會教導人認識關於他父親的真理。但是在今天，成為某個基督教團體的成員，就意味著持有該教派的身份。即使是“無教派”的教會，成員也會有一個與其他教會區分開來的身份。一般而言，他們的宗教活動都按照傳統，以固定的模式舉行，而沒有提供機會給到訪的陌生人向會眾發言，像保羅和其他人在會堂裡所做的那樣。（使徒行轉13:15-45; 14:1; 17:1-4, 10-12; 18:1-6, 19-22, 24-26）

對保羅而言，重要的是能夠把自己的寶貴希望分享給聚集起來的信徒。一旦機會過去，他就不會再去該城的猶太會堂，而是為那些想聽基督的好消息的人另做安排。（使徒行轉18:7-11; 19:8-10） 保羅和其他信主的猶太人沒有故意選擇被逐出會堂，因為這樣就會造成他們難以分享聖經給同胞。不過，他們也知道做耶穌的門徒就可能會被會堂開除。盡管如此，他們還是選擇對耶穌保持忠貞，無論人怎樣對待他們。（馬太福音10:17; 23:34; 路加福音8:22; 21:12; 約翰福音9:22; 12:42, 43; 16:2） 那些珍惜與主耶穌關系的人對迫害的反映如同耶穌的使徒，當公議會吩咐人鞭打他們時，他們就 “歡歡喜喜從公議會裡出來，因為他們算是配得為主的名受辱。” （使徒行轉5:40, 41, 新譯本）

許多宗教團體以建筑場所以及在裡面舉行的活動為標志，結果使許多人忘卻，外在的崇拜安排其實早已廢除。耶穌曾經向一個撒馬利亞婦人透露，真崇拜將不會有賴於、也不會局限於某個地理位置或建筑物。“婦人，你當信我，時候將到，那時你們敬拜父，不在這山上（基利心山，撒馬利亞聖殿的遺址，150年之前被毀），也不在耶路撒冷。（原聖殿以及取而代之的第二座聖殿的位置）...時候將到，如今就是了，那真正敬拜父的，要在靈和真實裡敬拜祂，因為父尋找這樣敬拜祂的人。（約翰福音4:21-24，恢復本）

既然父親“是靈”，他就希望得到屬靈的崇拜。雖然律法為以色列定了中心地點舉行崇拜儀式，但這個安排是暫時的。天父通過瑪拉基透露，時候要到，世界各地的人會在自己所在之地以蒙悅納的方式崇拜他。瑪拉基借用當時的崇拜模式來預告這點：“萬軍之耶和華說：‘從日出之地到日落之處，列國必尊崇我的名。世上每個角落都有人向我焚香，獻上潔淨的供物。因為我的名必受列國尊崇。’”（瑪拉基書 1:11，當代譯本修訂版） 彌賽亞來臨時，這個改變的時刻到了。因此，對神的兒女來說，崇拜並非等於尋找或去某個地方，在那裡按照傳統習俗或權威人士所定的模式進行崇拜。“在靈和真實裡” 並非以外在的為內容。在“真實裡”代表崇拜是內在的，真誠的，不隻是嘴上說的。（參看約翰一書3:18）其實，儀式本身，（如節期，禁食，祈禱，獻祭）從來沒有叫天父喜悅，而必須連同對父親及其道的愛。這愛是通過憐憫淒苦遭難的人而表現出來的。（以賽亞書1:10-17）我們的崇拜要在“靈裡”，就必須真正認識上帝，且尊崇他為仁愛的父親，意識到我們的一切都源自於他。 （歌羅西書1:12; 3:17; 啟示錄4:11; 5:13; 15:3, 4; 16:5-7） 我們的贊美，感恩，和祈求是否誠懇，通過我們的日常生活會顯示出來。

使徒保羅敦促信徒同工說：“所以，一有機會就要向眾人行善，向信徒一家的人更要這樣。”（加拉太書6:10，和合本修訂版） 我們對他人的需要不該避而不看，我們有義務對所有人表現愛心和關懷，不過必須以信徒一家為優先。既然我們屬於同一個屬靈的家庭，就有責任彼此輔助。（馬太福音25:34-40; 使徒行轉9:36, 39; 約翰一書3:17, 18）

既然我們有責任優先關心上帝的兒女，就要考慮在哪裡能夠找出他們並且建立起一個屬靈的家庭。耶穌解釋小麥和毒麥的比喻時，回答了這個問題。“那撒下好種子的就是人子， 麥田代表整個世界，那些好種子就是天國的子民。毒麥就是那些屬於魔鬼的人， 撒毒麥的仇敵就是魔鬼。”（馬太福音13:37-39，當代譯本修訂版） 神的真兒女在世界當中，像真正的小麥長在毒麥當中。但是，我們無法用人設立的標准來辨認他們。有些人甚至可能受誤導而自立為除草工，把這些小麥般的人當作毒麥。（馬太福音13:24-30） 這樣上帝的子民有的可能會屬於所謂“可見的教會” （這可見的教會由基督教的各種有教派和無教派團體組成，）但是他們也有可能不屬於任何教派。

今天，神的兒女與古代以色列的情形大同小異 — 並非全都是真正意義上的以色列人，即上帝的子民。有一次，先知以利亞灰心喪氣，以為除了自己一人之外，十部族組成的北方王國裡沒有其他人敬拜YHWH。可是，仍然有忠信的剩余份子存在：“我在以色列人中為自己留下七千人，是未曾向巴力屈膝的。”（列王紀上 19:9-18，和合本） 數百年后，在剩余份子從巴比倫的放逐中返回后不久，不少人顯示出自己不是真正崇拜YHWH的。盡管如此，忠信的以色列人還是找到了其他愛戴造物主的人，他們彼此間的交誼並沒有被天父忽略。

瑪拉基書透露了至高者的真心崇拜者和偽稱敬拜他的人有什麼區別：“耶和華說：‘你們出言毀謗我’，還問，‘我們怎麼毀謗你了？’ 你們說，‘事奉上帝是虛空的。遵從上帝的吩咐，在萬軍之耶和華面前痛悔有什麼益處？如今我們稱狂傲的人有福，因為作惡的人凡事順利，他們雖然試探上帝，卻仍能逃過災禍。’ 那時，敬畏耶和華的彼此交談，耶和華必留心傾聽，祂面前的紀念冊上記錄著敬畏祂和尊崇祂名的人。萬軍之耶和華說：‘到我所定的日子，他們必成為我寶貴的產業，我要憐憫他們，如同父親憐憫他的孝順兒子。’”（瑪拉基書 3:13-17，當代譯本修訂版）

雖然不少人在崇拜上僅是走走過場，也嫉妒不信神的人繁榮茂盛，可是深深敬畏YHWH的人卻由衷表露他們的虔誠。他們熟悉詩篇和眾先知的話，無疑彼此間談論了周遭環境怎樣與這些話相符合，得以互相強化。（詩篇37，73; 以賽亞58:2-14）。類似地，數百年后，安娜，一個年紀老邁的寡婦，蒙恩而見到嬰兒耶穌，后來尋找適宜的人分享這喜樂的消息。“她...向所有期待著耶路撒冷得救贖的人講說這孩子的事。”（路加福音 2:36-38，中文標准譯本）

因為我們相信天父的攝理（譯者注：providence，統攝管理之意）和引導，就能安心，在人類世界當中，總會有其他虔心服從神的兒女樂意與我們交流。就如一世紀的基督徒，我們可以共享一桌，閱讀神的話語，探討經文，一起贊美感恩，揚聲歌頌。既然屬於耶穌基督的身體，也可以同領一個杯，一個餅來紀念他。（使徒行轉2:46; 哥林多前書10:16, 17; 以弗所書5:19），所有人都能暢所欲言，而不是被某種權威所設立的呆板模式所壓制。

如果留意使徒保羅的指導，信徒聚集在一起總能強化信心。“你們聚會的時候，不管是唱詩、教導、講啟示、說方言或翻譯方言，都應該是為了造就人。”（哥林多前書 14:26, 當代譯本修訂版） 為了互相鼓勵，基督徒會聚在一起，而當中，有些人具備神所賜的能力和智慧。他們會渴望謙虛地服事信徒同工，就如司提反一家，“他們專以服事聖徒為念。”（哥林多前書16:15，和合本﹔參看亞波羅 [使徒行轉18:24-28; 哥林多前書3:5, 6, 21-23; 16:12].）

上帝的兒女屬於一個充滿愛的家庭，會自發地尋找其他兒女，談論內心所珍視的事，所關心的事。跟一世紀的基督徒一樣，他們珍惜聚集起來互相鼓勵的機會，因此不會忽略與其他信徒的聚集。這跟默示的勸告相吻合：“又應該堅持我們所宣認的盼望，毫不動搖，因為那應許我們的是信實的。 我們又應該彼此關心，激發愛心，勉勵行善。 我們不可放棄聚會，好象有些人的習慣一樣﹔卻要互相勸勉。你們既然知道那日子臨近，就更應該這樣。”（希伯來書 10:23-25，新譯本）

許多人相信，遵照常規到一個特定的場所做禮拜便能滿足以上要求。但是，這類聚會的目的是遵循一個固定的模式，成排坐著、被動地聆聽和參與受操控的集體討論，參加這類活動不是出自對他人的關懷。因此我們隻有真誠地關懷別人，言談才“激發愛心，勉勵行善。” 如果想關心其他信徒並真正激勵他們，我們對他們的認識就該像家人之間的認識一樣。聚會的氣氛不該令人害怕表達內心深處的情感，哪怕是疑問。（參看耶利米如何向上帝暢所欲言 [耶利米書 15:15-18]。）

身為上帝的兒女，強化信心的團契在生活當中扮演著重要的角色。然而，成為基督的門徒后，未必能立刻得著此類團契。以埃塞俄比亞的太監為例。“有主的一個使者對腓利說：‘起來！向南走，往那從耶路撒冷下迦薩的路上去。’ 那路是曠野。 腓利就起身去了。不料，有一個 埃塞俄比亞人，是個有大權的太監，在埃塞俄比亞女王甘大基的手下總管銀庫，他上耶路撒冷去禮拜。 回程中，他坐在車上，正念著以賽亞先知的書，聖靈對腓利 說：‘你去！靠近那車走。’ 腓利就跑到太監那裡，聽見他正在念以賽亞先知的書，就說：‘你明白你所念的嗎？’ 他說：‘沒有人指教我，怎能明白呢？’ 於是他請腓利上車，與他同坐。他所念的那段經文是這樣：‘他像羊被牽去宰殺，又像羔羊在剪毛的人手下無聲，他也是這樣不開口。他卑微的時候，得不到公義的審判，誰能述說他的身世？因為他的生命從地上被奪去。’ 太監回答腓利說：‘請問，先知說這話是指誰，是指自己，還是指別人呢？’ 腓利就開口，從這段經文開始，對他傳講耶穌的福音。二人正沿路往前走，到了有水的地方，太監說：‘看哪！這裡有水，有什麼能阻止我受洗呢？’ 於是他吩咐把車停下來，腓利和太監二人一同下到水裡，腓利就給他施洗。他們從水裡上來，主的靈把 腓利提了去，太監再也看不見他了，就歡歡喜喜地上路。”（使徒行傳8:26-39，和合本修訂版）

腓利沒有催促這位剛剛受浸的男子盡快從埃塞俄比亞返回，好能與其他信徒經常交往。雖然這個埃塞俄比亞人並未得到所有問題的答案，甚至不一定擁有希伯來語經卷的所有書卷，但他是上帝的兒子，雖然他的所在地離其他信徒很遠，但是他滿懷喜樂遠行，回去肯定很期待與其他人分享他新得來的知識。在埃塞俄比亞，其他人的反應很可能與他相同，這樣，他就有機會與上帝家庭的其他成員團契。假如我們的團契規模有限，就仍然可以像埃塞俄比亞的太監那樣，在通往生命的道路上繼續行走，並因認識神的兒子及父親而歡欣。隨著時間的推移，我們的生活方式和言談會使別人認出我們，許多屬靈團契的機會就會隨之而到。

身為蒙愛的兒女，我們能確信父親的愛心看護。他的兒子，即我們的牧人，總會帶領、保護和喂養他疼愛的綿羊。當那個被耶穌恢復視力的盲人被逐出會堂時，耶穌找到了他並給予安慰。看來，耶穌向他表明了自己的牧人身份，也將會為自己的綿羊舍命。（約翰福音9:1-10:21）耶穌如此關心他的綿羊，這個恢復視力的盲人必定大感安慰。我們同樣從耶穌的話能得到慰藉。

我們從不會落為背棄的孤兒，因為我們是神的兒女、耶穌的弟兄。比起那些自稱為基督教的各大團體，我們可見的屬靈家庭似乎看上去微乎其微。但在人類世界當中，除了神的兒女之外，我們的家庭中也有天使大軍。這些天使深深關心受過創傷的信徒，哪怕他們在別人眼裡微不足道。耶穌說：“你們要注意，不可輕視這些卑微人中的一個。我告訴你們：他們的天使在天上常常看見我天父的面。”（馬太福音18:10，中文標准譯本）我們作為如此奇妙、蒙愛的家庭的一份子，定能在靈性上茁壯成長。

A Look at Revelation

Revelation of Jesus Christ (1:1-20)

The book of Revelation opens with the words, “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him.” If John did not see the visions related in this book while on the island of Patmos (1:9), the messages would have no greater value to Christians than any other ancient apocalyptic writings.

If, however, God is the ultimate source of the uncovering or unveiling, the information in the book of Revelation is his word. Furthermore, when conveying the revelation to John through an angel, Jesus Christ provided his testimony to what he had received from his Father, and John, when faithfully reporting what he saw and heard in a series of visions, added his testimony. Therefore, anyone ignoring this message or “word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” would miss out on the promised happiness, an enviable spiritual prosperity that promotes an inner sense of well-being from having the assurance of the Father’s and the Son’s care, aid, and guidance when faced with trials. There is an element of immediacy and an assurance of certainty in the words “must occur shortly.” (1:1-3)

To enjoy the enviable state of being Christ’s servants and blessed by his Father, believers would need to hear with understanding and act on the words that were recorded centuries ago. The information is for all of Christ’s slaves or servants, not just a select few. (1:3) The visions relate to past, then-existing, and future developments. (1:19) They would be of particular significance to those who, like John, experienced tribulation or distress because of being disciples of God’s Son. (1:9)

The manner in which the revelation was presented is indicated by the Greek word semaíno, which indicates that it was conveyed by signs or symbols, for the related nouns semá and semeíon mean “sign.” (1:1) This does pose a problem, for it is necessary to determine what a particular sign or symbol means. For a meaning to have reasonable validity, it should be verifiable on the basis of other biblical texts, harmonize with the message of the Scriptures as a whole, and be in full harmony with the context. When this is not the case, divine revelation is distorted and displaced by imaginative explanations that may impress others but provide nothing of substance. The recorded interpretations of Pharaoh’s dreams in the time of Joseph and those of dreams and visions in the book of Daniel illustrate that explanations should focus on the basic message the imagery conveys and not on minute details. Furthermore, the recorded explanations made good sense to those who initially heard them, and they were accepted as valid without hesitation. (Genesis 41:17-27, 38, 39; Daniel 2:31-47; 4:10-17, 20-26; 7:2-27; 8:3-14; 20-26) Therefore, any explanations of the visions of Revelation that would make people uncomfortable if discussed with persons outside their particular religious movement are highly questionable.

“Favor,” “unmerited kindness,” or “grace” would include all the divine blessings that children of God enjoy. “Peace” is the inner sense of calmness and tranquility that stems from having divine approval, which assures the possessors of receiving aid and guidance. Apart from the Father, the operation of holy spirit (in guiding, strengthening, and sustaining believers), and the Son, Christians would not be able to enjoy “favor and peace.” (1:4)

The Father is identified as “the One who is [Greek, ho ón] and who was and who is coming.” (1:4) This description may serve to convey the significance of the divine name (YHWH). As suggested by the words of Exodus 3:14, the divine name appears to be drawn from the Hebrew verb “to be.” The Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew ’ehyéh ’ashér ’ehyéh is egó eimi ho ón (“I am the One who is”). In Hebrew, ’ehyéh is in the imperfect state, and the expression ’ehyéh ’ashér ’ehyéh could be rendered “I will be who I will be,” suggesting that the Almighty would prove to be who he has declared himself to be. In the light of Exodus 3:14, the identifying expression “the One who is and who was and who is coming” indicates that the Most High would never be someone other than he is, was, or has stated he would be. He is the same One he was and will continue to be as the One who is to come, evidently to render judgment. (1:8; 4:8) He and his word are deserving of the utmost trust.

The Almighty additionally identified himself as “the Alpha and the Omega” (1:8). Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and omega is the last letter. This suggests that the Almighty is the One who brings all that he starts to a successful conclusion.

On account of the operation of God’s spirit upon him, John was enabled to see visions. (1:10; see the Notes section for comments about the Lord’s day.) In the imagery of the book of Revelation, the “seven spirits” are portrayed as “seven lamps of fire” before God’s throne. (1:4; 4:5) The numbers in this book repeatedly serve as symbols, and the number “seven” may be regarded as a number of completeness. Accordingly, the “seven spirits” would represent the holy spirit in the totality or completeness of its operation. Being before the “throne of God,” this powerful force is always at his disposal and under his control for the accomplishment of his will. (Compare Luke 1:35, where “holy spirit” is, in the parallel expression, called the “power of the Most High.”)

While there are and have been individuals and groups of individuals representing various movements saying or implying that they are specially guided by the spirit and appointed expounders of Revelation, an examination of their writings and history reveals that their claims amount to nothing more than self-promotion. Instead of stressing Christ’s role, they repeatedly try to impress others with their professed role as his appointees and thus diminish the truth that there is no salvation apart from Christ. Their attitude contrasts sharply with the opening chapter of Revelation, which leaves no doubt about the greatness of God’s Son and his unique role in the divine arrangement for salvation. Jesus Christ is the faithful witness, the one whose testimony is always trustworthy. (1:5)

His being the “firstborn of the dead” could signify that he was the first to be raised to immortal life or that he occupies the position of firstborn with reference to the dead. The fact that sovereignty is highlighted when identifying Jesus Christ as the “ruler of the kings of the earth” would seem to favor understanding the expression “firstborn of the dead” to relate to his position respecting the dead. (1:5) This would agree with Romans 14:9, where Christ is identified as the Lord of the dead and the living.

As ruler of the kings of the earth, his authority is far greater than theirs. Even the most powerful rulers on the earthly scene are inferior to the Lord Jesus Christ. This clear identification of God’s Son as then being the “ruler of the kings of the earth” harmonizes with his statement prior to his ascension, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18) The possession of “all authority” left nothing to be added at a later time.

Although so highly exalted, Jesus Christ continues to have deep love for all who willingly accept him as their head. As John wrote regarding the Son, “to him that loves us.” (1:5) The verb for “love” (agapáo) is in the present tense, indicating that his love is of an abiding nature. That love guarantees that in times of trial or distress his helping hand will never fail to be available.

The superlative expression of Jesus’ love was the laying down of his life in sacrifice to effect a marvelous liberation from sin. According to the evidence of the most ancient Greek manuscripts, Jesus Christ “loosed us from our sins.” Under the control and condemnation of sin, individuals find themselves in the state of bound prisoners. Their situation is comparable to having every part of their body shackled so that they are unable to do the good that they, at heart, may really wish to do. It is a state of slavery that holds no promise of a release and a better future. Regardless of how hard a person may try to do what is right, kind, and noble, there is a painful awareness of falling short and of having hurt and disappointed others. Only when individuals suppress the inner voice of conscience do they become blind to their helpless state as slaves of sin, and their complete inability to live a life that is consistently pure in attitude, word, and action. Jesus Christ, however, loosed believers, effecting their liberation by his shed blood. By accepting his sacrifice in their behalf, they are no longer helplessly bound by sin but have righteousness imputed to them. (1:5; also see the comments in the Notes section.)

Collectively, believers constitute a royal realm or kingdom under their Lord Jesus Christ and, individually, they are priests to “his God and Father.” Anyone claiming to have a spiritual authority over believers thus would be denying their identity as priests, an identity which has been granted them by their Lord, “to whom be the glory and might for eternity.” (1:6)

Additionally, the opening chapter of Revelation points to Jesus’ return in glory. This event and its profound effect would not escape the notice of anyone then living on earth. (1:7) For those who failed to respond in faith to God’s Son, the event would lead to wailing.

John heard a voice like that of a trumpet directing him to write to the congregations of believers in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. Everything about the personage who spoke to John (someone like “a son of man” or a man) reflected exceedingly great splendor. He wore a long robe, with a golden girdle at the breasts. This was not working attire. The high girding gave evidence of exceptional dignity. Snow-white hair and eyes that shown like flames of fire complemented the countenance of matchless brilliance. His feet glowed like copper or a similar metal or alloy in the fire of a furnace. As he spoke, apparently a flash resembling the blade of a two-edged sword proceeded from his mouth, and the impressive voice resounded like abundant waters in motion. His countenance beamed with greater radiance than the sun at its zenith. Overawed, John fell as dead at his feet. (1:10-17)

The speaker placed his right hand on John and reassured him with the words, “Fear not.” He then identified himself as the first and the last, the living one, and the one who had died but now lived. As the possessor of immortal life, he also had the power to restore others to life, for he had the “keys of death and of Hades.” (1:17, 18) In the ultimate sense, the Father is “the first and the last.” His unique Son, the one through whom all things came into existence and through whom all things are brought to their completion, could rightly thus also identify himself. (Compare Ephesians 1:3-12 and Colossians 1:15-20.)

In the vision, John saw seven lampstands and, in the right hand of the glorious personage, seven stars. These seven lampstands represented the seven congregations and the seven stars stood for the seven angels or messengers of these congregations. (1:12, 13, 16, 20) As believers are to let their light shine before others by maintaining laudable conduct and proclaiming the glad tidings that focus on Christ, a lampstand would be a fitting symbol. Early believers would have known whether the messenger of a congregation referred collectively to its elders or to the one person who originally received the recorded message that was to be read to all.

Notes:

For pictures of and comments about the island of Patmos, see holylandphotos.org.

In 1:1, the expression “revelation of Jesus Christ” does not relate to his revealing himself in glory but probably to his doing the unveiling or uncovering. It could also mean a “revelation about Jesus Christ,” but this is less likely (as a considerable portion of the book of Revelation concerns judgments and, in an indirect sense only, could this aspect be regarded as pertaining to him).

The one doing the reading (1:3) would apparently do so when a group of believers (those hearing) were assembled. In this verse, fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a number of later manuscripts have the singular “word,” but the majority of manuscripts read “words.”

In 1:5, third-century P18, fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, and fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and a number of later manuscripts read lysanti (“loosed”), whereas many later manuscripts say loúsanti (“washed”).

The designation kyriaké heméra (“Lord’s day”) is only found in Revelation 1:10. The term kyriaké is an adjective in the feminine gender and not the noun for “Lord” (kyrios) in the genitive case, as in the expression heméra kyríou (“day of the Lord”) appearing in a context denoting a future time of judgment. (2 Peter 3:10) Therefore, the “Lord’s day” appears to be a day linked to Jesus Christ in the same way that the adjective form of the word for “Lord” is used in the designation “Lord’s supper” (kyriakón deípnon) in 1 Corinthians 11:20. That “supper” is one pertaining to him and what he accomplished through his death. Similarly, the Lord’s day apparently is a day that uniquely relates to him. For many centuries down to the present time, that day has commonly been understood to mean the first day of the week, as it was on that day Jesus rose from the dead.

The prophet Ezekiel often dated his visions, including the day of the week. (Ezekiel 1:1, 2; 8:1; 24:1; 29:1; 31:1; 32:1; 40:1) So it could not be considered unusual for John to refer to being “in spirit in the Lord’s day” or in the spirit on the first day of the week. Jerome (who lived in the third and fourth century), in his homily (94), dealt with the objection that the first day of the week was significant to pagans. He wrote: “The Lord has made all days, of course, but other days may belong as well to the Jews, and heretics too; they may even belong to the heathens. The Lord’s day, however, the day of the resurrection, the day of Christians, is our day. It is called the Lord’s day because on this day the Lord ascended to the Father as victor.”

It may be noted that Jerome considered the first day to have been the day of Jesus’ resurrection and his ascension to heaven. In The New American Bible, this is also the view expressed in a footnote on John 20:17 regarding Jesus’ statement that he had not yet ascended. “Therefore his ascension takes place immediately after he has talked to Mary. In such a view, the ascension after forty days described in Acts 1, 1-11 would be simply a termination of earthly appearances or, perhaps better, an introduction to the conferral of the Spirit upon the early church, modeled on Elisha’s being able to have a (double) share in the spirit of Elijah if he saw him being taken up (same verb as ascending) into heaven (2 Kgs 2, 9-12).”

The scenes in the book of Revelation often do not follow a chronological sequence. At times, different aspects of the same event are portrayed later in the book or an early occurrence is presented after happenings that would take place later. The birth of the male child destined to rule is an early event (12:1-5) but is portrayed after scenes depicting later developments. Aspects about the effect on those facing the wrath of God and of the Lamb (6:12-17) are, in different imagery, revealed in later visions (14:18-20; 19:11-21). Revelation 14:8 reports the angelic announcement about the fall of Babylon the great, whereas Revelation 17:1-18:24 provides more detail about this harlot and her doom.

Messages to the Seven Congregations (2:1-3:22)

In his messages to the seven congregations, Jesus Christ called attention to specific features about his glorious visionary manifestation to John. Each message concluded with the words, “Let the one having ears hear what the spirit says to the congregations.” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22) The messages were conveyed to John through the operation of God’s spirit (1:10), and thus the spirit did speak. The plural “congregations” indicates that the message directed to a particular group of believers in one of the cities of the Roman province of Asia (western Turkey) also had an application to believers in other locations. By heeding the messages, individuals would reveal themselves to be persons with attentive ears.

Ephesus

Being in Christ’s right hand, those represented by the seven stars were under his direction, emphasizing their responsibility to submit to him as their Lord. The fact that God’s Son spoke of himself as “walking among the lampstands” made it clear that he was fully aware of the conditions in each congregation. (2:1)

The “works” of believers in Ephesus are identified as their “labor and endurance.” Their toil involved strenuously resisting men who falsely claimed to be apostles. The Ephesian Christians had diligently exerted themselves to test the claims and then established them to be false. For the name of Christ or for his sake, they had faithfully endured. They continued to be his disciples, not growing weary or giving up when faced with opposition, hostility, and ill treatment from unbelievers. (2:2, 3)

Nevertheless, believers in Ephesus merited Jesus Christ’s disapproval for having abandoned their initial love. Apparently their love for God, his Son, fellow believers, and fellow humans had ceased to be what it once had been. They needed to consider their former condition and recall from what they had fallen because of their failure to let love have its full expression. This should have motivated them to repent and to change their ways, bestirring themselves to carry out the former works, works that were an expression of an intense love. If they failed to make the necessary changes, Jesus Christ’s special visitation would result in losing their place as a lampstand. The community of believers would cease to shed light through laudable conduct and would no longer, by word and deed, be making the glad tidings about their Lord known to others. (2:4, 5)

In their attitude toward the works of the Nicolaitans, Ephesian believers were one with Christ. The hatred of God’s Son respecting the teaching of those who followed Nicolaus suggests that it must have grossly misrepresented him and excused corrupt conduct. (2:6)

All heeding Christ’s admonition are assured of the blessings to be enjoyed by conquerors. By refusing to become part of a loveless world and letting Christ’s example and teaching serve to guide their thoughts, words, and actions, believers would prove to be victors. As such, they would be allowed to partake of the “tree” or “grove” of life in the “paradise of God,” signifying an eternity of life in an exalted heavenly estate as persons having divine approval. (2:7)

The message to the Ephesus congregation contains a sobering warning. Vigilantly resisting false teaching and not giving up one’s identity as a Christian are not enough for gaining Christ’s approval. He set the flawless example in manifesting love, surrendering his life for undeserving humans, and he expects his disciples to imitate him. (John 13:34, 35; 15:12-14; 1 John 3:16) How severe, therefore, will be the judgment upon members of religious movements who act hatefully toward persons who do not accept their unique doctrines and interpretations!

Smyrna

Jesus Christ called attention to two aspects of his glorious visionary manifestation—his being “the first and the last” and his being alive though he had once been dead. (2:8) This description may have served to reassure believers in the city of Smyrna that through him all of God’s promises would be fulfilled (2 Corinthians 1:20) and that they, too, would be restored to life if they remained faithful until death.

Fully aware of their suffering and poverty, the Son of God commended them for being spiritually rich. Apparently unbelieving Jews in the city blasphemed or maliciously slandered them, likely contributing to their becoming objects of intense hostility among the larger unbelieving non-Jewish population. (Compare Acts 14:1, 2, 4-6, 19; 17:5-9, 13, 14; 18:12-15.) When opposing Christ’s followers, the unbelieving Jews failed to live up to the significance of their name as God’s people (“Judah” meaning “praised” or “lauded”; Romans 2:29) and revealed themselves to be a “synagogue of Satan” (the opposer or resister). The poverty of the Christian community in the city may largely have been the result of persecution. (2:9)

Jesus Christ encouraged them not to fear future suffering. At the instigation of the devil (the “slanderer”), they would be imprisoned, an experience that would prove to be a test to them and could lead to their death. The reference to “ten days” is perhaps best understood as denoting “a mere ten days.” Tribulation or distress would not be prolonged indefinitely but would come to an end. Jesus Christ promised to crown them with life for remaining faithful until death, proving themselves to be victors as he had been. All victors are assured of an eternal future, for the second death (from which no restoration to life is possible) would never harm them. (2:10, 11)

The message to the congregation in Smyrna illustrates that godliness is not the sure path to material prosperity, as professing Christians associated with certain churches or movements have been led to believe. True riches are of a spiritual kind, and the possession of such cannot be gauged by the external circumstances of the individual. A focus on externals (growth in numbers, building projects, or reported activity) tends to mask the spiritual poverty existing among the members of various churches or movements.

Pergamum

Jesus Christ’s reference to the sharp two-edged sword suggested that he was not pleased with certain developments among believers in Pergamum. (2:12) It may have reminded them of the words of Isaiah’s prophecy (11:4), “With the spirit [or breath] of his lips, he will slay the wicked.”

Those addressed knew what it meant to be living where the “throne of Satan” is. Antipas, whom Christ acknowledged as his faithful witness (one who fearlessly testified about him) had been executed. Nevertheless, the community of believers in the city refused to deny Christ. They courageously held fast to his name, indicating that they continued to acknowledge him as their Lord, and they maintained their faith in him. (2:13)

Jesus Christ expressed his disapproval of those among them who held to the teaching of Balaam and that of the Nicolaitans. Shortly before the Israelites were to enter the land west of the Jordan and while they were encamped in the plains of Moab, the diviner Balaam taught the Moabite king Balak to use women to induce Israelite men to engage in idolatry and fornication. (Numbers 25:1, 2; 31:16) Evidently, therefore, adherents to the teaching of Balaam would have been guilty of engaging in idolatrous practices, including the moral corruption associated therewith. The teaching of the Nicolaitans must likewise have promoted God-dishonoring conduct. Only by repenting and changing their ways could the guilty ones escape having Christ war against them with the “sword of his mouth.” Otherwise, they would not escape his condemnatory judgment. (2:14-16)

To all who conquer, remaining devoted to him to the end, Jesus Christ promised to give the “hidden manna.” During Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, the miraculously provided manna served as their primary food. (Deuteronomy 8:3) Therefore, Christ’s giving the victors “hidden manna” suggests that he would impart to his faithful followers everything needed to sustain their life eternally. Believers in Pergamum knew the significance of being given a white stone inscribed with a new name, but Christians today do not know which, if any, of various possible explanations may be correct. (2:17) Based on the names he gave to Simon and the sons of Zebedee, the “new name” may reflect Jesus Christ’s intimate knowledge of the individual believer. (Mark 3:16, 17)

The message to believers in Pergamum highlights that courage in the face of severe persecution does not in itself lead to Christ’s approval. Christians are called upon to live lives of purity and will be judged for the way in which they use their bodies. (1 Corinthians 6:13-20; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Peter 1:14-17)

Thyatira

God’s Son reminded believers concerning the appearance of his eyes and his feet in his glorious visionary manifestation. (2:18) This may have served to call to their attention that nothing escaped his penetrating vision and that he required pure conduct. When Peter objected to having his feet washed, Jesus told him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” This prompted Peter to request that even his head and his hands be washed. Jesus then replied, “One who has bathed only needs to have his feet washed, but is completely clean, and you [plural, including the other apostles] are clean, but not all.” (John 13:8-10) In this manner, Jesus revealed that more than physical cleanness was involved in continuing to have fellowship with him. While his disciples during their earthly sojourn continue to be in need of the cleansing he made possible because their walk is not flawless, he is pure in the ultimate sense. The glowing feet in the visionary manifestation would never need to be washed but would remain absolutely pure. The Son of God would not “walk” where impurity prevails and his requirements for cleansing are not met.

Among believers in Thyatira, Jesus Christ had observed their noble works or activities, their love, faith, service, and patient endurance. Their more recent activity as Christ’s disciples showed marked improvement in relation to their past works. (2:19)

Still, in their midst was a woman who displayed the spirit of Jezebel of old, concerning whose baneful influence on Ahab the Kings account reports, “Indeed, there was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of [YHWH], urged on by his wife Jezebel. He acted most abominably in going after idols.” (1 Kings 21:25, 26, NRSV) The woman in Thyatira called herself a prophetess and led others to engage in idolatrous feasting and fornication. Although Jesus Christ had given her time to repent, she refused to do so. He determined to cast her upon a sickbed and greatly afflict those committing adultery with her if they did not repent. As for her “children,” he would kill them. In view of the severe punishment upon these “children,” it does not appear that they were her illegitimate offspring but likely were individuals who had so completely imbibed her spirit as to have gone far beyond the point of possible repentance. Christ’s severe judgment would demonstrate to all other congregations of believers that he searches “kidneys and hearts” (his eyes penetrating the inmost selves of all) and that he repays all according to their works. (2:20-23)

Not all in the Thyatira congregation had fallen for the insidious teaching, refusing to “learn” by experience the debased practices meriting the designation the “deep things of Satan.” God’s Son would not place upon them any other burden besides the commands they were required to observe. (Compare Acts 15:28, 29.) Until whatever time God’s Son might make his visitation, they were to be firmly determined to fulfill their obligations, abstaining from idolatrous feasting and the moral corruption associated therewith. (2:24, 25)

The conquerors (all adhering to his ways to the end) would share with Christ in the royal authority he had been granted by his Father. This authority over the nations included the right to execute judgment against those opposing his rule, shepherding them with an iron rod and smashing them like clay vessels. In 22:16, Jesus Christ calls himself the “morning star.” If the significance is the same here, his giving believers the morning star could refer to his granting them an intimate relationship with himself. On the other hand, the appearance of the morning star marks the end of the night and the start of a new day. This could point to the victors being liberated from all the distresses associated with the night of their earthly sojourn and granted the joys and blessings associated with the dawning of the new day as sharers in Christ’s royal authority. (2:26-28)

The message to the Thyatira congregation stands as a warning to women who have attained positions of prominence and influence among professing Christians and who condone and even engage in practices that Christ disapproves. (Compare Romans 1:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 6:9-11; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8.) All who embrace their corrupt teaching and continue to engage in practices that are too shameful even to mention will not escape adverse judgment.

Sardis

To the congregation in Sardis, Jesus Christ identified himself as having the “seven spirits” (the fullness of God’s spirit operating upon him) and the seven stars (representing the seven angels or messengers of the congregations that were under his control and direction). He knew the actual state of the congregation. It had a “name” or reputation of being alive, probably among other congregations and the inhabitants of the city. Although seemingly active, the congregation was dead spiritually. Perhaps many Christians in Sardis had settled into a comfortable routine and were not stirred to action by deep love for God’s Son and his Father. Believers needed to wake up and strengthen those who were about to die spiritually, those who were nearing the point of ceasing to be persons who, in word and deed, furthered the cause of Christ. The “works” of the congregation should have been a reflection of deep concern for others and love for God, his Son, fellow believers, and people in the community. Jesus Christ, however, found their works to be defective, not fully performed before his God. As the one who intimately knew his Father or his God, Jesus Christ was thoroughly acquainted with what his God required. (3:1, 2)

Believers in Sardis needed to recall what they received or accepted and what they had heard. They had heard the glad tidings about Jesus Christ and the responsibilities associated with being his disciples, and they had accepted or responded to the teaching and started to live in harmony therewith. From the standpoint of “receiving,” they had been richly blessed when God’s spirit became the force that directed their lives. Consequently, they needed again to act in harmony with what they had accepted or received and heard, repenting and actively promoting the cause of Christ in word and deed. If they failed to wake up spiritually, they would face an unexpected visitation from him. He would arrive like a thief at a previously unknown “hour” or time. (3:3)

Still, a few in the Sardis congregation had not defiled their garments by failing to live up to their responsibilities as Christ’s disciples. God’s Son assured these faithful ones of being worthy to walk with him in white garments, identifying them as approved persons who carried out his Father’s will in purity. (Compare 19:8.) He promised to all victors or those remaining faithful to the end that they would thus be arrayed in white and not have their names blotted out of the scroll of life. Before his Father and the angels, Jesus Christ would acknowledge the name of each victor, indicating his approval of the individual as one belonging to him. (3:4, 5)

The message to the Sardis congregation indicates that it is possible to be deluded into thinking that visible public activity is an evidence of being spiritually alive. Such activity may have as its prime objective gaining converts for a particular movement and persuading others to adopt a belief system or support an agenda rather than advancing the cause of Christ. Persons associated with a movement may expend much time and energy, seemingly suggesting the existence of a vibrant community. In actuality, however, the activity may amount to little more than an exercise in futility and, even worse, distort Christ’s example and teaching.

Philadelphia

Jesus Christ identified himself as the one who is “holy” and “true.” As the one who is pure and trustworthy in every respect, he will always respond to the needs of his disciples and keep his word. Jesus Christ is the permanent heir of King David and in possession of the “key of David” or the full authority to admit persons into or exclude them from the kingdom (the realm where he is king). No one can alter whatever he opens or shuts. (3:7)

In the flawless estimation of God’s Son, the works of the congregation in Philadelphia deserved commendation. Apparently the open door Jesus Christ placed before believers in Philadelphia and which no one would be able to shut led to activity in advancing his cause. (Compare 1 Corinthians 16:8, 9; 2 Corinthians 2:12, 13.) Believers, likely because of their modest circumstances, possessed “little power” or carried little weight and had very limited influence in the city. Nevertheless, they heeded Christ’s word and did not deny his name or fail to acknowledge him as their Lord. Evidently they faced intense opposition from unbelieving Jews in Philadelphia. These Jews, like those in Smyrna, did not live up to their claim of being what their name stood for (“lauded” or “praised”), making them out to be liars. When opposing those whom God recognized as his approved people, they ceased to be an assembly of persons belonging to him and proved themselves to be the “synagogue of Satan” (the resister or opposer). Christ’s “giving” to believers those from that synagogue may mean that some of them would become believers or the giving may be in the sense that they would be made to bow down before the feet of believers, thereby humbly acknowledging that God is really among them. (Compare Isaiah 45:14; 60:14; 1 Corinthians 14:24, 25.) These Jews would also come to know that Christ loved his followers. (3:8, 9)

The expression “the word of my endurance” may be understood to mean Christ’s message to endure faithfully under test as he did. (Compare Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Hebrews 12:2, 3.) Because believers in Philadelphia had kept his word about endurance, Christ promised to keep them from the hour of test that would come upon earth’s inhabitants. This may mean that the distressing time to be experienced by others would not affect them in the same way. Although not exempted or immune, they would be safeguarded and sustained during the stressful time. (3:10)

Christ’s words, “I am coming quickly,” are timeless, assuring believers in every place and period of the certainty of relief from distress and encouraging them to regard his return with a sense of immediacy (not as being so distant in the future as to have no relevance for them). For believers in Philadelphia, his words added force to his admonition for them to keep fast hold on what they possessed as his disciples, resisting anyone who would cause them to forfeit their crown. This is a crown of victory, apparently signifying the glorious reward to be bestowed upon those who remain faithful to the end. (3:11)

In the temple of his God, Christ would securely position as a pillar the one conquering or proving faithful to the end. As a pillar, the victor would be identified as belonging to God, as a citizen of the new Jerusalem, and as belonging to Christ. This is indicated by the fact that God’s Son would write the name of his God, the name of the city of his God, and his own new name on the pillar or the victor. Christ’s new name may embrace all the power and authority granted him after his resurrection from the dead. (3:12)

The message to the congregation in Philadelphia illustrates that Christ can accomplish much with those who are devoted to him even though they may have “little power.” An open door stands before all who desire to advance his cause.

Laodicea

God’s Son identified himself as the “Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.” (3:14) The designation “Amen” signifies “surely” or “so be it,” and conveys the thought of absolute trustworthiness (an attribute believers in Laodicea had failed to display). Christ is the faithful witness, for his testimony always is reliable. Never does his testimony fall short of the truth, and so, in the ultimate sense, he is the true witness. Grammatically, the designation “beginning of the creation of God” could be understood to mean that the Son is the first of God’s creation. This, however, does not fit the context of the vision in which the greatness and transcendent splendor of the Son have been the focus. It appears preferable to regard “beginning” as meaning the start, source, or origin of God’s creation. This would mean that Jesus Christ identified himself as the one “through whom all things came into existence and, without him, nothing came into existence.” (John 1:3)

The Son of God was aware of the great lack among believers in Laodicea. Their works did not merit commendation. Believers in Laodicea were neither hot nor cold. Absent were the intense devotion and zeal associated with one’s being “hot.” As the opposite of “hot,” “cold” may refer to a state where nothing of a spiritual nature seems to exist. This is not a condition that Jesus Christ would have desired for those in the congregation in Laodicea. When, however, individuals, from all appearances, are cold (like the harlots, tax collectors, and persons living a life of sin during the time Jesus walked on earth), hope exists that they may yet come to repentance. Individuals in a lukewarm, self-satisfied, complacent, or halfhearted state are less likely to return to a flourishing spiritual condition. Jesus Christ found the lukewarm condition nauseating and threatened to spit out all existing in this state. (3:15, 16)

Laodicean believers imagined themselves to be rich, supplied with an abundance, and needing nothing. To Christ’s penetrating gaze, though, they were miserable, pitiable, poor, blind and naked. They needed to change, becoming fully devoted to Christ and obtaining from him everything needed to improve their sad plight (represented by refined gold, white garments, and ointment). This would result in their prospering spiritually and ceasing to be in a spiritually exposed and blind state. (3:17, 18)

Christ’s strong reproof and discipline revealed his love for them, for he earnestly desired that they would become zealous and repent in order to be approved. He had not distanced himself from them, but portrayed himself as being at the door willing to be invited in. With anyone who responded to him, he would choose to enjoy fellowship, depicted by mutual participation in a meal. (3:19, 20)

Jesus Christ had been granted royal authority, sitting with his Father on his throne. With the victor, the one who proved faithful, Jesus would share his royal authority, granting the conqueror to sit with him on his throne. (3:21)

The message to the Laodicean congregation highlights the grave danger of being deluded into thinking that one is thriving spiritually. The leadership in certain movements often contributes to this delusion, claiming that those associated are being supplied with spiritual provisions to overflowing. The reality, however, falls far short of the pretentious claims, blinding many to their wretched spiritual plight.

Notes:

For pictures of the ruins of ancient Ephesus and comments about the city, see bibleplaces.com/ephesus.htm.

For pictures of the ruins of ancient Smyrna and comments about the city, see bibleplaces.com/smyrna.htm.

For pictures of the ruins of ancient Pergamum and comments about the city, see bibleplaces.com/pergamum.htm.

For information about Thyatira, including pictures, see holylandphotos.org.

For information about Sardis, including pictures, see bibleplaces.com/sardis.htm.

For information about Philadelphia, including pictures, see holylandphotos.org.

For information about Laodicea, including pictures, see bibleplaces.com/laodicea.htm.

The Greek name “Nicolaus” means “conqueror of the people” and seemingly finds a parallel in the name “Balaam,” possibly meaning “swallower of the people.” In their teaching, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) may have followed the path of Balaam in promoting idolatry and the moral corruption associated therewith. Hippolytus (170-236) wrote that Nicolaus “departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food.” Victorinus, decades later, said that the Nicolaitans taught “to the effect that what had been offered to idols might be exorcised and eaten, and that whoever should have committed fornication might receive peace on the eighth day.”

Beyond the Open Door (4:1-11)

John saw an opened door in heaven, and the voice of God’s Son, which he had heard at the beginning, resounded like a trumpet and invited him to enter. Beyond the open door, John, “in spirit,” found himself beholding a throne. Seated, the glorious personage, the Almighty God, appeared in radiant splendor, which resembled “jasper” (possibly semiprecious white jasper) and “sardius” (likely a precious gem that is red in color). This description is insufficient for arriving at even a vague picture of the one whom John saw. A halo resembling an emerald encircled the throne and the one seated thereon. (4:1-3; compare 1:10-13)

Twenty-four elders, dressed in white robes and with golden crowns on their heads, sat upon thrones surrounding the central throne. As at Mount Sinai when the law was given, lightnings, thunders, and voices revealed the divine presence. (Exodus 19:16-19) Seven lamps burned brightly before God’s throne (representing the “seven spirits” or God’s spirit in all its fullness of operation and under his control and direction). John also saw something resembling a sea of glass, like crystal, in front of the central throne. Perhaps this reminded him of the molten sea or basin at the temple and conveyed to him the need for absolute purity or cleanness in the case of all who would be granted approach to the central throne. (4:4-6)

Four living beings, fully covered with eyes and each having six wings, occupied the position closest to the throne. Based on his knowledge of the book of Ezekiel, John would have recognized them as cherubs. (Ezekiel 1:5-11; 10:20-22) A different face distinguished one living being from another. Perhaps, though not necessarily, the face itself called attention to qualities or attributes. If the face of a man represented the noble qualities humans possess, the other faces could represent features in which humans do not excel — strength (bull, Proverbs 14:4), boldness or fearlessness (lion, 2 Samuel 17:10; 1 Chronicles 12:8; Proverbs 28:1), and speed (flying eagle, Habakkuk 1:8). Ever awake, ever watchful (with nothing escaping the view of their many eyes), the cherubs unceasingly declared God’s holiness. This suggests that they are upholders and defenders of the Most High’s purity. As even their wings have eyes, this may denote that the living beings could use them with full awareness in flight or when providing protective covering. (4:6-8)

Whenever the living beings glorify or praise, honor, and thank the Almighty, the twenty-four elders join in worship. Their crowns are not royal crowns or diadems (diadémata), but crowns of victory (stéphanos, often the designation for a victory wreath). Removing their crowns and placing them before the central throne would have constituted an acknowledgment that their victory and honor came from God and had been obtained on the basis of his unmerited favor. Because elders can represent an entire congregation, these elders appear to be representative of God’s people as already having attained their future reward (dressed in white, crowned as victors, and enthroned). Based on the names later associated with the New Jerusalem, the number twenty-four may be linked to the twelve apostles and the family heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. (21:10-14) John heard them acknowledging God as being worthy of receiving glory, honor, and power because he created everything, and, by his will, everything exists and came into being. (4:9-11)

Note: The words méta taúta (“after these things”) either end the sentence in verse 1 of chapter 4 (“must take place after these things”) or start the next sentence (“After these things, I immediately came to be in spirit...”).

The Sealed Scroll and the Lamb (5:1-14)

On the open right palm of the one seated on the central throne, John saw a scroll with writing on both the inside and the outside and sealed with seven seals. (5:1) (Probably because John could see writing on the outside, he would have concluded that there would have been writing on the inside or the usual location of the text.) Possibly the sealed scroll in the hand of the Almighty reminded him of the words in Deuteronomy (29:29), “the secret things belong to YHWH our God.”

An angel, strong in appearance, proclaimed with a powerful voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” This appears to be a question about who would be entitled to reveal the hidden things of God. When no one in heaven, on earth, or underneath the earth (evidently referring to all who had died) could be found to unlock the secrets of the scroll, John began to weep profusely. Apparently he thought its important contents would remain permanently concealed from Christ’s disciples because no one had been found worthy to open the scroll and look at what it contained. (5:2-4)

One of the twenty-four elders then told John to stop weeping, for the one who had conquered, “the lion from the tribe of Judah, the root of David,” could open the scroll and its seals. Based on what Jesus Christ had said to his disciples while on earth, the congregation did know that he alone could provide the complete revelation about his Father and enjoyed an intimacy that no one else had. (Matthew 11:27) So it was fitting for one of the twenty-four elders, as representing the congregation destined for future glory, to identify the worthy one. By flawlessly carrying out his Father’s will and laying down his life in sacrifice, Jesus Christ conquered the world. The world of mankind alienated from his Father and its god proved to be powerless in diverting him from his faithful course. He remained unconquerable and triumphant. (5:5)

As the “lion from the tribe of Judah,” he is the possessor of the rulership that was promised to remain in Judah’s line of descent and to which he became an heir as a man. (Genesis 49:9, 10) He is also the “root of David.” This designation may have reminded John of Isaiah’s prophecy about the Messiah. “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse [David’s father], and a branch shall grow out of his roots.” (Isaiah 11:1, NRSV) “On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious.” (Isaiah 11:10, NRSV) Through Jesus Christ, as from a root, the royal authority in the line of David came to life.

The visionary form of the glorious victor, however, did not prove to be a lion but a lamb with visible evidence of having been slaughtered. This emphasized that God’s Son had triumphed through his sacrificial death. Horns are representative of power, and so the “seven horns” of the Lamb identified Jesus Christ as the possessor of ultimate God-given power or of all the authority in heaven and on earth he had been granted. (Matthew 28:18) He also had the fullness of God’s spirit resting upon him as represented by the “seven eyes” or the “seven spirits,” which make it impossible for any development on earth to escape his notice or to interfere with the aid and guidance he provides to his disciples. (5:6) By reason of the unlimited vision made possible through God’s spirit, Jesus Christ is the possessor of complete knowledge.

When the Lamb took the scroll from the one seated on the throne, heaven resounded with praise. The four living beings acknowledged the greatness of the Lamb, prostrating themselves before him. Each of the twenty-four elders also fell down before him. The incense in their golden bowls represented the “prayers of the holy ones,” suggesting that the prayers of all of God’s people are being heard as if they were personally present. With their golden harps, the twenty-four elders accompanied their singing of a new song. Possibly the reason for its being called a “new song” is its focus on the new development relating to the once-slaughtered Lamb and the scroll. “Worthy are you to receive the scroll and to open its seals,” they sang, “for you were slaughtered and with your blood you purchased for God [persons] from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And to our God, you made them a kingdom and priests, and they will reign [or, they reign] upon the earth.” Collectively, Christ made persons he purchased with his precious blood to be a kingdom or a royal realm under him as king. Individually, he made them to be priests. (5:7-10)

Greek manuscript evidence is divided about the tense of the word for “reign.” Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and numerous other manuscripts read basileúousin, (“they reign”), whereas fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and many other manuscripts say basileúsousin (“they will reign”). The present tense would allow for the meaning that, while on earth, believers reign in the sense that they are no longer under the dominion of sin because of what Christ has done for them. Regarded from the standpoint of the future, they would be sharing in royal authority with him. The Greek preposition preceding “the earth” is epí, which has the basic sense of “on” or “upon,” but the term is not restricted to this meaning. In Luke 1:33, for example, the angel Gabriel is quoted as saying to Mary concerning the Son of the Most High, “he will reign over [epí] the house of Jacob forever.” If the future tense of reign is original in Revelation 5:10, the meaning could therefore be that the reign of the redeemed would be over the earth, with their location not being the aspect under consideration.

Next John saw an innumerable host of angels and heard them acknowledging the once-slaughtered Lamb as being worthy to receive the power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and praise. Then followed a universal expression of praise, with every creature in heaven, on earth, under the earth (apparently the realm of the dead), and in the sea uniting their voices and saying, “To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb [be] the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” The four living beings added, “Amen!” (So be it!), and the elders apparently fell to their knees and bowed down with their faces touching the floor of heaven. (5:11-14)

Notes:

In 5:6, fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and a number of later manuscripts do not include the word “seven” before “spirits.”

The Greek verb proskynéo, in its basic sense, denotes “to prostrate oneself” (3:9; 4:10; 5:14). In the visions, John would have seen persons kneeling and then bowing low. The context indicates whether prostration constituted an act of worship.

The Opening of the Six Seals (6:1-17)

When the Lamb opened the first one of the seven seals, one of the living beings (evidently the one having a lion’s face; compare 4:7), called out with a voice like thunder, “Come!” John then saw a white horse appear on the scene, but he provided no description of the rider. He only mentioned the rider’s having a bow and being given a “crown” (stéphanos, the common designation for a crown of victory). The rider rode forth as a conqueror to conquer. (6:1, 2)

In 19:11-16, white horses are associated with warfare conducted in the cause of righteousness or justice, and the one on the white horse in the leading position is identified as the Son of God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. This provides a basis for linking the white horse (6:2) with war waged in righteousness.

In the case of the other horses that appear on the scene after the opening of the next three seals, the riders are not personages and portray developments on the earth. Consistent with the imagery of the other riders, the rider on the white horse need not be identified as Christ but could depict the triumphs he would be effecting through his devoted disciples on earth. While on earth, Jesus Christ told his disciples that the glad tidings or gospel would be proclaimed to all nations and that they were to make disciples, teaching them to heed everything he had commanded them. (Matthew 28:19, 20; Mark 13:10) In Matthew 24:14, this good news is associated with the “kingdom,” indicating that its focus is on proclaiming Christ as the promised Messiah, the one to whom “all authority” in heaven and on earth had been granted. (For the content of the “glad tidings,” see Acts 2:22-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 8:30-35; 10:34-43; 13:17-41.) It should also be noted that no divinely granted authority exists for introducing elements that first-century believers would have perceived as going beyond the glad tidings they had accepted. [Compare Acts 26:12-19; Galatians 1:6-9; 1 Thessalonians 1:8-10.])

The apostle Paul described the advancement of Christ’s cause in terms of warfare. In his second letter to the Corinthians (10:3, 4, NAB), he wrote: “Although we are in the flesh, we do not battle according to the flesh, for the weapons of our battle are not of flesh but are enormously powerful, capable of destroying fortresses. We destroy arguments and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive in obedience to Christ.” (Also see Ephesians 6:11-17.)

Against the background provided by other passages in the Scriptures, the conquests of the rider on the white horse may appropriately be regarded as the triumphant advance of the “good news” despite all the distressing developments earth’s inhabitants would be experiencing until Christ’s return in glory. Nothing would stop the victorious advance of the glad tidings, as people from all nations would continue to be “delivered from the power of darkness” and transferred into the kingdom of God’s beloved Son. (Colossians 1:13)

Upon the opening of the second seal, the living being with the face of a bull (4:7) called out, “Come!” The fiery red color of the horse that then appeared on the scene suggested bloodshed. Its rider was empowered to rob earth’s inhabitants of peace, and the large sword he was given portended that they would be slaughtering one another on a horrendous scale. (6:3, 4; compare Matthew 24:6, 7; Mark 13:7, 8; Luke 21:9, 10.)

The devastation brought about by warfare results in disrupting agricultural operations and produces serious shortages of food. Appropriately, the opening of the third seal is followed by a portrayal of this consequence of war. Upon the opening of this seal, the living being with the face of a man (4:7) cried out, “Come!” The black color of the horse may have been suggestive of the blackening effect on the countenance of persons suffering from lack of food. (Compare Lamentations 4:8, 9.) The rider held a pair of scales. Based on the announcement that John next heard, the scales seemingly indicated food supplies would be limited and available for extremely high prices. He heard a voice that appeared to come from the midst of the living beings, saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius, and do not ruin the olive oil and the wine.” In the first century, a denarius amounted to a whole day’s wage. Though barley, viewed as the inferior grain, cost less than wheat, a denarius for three quarts would still be exorbitant. The command not to ruin the olive oil and the wine is probably best understood to be a directive not to draw too heavily on the limited supply and thus avoid exhausting it too quickly. (6:5, 6; compare Matthew 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11.)

Subsequent to the opening of the fourth seal, the living being with the face of a flying eagle (4:7) called out, “Come!” John then saw a horse of a sickly greenish color, and its rider was named “Death.” Hades, the realm of the dead, followed with him. John, however, said nothing about the visual representation of Hades in relation to the rider named “Death.” A considerable portion of earth’s inhabitants (one quarter) are revealed to be affected by the ravages of war (the sword) and the aftermath of famine and death-dealing disease. With the devastation of formerly inhabited areas, beasts of prey can pose a threat to humans, and this is also mentioned as one of the means “Death” claims victims. (6:7, 8; compare Deuteronomy 7:22; 2 Kings 17:26; Ezekiel 5:17; Luke 21:11.)

The opening of the fifth seal revealed the suffering that befell many of Christ’s loyal disciples. (Compare Matthew 24:9; Mark 13:9-11; Luke 21:12-17.) Underneath the altar, John saw the “souls” of those who had been executed because of the “word of God” and their testimony, evidently meaning that they had faithfully told others about their faith in the living God and the role of his Son in effecting liberation from sin. John did not say how he recognized them to be slain souls, but he did describe the sound of their cry as being “great,” suggesting that many had been slaughtered. Their lifeblood had been unjustly spilled, and their appeal for the execution of divine justice rested on God’s being holy (not countenancing wrong) and true (dependable respecting his promise to act justly). (Compare Luke 18:7, 8; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10.) They cried out, “Until when, O Sovereign, holy and true, will you not judge and avenge our blood on earth’s inhabitants?” In response to their cry, each one received a white robe. Seemingly with reference to the execution of divine vengeance, they were to “rest” or wait a little while longer. During this period of waiting more of their fellow slaves and brothers would be executed as they had been, completing the number of those who would be killed. The bestowal of the white robe may signify that those depicted as receiving such, the dead in Christ, would be resurrected to heavenly glory. (Compare 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) The words of Revelation suggest that, during the brief period remaining before Jesus Christ manifests himself in glory to execute judgment upon the ungodly and deliver all of his followers then living, a number of them would be executed for proving true to him and his Father. (6:9-11)

The opening of the sixth seal opened up to John’s vision a vivid portrayal of the upheavals portending the execution of divine vengeance. His description parallels the words of the ancient Hebrew prophets. A great earthquake shook the land. (Compare Isaiah 13:13; Haggai 2:6.) The sun looked black like sackcloth of hair (probably black goat’s hair) and the color of the moon like blood. (Compare Isaiah 50:3; Ezekiel 32:7, 8; Joel 2:31.) From the celestial dome, stars appeared to fall on the land like fruit from a fig tree shaken by a fierce wind. To John, “heaven” or the celestial dome would have resembled a scroll that touched the land. Like a scroll that is rolled up, the vault of heaven may have split at the horizon and then disappeared. (Compare Isaiah 34:4.) All mountains and islands moved from their respective places. Terror befell persons in all stations of life as they sought shelter in caves and mountain crags. Desperately they wished to escape the wrath of God and of the Lamb, preferring to have mountains and crags fall over them to avoid experiencing the dire consequences. (Compare Isaiah 2:10-21; Hosea 10:8.) The question that John heard from those seeking to escape was, “Who can stand?” (6:12-17) Yes, who would be able to survive the great day of the wrath of God and the Lamb? (Compare Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-28 for the similarity in language and note who will escape.) Developments depicted in the next scene answer this question.

Note: According to the reading of 6:1, 3, 5 and 7 in fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a number of later manuscripts, the “come” appears to be directed to John, being followed by “and see.” There is considerable manuscript evidence, however, for “come” without the addition, suggesting that this imperative is a directive for the horses and their mounts to appear.

Who Is Able to Stand? (7:1-17)

John next saw four angels, evidently standing at the four compass points of the land and sea visible to him. The “earth” at which he looked could not have been the globe as seen from outer space, for he would not have recognized our planet as did astronauts in the twentieth century. At their respective positions, the four angels were holding back fierce winds from blowing on the land and sea and against the trees. (7:1)

In the eastern location where the sun rises, John saw another angel ascending with the seal of the living God. He did not, however, describe this seal, which, like the scribe’s equipment in the prophecy of Ezekiel (9:3-6), would serve to place an identifying mark on those who would be spared from the effects of the destructive winds. With a loud voice, the fifth angel called out to the other four not to use their authority to harm the land and the sea until God’s slaves had been marked on their foreheads with the seal. This angel identified himself and the other four as sharing a precious relationship with those to be marked, for he referred to them as the “slaves of our God.” (7:2, 3)

In vision, John still found himself in the position of one who had passed through the open door in heaven. (4:1) He did not see any of those to be marked with the seal but heard their number — 144,000 from every tribe of the sons of Israel. (7:4)

Based on the angelic proclamation, John knew that all of those to be marked with the seal were slaves of God, Israelites, or God’s people in the real sense of the word. The earlier messages to the congregations in Smyrna (2:9) and Philadelphia (3:9) left no doubt regarding the radical difference between those who were Jews merely by natural descent and those who were truly Israelites or God’s people. Upon hearing the number of those to be marked with the seal as being “from” or “out of” every tribe of the sons of Israel, John would have understood that the true slaves of God were to be found among those professing to be his people. The manner in which the tribes are listed (Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin) seemingly would have alerted him to the fact that what was being presented to him in symbol did not apply to Israel according to fleshly descent. (7:5-8) In ancient Israel, the tribe of Levi occupied a special position in sanctuary service and was not listed as one of the twelve. With the inclusion of Levi, the name of one of the tribes of Israel had to be omitted, and this was Dan. The name Joseph is not the designation of a tribe, but he is represented by his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh in ancient Israel. The order in which the tribes are listed is distinctly different from the order in which the tribes variously appear in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Compare Numbers 1:5-15, 20-43; 7:12-78; 13:4-15; 26:5-50.) Moreover, the slaves of God or those whom he recognizes as his people do not have a distinctive tribal identity, and so those marked with the seal would not be able to identify themselves as belonging to any of the twelve tribes that John heard mentioned.

In relation to the number who returned from Babylonian exile, the number 144,000 is significant, much larger in fact. (Ezra 2:64; Nehemiah 7:66) As a multiple of twelve, the number 144,000 reflects the New Jerusalem that John later saw in vision, with its wall height of 144 cubits and its shape as a cube measuring 12,000 stadia on all sides. (21:16, 17) As a representation, therefore, the number 144,000 fittingly reveals that the complete Israel of God existing just prior to the execution of divine vengeance would still be a significant, though not necessarily a huge, number. Not a single one of them would be overlooked, for an equal number (paralleling the dimension of each side of the perfect city, the New Jerusalem) from each tribe would be marked with the seal of the living God.

It is noteworthy that, when asked whether only a few would be saved, Jesus Christ did not provide any hint about a number but replied, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.” (Luke 13:23, 24, NAB) The message conveyed by the number 144,000 is in full harmony with these words, revealing that all who will have heeded Jesus’ admonition will be among those to receive their portion “in the kingdom,” whereas many who would claim to be God’s people would lose out. (Luke 13:25-30) Instead of having a specific numerical value that would suggest a limit to the number that would be spared the execution of divine vengeance, the words about the sealing of the 144,000 provide the assurance that, at the very end, the angels will find a significant number of slaves of God among those professing to be his people. Apparently regarding such ones, Jesus Christ told Peter, Andrew, James, and John (Mark 13:3) that, after the developments that would terrify unbelievers, he would send out his angels to gather his elect from every place where they may be found. (Matthew 24:30, 31; Mark 13:24-27)

The next scene John saw was one of an innumerable large crowd from every nation, tribe, people, and language group standing before God’s throne and before the Lamb. Unlike the 144,000 whom he did not see, as they were on earth, he did see this huge crowd in the location to which his being transferred beyond the open door in heaven had led him. Attired in white robes and with palm branches in their hands, they acknowledged salvation as coming from God and the Lamb. (7:9, 10) The palm branches may have reminded John about what the crowd did when acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the “Son of David” and “the king of Israel,” when he rode on a donkey’s colt to Jerusalem. (John 12:12-15)

All the angels standing around God’s throne, the twenty-four elders, and the four living beings apparently fell to their knees and then bowed down, with their faces touching the floor of heaven. Their “amen” (so be it) expressed their full agreement with the acknowledgment of the white-robed crowd about salvation belonging to God and the Lamb. Prostrate before the Almighty, they continued with an expression of praise, “The blessing and the glory and the wisdom and the thanksgiving and the honor and the power and the strength [be] to our God for ever and ever. Amen.” (7:11, 12)

As at a previous time (5:5), one of the elders spoke to John. In reply to the elder’s question about the identity of the large crowd, John said, “You, my lord, know.” (Not all manuscripts include “my.”) As representing the congregation of believers, the elder would have known what Jesus Christ had taught and would have been in a position to answer accordingly. He told John that they are the ones who had come out of the tribulation or suffering and then referred to it as “the great one.” The elder explained that, because of having washed their robes and whitened them in the Lamb’s blood, the large crowd had been granted to be before God’s throne. Thus he indicated that their faith in the atoning value of Christ’s blood had made it possible for them to appear as acceptable before the Most High. There, where John saw them, they served continually (day and night) in God’s sanctuary. No more would they experience suffering, for God’s tent would be over them, assuring them of all the blessings and benefits associated with being his guests. No hunger or thirst or anything comparable to the intense, oppressive heat of the sun in summertime would ever affect them. Like a shepherd, the Lamb would lead them to fountains of waters of life, enabling them to enjoy life without end in an abiding relationship with him and his Father. Everything that may formerly have occasioned tears would cease to exist, for God would wipe every tear from their eyes. (7:13-17)

It logically follows that the people of God at the time culminating in the execution of his judgment would be appropriately represented by a much smaller number than would all those who have remained faithful to him throughout the centuries. Suffering or tribulation when in the past is often spoken of in a specific way as “the tribulation” or “the suffering.” The Contemporary English Version renders the elder’s words, “These are the ones who have gone through the great suffering.” This is consistent with the clear teachings set forth in other parts of the Bible about tribulation or suffering. (Luke 11:49; John 16:2; Acts 14:22; 1 Thessalonians 3:1-4; Hebrews 10:32-36; 12:3, 4; 1 Peter 4:12-16) Moreover, the Scriptures do refer to two groups of believers—(1) those who have completed their earthly life and thus passed through tribulation or suffering in faithfulness and (2) those who are alive at the time of Christ’s return in glory and the execution of divine vengeance. (1 Corinthians 15:51-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10) The vision of the slaves of God yet on earth prior to the execution of divine judgment and an innumerable throng before God’s throne, having entered upon their reward, appears to present this reality in vivid imagery.

Notes:

The genealogical and census lists of ancient Israel primarily list males. Similarly, in 14:4, the 144,000 are portrayed as men who did not defile themselves with women. Just as the ancient Israelites, during military campaigns, refrained from sexual intercourse to remain ceremonially clean, all the members of the true Israel existing prior to the unleashing of the destructive winds maintain purity in all respects. (Compare 1 Samuel 21:4, 5; 2 Samuel 11:8-11.)

In his letter to the Galatians (4:26, 27), the apostle Paul quoted from Isaiah 54:1 and applied the words to the “Jerusalem above,” which would come to have many more children than did the Jerusalem of old. The promise to Abraham likewise pointed to his having a large number of children. After he had demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, he heard God’s promise: “I will increase your seed [to be numerous] like the stars of the heaven and like the sand of the seashore.” (Genesis 22:17) This “seed,” as Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians (3:29), came to include all who belong to Christ. (See the Commentary section for additional information.) Understandably, therefore, those before the throne of God proved to be a large crowd. (7:9)

In 7:12, a number of manuscripts omit the concluding “amen.”

The Opening of the Seventh Seal (8:1-9:21)

A half hour of silence in heaven followed the opening of the seventh seal. This silence probably served to allow for the prayers of the holy ones or God’s people on earth to be heard. (8:1)

John saw seven angels standing before God. To signal the commencement of divine action, each one received a trumpet. (8:2)

Another angel, with a golden censer, stationed himself at the golden altar before the throne. The Greek reads “upon the altar,” suggesting that the angel stood and then leaned over the altar to offer up the prayers of the holy ones in combination with the large quantity of incense he had been given. From the angel’s “hand” (apparently from the censer he held in his hand), the smoke of the incense, combined with the prayers of the holy ones, ascended before God. (8:3, 4)

This scene appears to indicate that the incense made the prayers of God’s people acceptable. As humans, they were not free from sin but had righteousness accounted to them on the basis of their faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for them. Because sin contaminates everything, the prayers, in themselves, are flawed expressions but are made acceptable to the Most High, the holy God. (Compare Haggai 2:13, 14; Romans 8:26, 27) The fact that the angel received the incense suggests that the means for making the prayers acceptable did not originate with him. He simply acted in a priestly capacity much like Israelite priests in the line of Aaron. So there is insufficient evidence for the deduction that the angel is a figure of God’s Son in his capacity of high priest.

The angel filled the censer with “fire” (probably burning coals) from the altar and then cast this censer on the earth. Apparently the angel’s action constituted a response to the prayers of God’s people. Whereas Jesus Christ admonished his disciples to pray for their persecutors, he also taught them to pray for God’s kingdom to come, bringing relief from suffering and seeing to it that justice is executed. (Matthew 5:44; 6:10) In view of developments on earth that followed the hurling of the censer, the prayers evidently include appeals for God to render justice. (Compare Luke 18:7, 8; Genesis 18:20, 21.) The peals of thunder, voices, lightning flashes, and an earthquake seemingly signaled divine action in the form of retributive justice. (8:5)

The Blowing of the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Trumpets

At this point, the seven angels prepared to sound their trumpets. (8:6)

After the blowing of the first trumpet, hail and fire, mixed with blood, rained down upon the earth, burning up a third of the earth, trees, and green grass. Although a third is a considerable portion, the disastrous consequences left most of the land untouched. Nothing in the context suggests that here (and thereafter) a third is to be understood as applying to a particular area of the earth or to a people having a specific identity. (8:7)

When the second angel trumpeted, John saw a large burning mountain crash into the sea, and it appeared to him that a third of the sea had been changed into blood. A third of the sea creatures died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. Possibly the imagery reflects what happens when a submarine volcano erupts, hurling a fiery mass into the sea, causing the water to look red, killing fish and other sea creatures, and wrecking any boats in the area. (8:8, 9)

Subsequent to the blowing of the third angel’s trumpet, a large star named “Wormwood,” burning like a torch, fell from heaven upon a third of the rivers and the springs and made them undrinkable. Many died from drinking the bitter waters. (8:10, 11)

A third of the sun, moon, and stars became dark after the sounding of the fourth trumpet. This could mean that their light was reduced by a third or that for a third part of the day and the night total darkness prevailed. (8:12)

Next John saw an eagle flying in midheaven and proclaiming with a loud voice, “Woe, woe, woe to those residing on earth because of the remaining trumpet soundings of the three angels who are about to trumpet.” (8:13) The position of the eagle and its loud voice indicates that this large bird could be seen and heard over a wide area. Perhaps its speedy flight suggested to John that the judgments would follow quickly.

The calamitous developments that affected the earth resembled the plagues that befell Egypt in the time of Moses. (Compare 8:7 with Exodus 9:23, 24; 8:8-11 with Exodus 7:20, 21; 8:12 with Exodus 10:21, 22.) Because of failing to recognize the true God as the One who must be obeyed, Pharaoh and the Egyptians experienced devastating plagues, which came upon Egypt after the “outcry” of the oppressed Israelites. Like the Israelites in Egypt, afflicted Christians, in their distress, cry out to God. The plagues that come upon the unbelieving world are his answer to their prayers and are the precursors of the destruction of all who defiantly set themselves in opposition to God’s will. When humans disregard God’s ways, they bring ruin to themselves and their environment. According to Paul’s letter to the Romans (1:18-27), divine wrath is manifest in letting lawless humans experience the full brunt of their depravity. It may be preferable to regard the imagery in Revelation 8 and 9 in this light. Attempts to be more specific regarding the developments John saw amount to nothing more than conjecture, and the language does not permit a strictly literal interpretation (an eagle, for example, cannot make a loud proclamation).

The Blowing of the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets

After the fifth angel trumpeted, John saw a star that had “fallen” or descended from heaven. This star had received the key to the shaft of the abyss. Regardless of whether the star is to be viewed as representing a good or an evil agent, the one represented functioned as an instrument for removing a restraint, unleashing a terrible plague on unbelievers. When he unlocked the opening, thick, dark smoke ascended from the shaft, blocking out the light of the sun and darkening the air. (Compare Joel 2:10.) John saw hideous creatures resembling locusts come flying out of the smoke. Unlike locusts, they would not consume greenery but would torment unbelievers, those not marked with God’s seal on their foreheads. (Compare 7:3.) With the scorpion stingers in their tails, they would engage in tormenting activity for five months, the usual life span for locusts. The torment would be of such severity that unbelievers would prefer to die, but death would elude them. (9:1-6, 10)

John described the locusts as resembling horses. On their heads were what appeared to be golden crowns. The faces looked like men’s faces, with long (women’s) hair and lions’ teeth. Breastplates as those of iron served to protect them. (9:7-9; compare Exodus 10:12-15; Joel 2:4-11.)

The hideous appearance of the locusts suggests that they represent malevolent powers, probably of a demonic nature. (See Mark 5:2-5 for an example of the vicious nature of the powers of darkness.) Their crowns (stéphanos, often denoting a victory wreath) may suggest that they would succeed in their tormenting mission. The dreadful teeth resembling those of lions and the long hair, like women’s hair, seemingly are indicative of the locusts’ ferocity. Their strong breastplates suggest that any defense against their onslaught would be useless. The sound of their wings in flight resembled the noise of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. The king over this ferocious host is the “angel of the abyss,” called Abaddon (Hebrew) and Apollyon (Greek). Both terms mean “destruction” and could apply either to Destruction personified or to Satan, the ruler of the demons who has the power to cause death. (Hebrews 2:14) It should be noted that the star with the key to the shaft of the abyss and the “angel of the abyss” are represented in different roles, and there is no contextual evidence for viewing them as being identical. (9:7-11)

Dreadful as this woe would prove to be, two more (evidently more terrifying) were to follow. An announcement to this effect preceded the sounding of the sixth trumpet. (9:12)

The altar before God would have been the golden altar for offering incense. (8:3, 4) Accordingly, the voice from the horns of this altar (which John heard after the sixth angel blew his trumpet) could represent the prayers of God’s persecuted people, petitioning that the four angels bound at the Euphrates River be untied. These angels had been readied for a specific time (hour, day, month, and year) to slay a third of the men (less than half but still a large number of people). (9:13-15)

At its greatest extent, the dominion of Israel reached the Euphrates (Deuteronomy 11:24; 1 Kings 4:21), and invading forces would have come from the other side of this river. It appears, therefore, that the releasing of the four angels could signify their being liberated to allow an invasion to begin.

John described hideous horses, suggesting (as in the case of the locusts) a link to the powers of darkness. There would be nothing inappropriate about holy angels no longer standing in the way of an unleashing of demonic power. The books of Job and Daniel indicate that demons are not at liberty to carry out all they may desire. (Job 1:12; 2:6; Daniel 10:13) So, when a measure of restraint is removed, terrifying calamities follow. Without divine protection, a demonic assault would have devastating consequences. (Compare Matthew 12:45.)

The restraint, however, could not be removed (represented by the angels that were bound) until God’s appointed time. It is inconceivable that the voice coming from the horns of the golden altar would have been an appeal for the release of four bound demons. Rather, this voice would appropriately represent a petition for the execution of divine justice — retributive justice to be inflicted upon unbelievers when the powers of darkness are allowed to have free reign among them. No longer would the four angels be under restraint to keep the forces of darkness at bay.

The terrifying forces of cavalry numbered two myriads of myriads (two hundred million or, possibly, denoting a huge number that defies counting). John did not describe the horsemen but focused on their breastplates, the colors of which suggested destruction (red like fire, hyacinth or dark blue like smoke, and yellow like sulfur). The horses had heads like lions, with fire, smoke, and sulfur coming out of their mouths. These three elements plagued the unbelievers, depriving one-third of them (a considerable number but less than half) of life. The tails of the horses, resembling serpents, also had the capacity to injure. (9:16-19)

The unleashing of the terrifying plagues against unbelievers should have moved those who survived to repentance, abandoning their lawless ways and idolatrous practices. But they refused to do so. (9:20, 21)

The Angel With the Small Scroll (10:1-11)

John described the mighty angel he saw descending from heaven as clothed in a cloud, with a halo around his head, a face radiant like the sun, and feet (apparently including the legs) resembling fiery pillars. In his right hand, the angel held a small opened scroll, indicating that its contents were not secret. He placed his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land. This may point to the universal nature of the message contained in the little scroll, for the scroll (though small in comparison with the mighty angel) is a significant feature in this vision. (10:1, 2)

The angel cried out with a powerful voice comparable to a lion’s roar, and then the “seven thunders” (possibly representative of God’s voice in the fullness of its strength) spoke. When about to write the message the seven thunders had uttered, John heard a voice from heaven, instructing him not to do so. This indicates that not all things are revealed and that it is God’s will for certain future developments to remain concealed. Therefore, attempts to map out the future on the basis of the book of Revelation are bound to fail, and there is ample evidence to this effect in the form of failed predictions linked to specific dates. (10:3, 4)

In a number of respects, the descriptions of the angel and the one like a “son of man” are similar. (1:14-16) Victorinus, in his commentary on Revelation (third century), concluded that the mighty angel “is our Lord.” In the centuries since then, others have drawn the same conclusion. It would appear preferable, however, to accept John’s identification at face value. This is especially because, in the book of Daniel, an angel is similarly described. “I saw a man dressed in linen with a belt of fine gold around his waist. His body was like chrysolite, his face shown like lightning, his eyes were like fiery torches, his arms and feet looked like burnished bronze, and his voice sounded like the roar of a multitude.” (Daniel 10:5, 6, NAB)

The strong angel raised his right hand to heaven and swore by the eternal God, the Creator of all things, that there would be no more “time” or delay but that the “mystery of God” would be fulfilled in the days or time when the seventh angel is about to blow his trumpet. Apparently the fulfillment is represented as being simultaneous with the commencement of the trumpet sound. The angel identified the “mystery of God” as having been “announced as glad tidings” to his slaves the prophets. (10:5-7; see the Notes section.)

The Greek for “announced as glad tidings” is a form of the verb euangelízo, and the related noun euangélion means “evangel,” “glad tidings,” or “good news.” Evidently it relates to the “good news” with its focus on Jesus Christ. Included in that “good news” is the promise of his return in glory to execute justice and deliver his disciples from suffering. (1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10) Much about the transferal of living believers then on earth and their entrance into the glorified state with Christ has not been revealed, nor has the outcome for all of earth’s inhabitants at that time been disclosed in detail. Moreover, the time (the “day and hour”) for this to occur remains one of the concealed things of God. (Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7; Romans 8:19-23; 1 John 3:2; Revelation 15:3, 4) Especially for suffering believers, however, the announcement that there would be no further delay respecting the fulfillment of the mystery of God is good news, for it means that their distress would end and that all who had demonstrated themselves to be God’s enemies would be overthrown. During all periods of history since the book of Revelation was committed to writing, the angel’s oath-bound assurance that there would be no delay has provided a basis for hope, aiding believers to endure severe trials.

John again heard the same voice from heaven, instructing him to take the opened scroll from the angel’s right hand. When he did so, the angel told him to consume the scroll and that it would be sweet as honey in his mouth but bitter in his stomach. John then found this to be the case. (10:8-10) Evidently his eating the scroll and swallowing it represented his assimilating the message contained in the scroll and may also have included the commission to proclaim the message contained therein. As in the case of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the sweet taste may have been associated with the joy of the divinely entrusted commission and the blessings promised to God’s faithful servants. Because John was personally affected by the sour or bitter taste, this could indicate that believers would face suffering. In the case of Jeremiah, the message with which he was entrusted as God’s prophet, although a source of joy to him, also brought him much pain and distress, for it was an unpopular message. (Jeremiah 1:9, 10; 15:10-18) Ezekiel, too, faced stubborn resistance when proclaiming the message entrusted to him. (Ezekiel 3:5-9)

John did not identify who next spoke to him. He only related the words directed to him, “You must again prophesy against [epí] peoples and nations and tongues and many kings.” Although the Greek preposition epí basically means “on” or “upon,” the prophesying of judgments to come would favor taking it to mean “against.” A proclamation of judgment, as proved to be the experience of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets, would not be favorably received among those to whom it would be directed, and so this “prophesying” seemingly implied something “bitter” or “sour” for all who would be sharing the prophetic message with others. (10:11)

Note: For verse 7, there are a number of different manuscript readings. The reading “his servants, the prophets,” has considerable manuscript support, although the oldest extant manuscripts (P47 and Codex Sinaiticus) say, “his servants and the prophets.”

Two Witnesses (11:1-14)

John received a rod-like reed and was told to measure God’s temple, the altar, and those worshiping at the temple. As for the courtyard, he was instructed not to measure it, as it would be given to the nations and so would not have a sacred status. Furthermore, the nations would trample upon the holy city, the location of God’s temple. (11:1, 2; see the Notes section.)

Apparently this meant that John would be measuring the area around the temple that included the altar and where worshipers would be located. This may have reminded him of Ezekiel’s vision of a new temple and the extensive measuring an angel did there. In the case of the area around this new temple, the measurements included only the portion extending to the separating wall that served to distinguish the sacred from the common or the profane. (Ezekiel 40:1-42:20) Likewise, the instructions given to John applied only to the temple and the sacred area surrounding it, with the “nations” or those not recognized as true worshipers being able to access the court at will and also to trample throughout the holy city like any other place lacking a sacred status. This seems to indicate that God’s true people would find themselves in a situation comparable to being in the midst of what only appears to be a holy city and in the proximity of a “courtyard” filled with professing believers who are no different than people of the nations or unbelievers. This would agree with Jesus’ parable that his disciples, “the sons of the kingdom,” would be like wheat among weeds and humanly impossible to distinguish from those who were like weeds. (Matthew 13:24-43)

The 42 months during which the “nations” would trample upon the holy city and the 1,260 days during which the two witnesses would prophesy seemingly apply to the same period and may be regarded as paralleling the circumstances of an earlier time of comparable length. (11:2, 3)

In the first century, as evident from the writings of Josephus, the Jews understood the suffering experienced on account of Antiochus Epiphanes to have been a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Josephus commented on Daniel 8 as follows: “Daniel wrote that he saw these visions in the plain of Susa; and he [has] informed us that God interpreted the appearance of this vision in the following manner:— He said that the ram signified the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, and the horns those kings that were to reign in them; and that the last horn signified the last king, and that he should exceed all the kings in riches and glory; that the he-goat signified that one should come and reign from the Greeks, who should twice fight with the Persian, and overcome him in battle, and should receive his entire dominion; that by the great horn which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat was meant the first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of the earth, signified the successors that should rise after the death of the first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be neither his children nor of his kindred that should reign over the habitable earth for many years; and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away our political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years’ time. And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass.” (Antiquities, Book X, chapter XI, paragraph 7, William Whiston’s translation).

According to 1 Maccabees, the unfaithful Israelites initiated the action that led to the bitter persecution of those who endeavored to uphold God’s law. “In those days there appeared in Israel transgressors of the law who seduced many, saying: ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles all around us; since we separated from them, many evils have come upon us.’ The proposal was agreeable; some from among the people promptly went to the king [Antiochus Epiphanes], and he authorized them to introduce ordinances of the Gentiles. Thereupon they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem according to the Gentile custom. They disguised their circumcision and abandoned the holy covenant; they allied themselves with the Gentiles and sold themselves to wrongdoing.” (1 Maccabees 1:11-15, NAB, revised edition)

Regarding the terrible persecution of faithful Israelites that followed the desecration of the temple, the account in 1 Maccabees continues: “On the fifteenth day of the month Kislev, in the year one hundred and forty-five, the king [Antiochus Epiphanes] erected the desolating abomination upon the altar of burnt offerings, and in the surrounding cities of Judah they built pagan altars. They also burned incense at the doors of houses and in the streets. Any scrolls of the law that they found they tore up and burned. Whoever was found with a scroll of the covenant, and whoever observed the law, was condemned to death by royal decree. So they used their power against Israel, against those who were caught, each month, in the cities. On the twenty-fifth day of each month they sacrificed on the pagan altar that was over the altar of burnt offerings. In keeping with the decree, they put to death women who had their children circumcised, and they hung their babies from their necks; their families also and those who had circumcised them were killed. But many in Israel were determined and resolved in their hearts not to eat anything unclean; they preferred to die rather than to be defiled with food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die. And very great wrath came upon Israel.” (1 Maccabees 1:54-64, NAB, revised edition)

It appears that the “time, times, and half a time” (three and a half years) mentioned in the book of Daniel came to be inextricably linked to the suffering of God’s people during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. (Daniel 7:25; 12:7) Seemingly, therefore, the equivalent 42 months (1,260 days) may best be viewed as a symbol (not as a literal number of months or days), a symbol suggesting developments similar to those which faithful Israelites experienced during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Prior to the execution of divine vengeance, devoted disciples of God’s Son would face extreme distress, with many losing their lives. This would harmonize with the opening of the fifth seal, when the souls under the altar were told that more of their fellow servants would be executed. (6:9-11)

During the 1,260 days, two witnesses would be prophesying. They are called “my witnesses,” evidently meaning that Christ had commissioned them and that they would be acting as his witnesses. (Compare 12:17.) Their being dressed in sackcloth suggests their being in a state of mourning or distress and so engaging in their prophetic activity while undergoing affliction. (11:3; compare Genesis 37:34; Jeremiah 4:8; Hebrews 11:37.)

The two witnesses are also designated as two olive trees and two lampstands standing before “the Lord of the earth” or being in the presence of the Almighty God in an approved condition as his servants. (11:4) In the prophecy of Zechariah (4:11-14), Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor are likewise portrayed as two olive trees. At the beginning of the book of Revelation (1:20), lampstands are identified as congregations. This suggests that the two witnesses represent the entire body of Christ’s witnesses who, along with those serving as shepherds in their midst (represented by the two olive trees) let their light shine like lampstands. They do so by maintaining upright conduct and bearing witness about God’s Son to others. Possibly the reason for the reference to two witnesses (with the corresponding two olive trees and two lampstands) highlights the truthfulness or dependability of the testimony. (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19)

The activity of those represented by the two witnesses could not be stopped and they would succeed in carrying out their commission despite encountering intense hostility. (Compare Jeremiah 1:17-19.) This is indicated by their being empowered to consume their enemies with fire and having the authority to cause drought during the period of their prophesying. As often as they might choose to do so, they had the power to turn water into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague. (11:5, 6) Centuries earlier, Moses and Elijah did perform such miracles, and both of them did so among those who strongly opposed them. (Exodus 7:14-11:10; 1 Kings 17:1; 2 Kings 1:9-12)

After they completed their activity (their testimony about Christ), the beast coming out of the abyss would war against them, triumph, and then kill them. (11:7) According to the book of Daniel (7:17, 23), beasts are symbols of kingdoms, governments, or political entities. Based on this identification, the ruling element of the world would make an all-out effort to silence the testimony concerning God’s Son. Many of his loyal servants would be killed and the circumstances of others would become such that their testimony would be silenced.

The corpses of the “two witnesses” would lie in the main thoroughfare of the great city where their Lord was crucified. That city would be Jerusalem and is referred to as spiritually being called Sodom and Egypt, descriptive of moral corruption and opposition to God’s people. (Compare Isaiah 1:10.) Apparently Jerusalem is here representative of God’s professed people who are actually bitter enemies of those represented by the “two witnesses.” This circumstance parallels what happened among the Israelites during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. That the portrayal in Revelation is not confined to a particular physical location is evident from the fact that peoples, tribes, language groups, and nations would be looking at the corpses of the “two witnesses” for three and a half days, not allowing them to be buried (which would denote extreme contempt). Earth’s inhabitants would rejoice, sending gifts to one another, on account of having been liberated from the torments of the “two prophets.” (11:8-10)

After three and a half days, the corpses came to life, stood on their feet, causing those beholding them to become very fearful. A voice from heaven summoned the two witnesses, and their enemies saw them ascending in a cloud. (11:11, 12; see the Notes section.) This event seemingly is a pictorial portrayal of the dead in Christ being raised to life and those alive at his return in glory being changed in order to be united with him in heaven. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18; 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52)

A great earthquake followed. One tenth of the city (evidently Jerusalem that had become a spiritual Sodom and Egypt and so representing God’s professed people who had failed in living up to his requirements) fell or was destroyed, and 7,000 perished. Filled with fear, the survivors gave glory to God. (11:13)

The number 7,000 appears to represent a considerable number and, as a complete number (incorporating the number seven), seems to indicate that none who deserve the execution of divine vengeance would escape. This number may have been included to show that the loss of human life would be considerable — something that would not necessarily have been indicated by the destruction of a tenth of the city. Faced with phenomena that left no doubt in their minds about having God as their source, individuals, on other occasions, became fearful and made reverential expressions or acted in a manner that acknowledged the living God. (Compare Jonah 1:7-16; Matthew 27:54.) The circumstance that is here depicted seems to parallel what happened in the case of unfaithful Israelites in the wilderness during certain times of judgment. Although the majority were guilty, the severest judgment befell only a portion of the nation, and the rest often manifested a proper fear. (Exodus 32:26-28, 30, 31; 33:1-6; Numbers 16:46-49; 17:2-13; 21:4-9) Although the account in Revelation does not say what the future for those who glorified God would be, possibly this is an indication that, even in the time for the execution of his judgment, individuals may still be shown mercy and be among those of the groaning creation to be set free from corruption. (Romans 8:19-21)

With the second woe (the great earthquake and associated destruction) having passed, the third one would follow quickly. (11:14)

Notes:

In 11:2, the reading éxothen (“outside”) has the best manuscript support, including P47 of the third century C.E. Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a number of later manuscripts say ésothen (“inside”).

In 11:12, the reading ékousan (“they heard”) has the support of many manuscripts. The oldest extant manuscript (P47) and a number of other manuscripts, however, read ékousa (“I heard”).

Sounding of the Seventh Trumpet (11:15-19)

Earlier, John heard the promise that the blowing of the seventh trumpet would see the fulfillment of the “mystery of God.” (10:6, 7) When the seventh angel trumpeted, John did hear a loud voice in heaven, confirming the fulfillment of this promise. Evidently because all defiantly opposing God and Christ would come to their end, the kingdom or rulership of the world of mankind would be fully in the hands of the one whom all in heaven acknowledged as “our Lord and his [God’s] Christ.” Never again would those who oppose the Almighty and his Christ be permitted to exercise dominion in any form, for Christ would “reign forever and ever.” (11:15)

The 24 elders (as representing all of God’s people) seated before the Almighty apparently kneeled and bowed down. With their faces touching the floor of heaven, they worshiped him, expressing their gratitude for everything that would be taking place. They thanked the Almighty for having begun to reign. This is apparently to be understood as his ruling by means of his Christ and through him taking action to reward deserving ones and to punish the ungodly. The 24 elders acknowledged that, in response to the wrath of the nations (as manifestly revealed by their defiantly resisting his will), the Almighty’s anger had been aroused. The time had come for the dead to be judged, for God’s servants the prophets and all others having reverential regard for his name to receive their reward, and for all ruiners of the earth (by their deliberate disregard for God’s ways) to experience ruin. (11:16-18)

John saw the sanctuary in heaven being opened, revealing the presence of the ark of the covenant. Besides seeing the ark, which symbolized God’s presence and his covenant promises, John also observed other evidences of the divine presence—lightnings, voices, thunders, seismic activity, and a great hail. (Compare Exodus 19:16-19.) All these manifestations of God’s presence served as an assurance that he would be turning his attention to the earth, bestowing rewards on his loyal servants and executing punitive judgment on all those meriting it. (11:19)

The Woman Gives Birth (12:1-17)

John saw a woman clothed with the sun, having the moon beneath her feet, and with a crown of twelve stars on her head. About ready to give birth, she cried out in pain. (12:1, 2)

Then he saw a large fiery-colored dragon with seven crowned heads and ten horns. Its tail dragged a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. Positioned before the woman, the dragon was poised to devour the child about to be born. This child, a son, was destined to shepherd the nations with an iron rod. The dragon’s aim was foiled, for the child was taken away to God and his throne. As for the woman, she fled into the wilderness to her divinely prepared place, where she would be nourished for 1,260 days. (12:3-6)

This scene was introduced with the words, “And a great sign was seen in heaven,” indicating that the woman is a symbolic figure. Developments surrounding her child appear to be the key factor in properly identifying her. The future role of her son involved rulership, and he ceased to be in any danger upon being taken to God and his throne. Only Jesus Christ fits the description. As the promised Messiah, he alone was foretold to shepherd the nations with an iron rod. (Psalm 2:8, 9) While on earth, he was threatened with death as an infant and later found himself repeatedly subjected to the attacks of the dragon (Satan the Devil), which were aimed to sway him from flawlessly carrying out his Father’s will. (Matthew 2:13-16; 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; John 14:30) As a man on earth, Jesus was vulnerable like a child. That vulnerability is evident from the words in the book of Hebrews (5:7, NAB): “In the days when he was in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.” After his death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven, however, the dragon could do nothing to him. Accordingly, the imagery regarding the male child portrays the situation of Jesus Christ while on earth and then his return to his Father as the possessor of all authority in heaven and on earth. (Acts 2:33-36; 7:55, 56; Hebrews 1:3)

Based on his knowledge of the writings of the Hebrew prophets, John would have known that a woman could be a symbol of a congregation of people. (Isaiah 51:17-23; 52:1-3; 54:1-17; 66:7-13; Jeremiah 2:2-37; Ezekiel 23:2-49; Hosea 2:2, 3; Micah 7:8-10) He also knew that faithful servants of God longed for the coming of the promised Messiah and that he would, as a descendant of David, be from the tribe of Judah. (Compare Luke 1:68-79; 2:25-32, 36-38.) Accordingly, a sound basis exists for identifying the woman as being representative of the true Israel of God, the servants of the Most High as a collective whole. This would make it possible to view the woman as the mother of the Messiah and, later, as the persecuted Christian congregation. Possibly, because the true people of God on earth and the faithful heavenly sons of God are members of the same family (12:10), the woman may be regarded as including the angels. The flight into the wilderness, however, may be indicative that the woman primarily is to be viewed from the standpoint of God’s servants on earth.

Neither by day nor by night is the woman in darkness, for she is clothed with the sun and has the moon beneath her feet. Possibly this is indicative of her glorious standing as the recipient of the light of God’s favor. (Compare Isaiah 60:20.) In Joseph’s dream, the stars represented his brothers (Genesis 37:9, 10), and so it could be that the twelve stars stand for the twelve patriarchal heads of Israel. The names on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem, on the other hand, may suggest that the twelve stars could be linked to the twelve apostles. (21:14) Perhaps, as a “victory wreath” (stéphanos), her crown suggests the triumph that would be achieved through the child and in which God’s people as a whole would share. This would harmonize with the apostle Paul’s words to the Romans (16:20), “The God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet.” The woman’s cry on account of labor pains may not necessarily depict the groans and distress of God’s afflicted servants who longed for the relief to which the coming of the Messiah would lead. It may simply be part of the portrayal of what accompanies human birth.

In 12:9, the dragon is identified as the “Devil and Satan” (the slanderer and resister of God). The fiery color could point to a record of great bloodshed, for the devil does have the power to inflict death. (Hebrews 2:14, 15) As the ruler of the world alienated from and at enmity with God, the dragon is appropriately depicted as having seven diadems (crowns indicative of rulership). (John 12:31) The ten horns apparently denote the completeness of dragon’s power over the ungodly world, and the seven crowned heads the all-embracing rulership exercised through the governing elements of the world at enmity with God. On his side, the devil has “angels” (12:7) who have allowed themselves to come under his influence and control and may be depicted as a third of the stars (a considerable number but less than half).

It appears that the period of 1,260 days serves to recall the terrible persecution of the Israelites who endeavored to observe the requirements of God’s law during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. They, too, found refuge in the wilderness. (1 Maccabees 2:19-30) In the case of God’s servants as a collective whole, there was no literal wilderness to which they could escape after Jesus’ ascension to heaven. In their case, the world of mankind in which they found themselves was like the wilderness in which the Israelites wandered before finally entering the land God had promised to give to them. Although in the world, God’s servants are no part of it. Accordingly, the woman’s place is one God has prepared for her in the sense that it is, according to his will, one distinctly separate from the world. As the Israelites were sustained in the wilderness, so the “woman” is nourished for the entire period represented by the 1,260 days and therefore is preserved alive.

A Battle in Heaven (12:7-17)

Michael and his angels battled with the dragon and his angels, resulting in total defeat for the dragon. The dragon, the old serpent (called the Devil and Satan), the deceiver of earth’s inhabitants, was ousted from the place he occupied in the realm above the earth and, with his angels, was cast down to the earth. (12:7-9) The dragon’s being referred to as the “old serpent” evidently links him to his having used a serpent to deceive Eve. (Genesis 3:1-6)

The name “Michael” means “Who is like God?” In the book of Jude (9), he is called “the archangel” and, in the book of Daniel (10:13, 21; 12:1), “one of the chief princes” and the “prince who stands for the sons of your people” (apparently meaning standing as a defender or protector of God’s people). The Septuagint (12:1) says, “Michael the great angel who is standing over the sons of your people,” whereas the version of Theodotian reads, “Michael the great ruler who is standing over the sons of your people.” In Daniel 10:21, the Septuagint refers to Michael as “the angel,” but the version of Theodotian calls him “your ruler,” that is, the ruler of Daniel’s people. Jewish apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch, dating from before the time of Jesus’ birth) includes Michael along with six other angels of the same rank, two of the others being Gabriel and Raphael (mentioned in the book of Tobit). In 2 Esdras 4:36 (included in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles), Jeremiel is called an “archangel.”

While there have been numerous commentators over the centuries who have linked Michael with Jesus Christ, it would appear preferable not to introduce this interpretation. At other times in the book of Revelation, the descriptions clearly identify the Son of God. Therefore, it would seem unusual that, in this case, the identity would not be obvious but would be concealed by calling him “Michael the archangel,” an angel whom John would have recognized as “one of the chief princes” and not, specifically, as the preeminent Son of God who is greater than the angels. (Compare Hebrews 1:3, 4.) It may also be noted that a cry of command, an archangel’s voice, and the blast of God’s trumpet are evidently referred to as heralding Christ’s return in glory. Just as the Son of God would not be blowing God’s trumpet, he would not be announcing himself with a cry of command and an archangel’s voice. (1 Thessalonians 4:16; compare 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52.)

Based on his familiarity with the book of Daniel (10:13, 20, 21), John would have known about conflicts in the superterrestrial realm, with Michael coming to the rescue in support of another angel. Therefore, the war in heaven likely suggested to John the dragon’s desperate, hostile attempt to interfere with Jesus Christ’s exercising the full authority he had been granted.

The triumph Jesus attained through his death, as the apostle Paul wrote, “disarmed the rulers and authorities.” (Colossians 2:15, NRSV) While on earth, Jesus specifically referred to Satan’s future fall from heaven and his being cast out. (Luke 10:17, 18; John 12:31) Consequently, it would appear that the battle in heaven basically depicts the enforcement of Christ’s victory, ejecting Satan and his demons from the realm above the earth. No longer could they exercise the kind of superterrestrial tyranny from which people of the world of mankind alienated from God could not be freed. By accepting what Christ had done for them in laying down his life, people who once feared the powers of darkness above them and were enslaved to them gained their liberty. The total defeat of the powers of darkness meant that they could not again make involuntary slaves of those who had been freed or stop the flow of more people into the exalted realm where Christ is Lord. (Compare Ephesians 2:1-7; Colossians 1:13, 14.)

John heard a loud voice in heaven announcing what the defeat of the powers of darkness had accomplished: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers (who accuses them day and night before our God) has been cast out. And they have conquered him by the Lamb’s blood and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their souls [when faced with] death. Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and those dwelling in them. Woe for the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great rage, knowing he has little time.” (12:10-12)

The defeat of the powers of darkness signified salvation or triumph and proved to be a manifestation of divine power. God is the Supreme Sovereign, and the decisive action against the dragon and his angels revealed undeniably that God’s kingdom had come against its enemies. Moreover, Christ’s all-embracing authority had been displayed in the conflict that vanquished the powers of darkness.

The victory over the powers of darkness also opened up salvation or deliverance for people of all races, nations, tribes, and language groups. As God’s spirit became operative toward all who responded in faith to what Christ accomplished by his death, the workings of a tremendous power became evident in the dramatic changes produced in their lives. (Compare Ephesians 1:17-2:10.) In ever-increasing numbers, people chose to be willing subjects of God’s kingdom and to submit to the authority of his Christ.

The dragon’s accusation seemingly is the slander hurled against the “brothers” of the faithful angels, claiming that they were impure in their motivations and actions. (Compare Job 1:9-11; 2:3-5; Zechariah 3:1-4) As humans, they were sinners and not without blemish. By having the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice applied to them on the basis of their faith in his shed blood, however, any accusation made against them amounted to slander. So it would indeed be by the Lamb’s blood that they would conquer the false accuser, maintaining loyalty to God and Christ while trusting fully in the cleansing that had been effected in their case. (Compare Romans 8:1, 17, 33, 34; 2 Timothy 2:11-13; Revelation 1:5.) The triumph of the brothers even in the face of death, not loving their souls or lives when the “word of their testimony” concerning Christ could lead to death (from which they could have saved themselves by denying him), would reveal them to be unconquerable by reason of their faith in Christ’s shed blood and its benefits for them personally. Perhaps the proclamation about the triumph of the brothers is to be regarded in an anticipatory sense, as Christ’s loyal disciples would find themselves facing death for their testimony. Another possibility is that the brothers include even those servants of God before Jesus Christ came to the earth. The one sacrifice of Christ did cover all sins — past, present, and future. By reason of their faith in the coming Messiah, God’s ancient servants could be said to have conquered by the Lamb’s blood. (Compare Hebrews 11:4-12:1) One’s considering the woman to represent all of God’s servants would allow for the possibility that the brothers include all who proved themselves to be persons of genuine faith. (Compare Luke 13:28.)

While the defeat of the powers of darkness meant great rejoicing in the heavens, the dragon and his angels were not destroyed and were still in a position to wreak havoc on the earth or among humans. The devil’s fury was great, as he knew his time was limited, and this portended woe or calamity for the land and the sea, or people everywhere. God’s servants would become the special object of the devil’s rage.

Expelled from the superterrestrial realm, the dragon pursued the woman. To enable her to flee quickly into the wilderness and away from the serpent, she was given two large eagle wings. There, in the wilderness, she would be nourished for three and a half times. The serpent’s efforts to destroy her by spewing forth water like a river to drown her failed, for help came from an unexpected source. The earth opened up and swallowed the water. Apparently this image of the woman’s escape served to show that God’s people as a collective whole or a congregation would not be destroyed. (Compare Matthew 16:18.) As individuals, however, they would experience the devil’s rage, for he would war against the “seed of the woman” or those who observe God’s commands and bear witness concerning Jesus. (12:13-17)

Two Beasts (12:18-13:18)

Standing upon the sand of the seashore, the dragon evidently summoned his agents to launch his attacks against God’s servants, the “seed of the woman.” A beast with seven heads and ten horns ascended out of the sea. This beast had ten diadems (crowns denoting rulership), and blasphemous names on its heads. It looked like a leopard and had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The beast derived its power, throne, and great authority from the dragon. John noted that one of the heads appeared to have been slaughtered but had recovered from the death blow. All of earth’s inhabitants were amazed, apparently on account of the healing that had taken place, and followed after the beast. They venerated the dragon because of having given power to the beast and they adored the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can war with it?” (12:18; 13:1-4)

In a number of respects, this beast is a composite of the four beasts mentioned in Daniel chapter 7 and which beasts represent kingdoms or governing powers. Accordingly, the beast ascending out of the sea evidently represents the governing element of this world, which has the dragon as its god. Its ten horns would represent the totality of its power. The blasphemous names on its heads apparently denote the honors it takes to itself and demands that it be accorded. These “names” are blasphemous, evidently because of belonging rightfully only to the Most High. If regarded as a number of completeness, the seven heads could represent all the ruling elements through which the beast exercises its control. It would appear that the seemingly fatal blow would have been directed against the governing authority of the world in John’s time. The recovery from the fatal blow mimics the death and resurrection of Christ, and the question “Who is like the beast?” blasphemously parodies the meaning of Michael (“Who is like God?”).

When Jesus Christ, by his death in faithfulness, conquered the world and was revealed to have been triumphant upon his resurrection from the dead, it appeared that a fatal blow had been dealt to the beast. This was evident from the rapid increase of those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord or King. As revealed in the book of Acts, the dominant world power of that time, Rome, did not try to hinder the proclamation of the glad tidings about Jesus Christ. Thus, initially, it appeared that the power of the world had been vanquished as respects his disciples and their activity. The beast, however, though having experienced a seemingly fatal blow, continued to live, recovered from the mortal wound to one of its heads, strengthened itself against what it regarded as a serious threat to its existence and began a vicious campaign of persecution against Christ’s disciples. The world of mankind alienated from God fully endorsed the beastly attacks against Christians, thereby actively supporting the dragon’s objective and that of the beast. This anti-God stance and the granting of unqualified allegiance to the state in its role as a persecutor constituted worship of the dragon and of the beast. The deluded masses looked upon the governing element as the ultimate authority. So, in their estimation, the beast had no equal and no power existed anywhere that could possibly wage a successful conflict against it.

As the instrument of the dragon, the beast had been given a mouth to speak “great things and blasphemies,” probably indicative of arrogant, defiant expressions against the Most High and a demand for honors to which God alone is rightfully entitled. The period of 42 months is the same as the length of time the two witnesses prophesied and is reminiscent of the time of distress godly Israelites faced during the extreme oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes. The governing element of the world, represented by the beast, would continue to blaspheme God, his name, and his tent, including those tenting in the heavens. (13:5, 6) The Greek word for “tent” (skené) often designates a temporary shelter, and so may refer to the Christian congregation where the Almighty dwells by means of his spirit. By reason of their heavenly citizenship, Christ’s disciples are tenting in a heavenly estate. (Compare Ephesians 2:1-6.) To the Corinthians, the apostle Paul wrote: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and [that] the spirit of God resides in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16) “We are the temple of the living God, just as God said, ‘I will dwell and walk among them, and I will be their God and they will be my people.’” (2 Corinthians 6:16)

It is noteworthy that what is said about the beast bears a striking similarity to the language in the book of Daniel, which described the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes. “He will speak words against the Most High, and will harass the holy ones of the Most High. He will think of changing times and laws, and they will be delivered into his power for a time, times, and half a time.” (7:25, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) A “horn,” representative of Antiochus Epiphanes, “grew as high as the host of heaven and it hurled some stars of the [heavenly] host to the ground and trampled them. It vaunted itself against the very chief of the host; on its account the regular offering was suspended, and His holy place was abandoned.” (Daniel 8:9-11, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “He will have great strength, but not through his own strength. He will be extraordinarily destructive; he will prosper in what he does, and destroy the mighty and the people of holy ones. By his cunning, he will use deceit successfully. He will make great plans, will destroy many, taking them unawares, and will rise up against the chief of chiefs.” (Daniel 8:24, 25, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “The king will do as he pleases; he will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and he will speak awful things against the God of gods. He will prosper until wrath is spent, and what has been decreed is accomplished. He will not have regard for the god of his ancestors or for the one dear to women; he will not have regard for any god, but will magnify himself above all.” (Daniel 11:36, 37, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition])

During all the time Christ’s loyal disciples would be bearing witness to him, the beast or the ruling power of the world would continue to war against them and, finally, would conquer them, apparently from the standpoint of silencing their testimony. As a governing power, the beast would exercise its granted authority over every tribe, people, language group, and nation. All earth’s inhabitants alienated from God would adore the beast, but the names of these worshipers would not be found written in the Lamb’s book of life. From the founding of the world or from the very start, none who would defiantly refuse to acknowledge the Most High and render to someone or some thing veneration belonging to him alone would be in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. They would not benefit from Christ’s sacrificial death and so would not be granted life through him. (13:7, 8)

In the Greek text, the words “from the foundation of the world” follow the word “slaughtered” or “slain,” and so could be read to mean “slain from the foundation of the world.” The Son of God, however, did not die at the time of the founding of the world, and so it appears preferable to render the words of Revelation as a number of translations have. (See also Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 17:8.) “All the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, all whose names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life, which belongs to the Lamb who was slain.” (13:8, NAB) “All the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.” (NRSV) “The beast was worshiped by everyone whose name wasn’t written before the time of creation in the book of the Lamb who was killed.” (CEV) These renderings would also harmonize with the command given to the first man, revealing that disregard for the Creator and his ways would lead to the forfeiture of life and all the blessings having their source in an abiding relationship with him. This command rested on a prior divine determination, for “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” existed before the first man was settled in the garden of Eden. (Genesis 2:16, 17)

All having an attentive ear are admonished to listen or pay attention, apparently to the words that follow. “If anyone [is meant] for captivity, into captivity he goes; if anyone [is destined] to be killed by the sword, by the sword he is to be killed.” (13:9, 10) This indicated that Christ’s disciples would face banishment and execution, but they were not to rise up in revolt, arming themselves against the ruling power of the world. (Compare Matthew 26:52; 1 Peter 2:21-23; 3:16-18.) Faced with the vicious assaults of the beast or the ruling authority and the resulting suffering, they, the “holy ones,” would need endurance and faith, remaining loyal to God and Christ and trusting fully in them and the certainty of attaining the eternal reward. (13:10)

John saw another beast. This beast ascended out of the earth and had two horns like a lamb but spoke as a dragon. (13:11) Like the beast that ascended out of the sea, the one ascending out of the earth is a tool of the dragon. Possibly the reference to their ascending from the sea and the land is representative of the universal nature of the attack against God’s people. Later, the two-horned beast is referred to as the “false prophet.” (16:13; 19:20; 20:10) This suggests that, unlike the ten-horned beast that represents the governing power of the world, the two-horned beast represents a religious power. This two-horned beast claims to be a prophet, gives the appearance of being a lamb, presents itself as speaking for God but actually speaks like a dragon, being in the devil’s service. (Compare Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Corinthians 11:13, 14.)

The two-horned beast functioned before the ten-horned beast with like authority and induced or forced earth’s inhabitants to adore the ten-horned beast that had recovered from the fatal blow to one of its seven heads. (13:12) In its role as a false prophet, the two-horned beast mimics the activity of the two prophets representing God’s devoted people as a whole, performing great signs, causing even fire to descend from heaven for all to see. (11:5, 6; 13:13) These signs would deceive earth’s inhabitants and give credence to the two-horned beast’s proposal to make an image of the beast that had recovered from the sword stroke. The two-horned beast was permitted to grant spirit to the image, giving it life and enabling it to speak and cause those refusing to worship it to be killed. It is the two-horned beast (rather than the image) that would force persons in all stations of life — insignificant and great, rich and poor, free and slave — to receive a mark on their right hand or their forehead. Without the identifying mark, the name of the beast (the one with ten horns) or the number of its name, a person would not be able to buy or sell. The individual’s means for making a living would thus be ruined. (13:14-17)

An image is a lifeless thing, an unreality. Any putting of life into an image would really be a fraud or a deception. Likely the giving of life to the image is from the standpoint of those who are deluded into believing that it is something real. Those who are thus deceived are openly identified as being slaves of the beast, marked as supporting it with either their hand or their mental faculties. It appears that the image is the deceptive delusion the religious power creates that causes people to adore the ruling power of the world as if such veneration were the fulfillment of a divine duty. Because of the fanaticism associated with such adoration, the rage of those idolizing the political state is directed against those who remain faithful to God, refusing to fall for the deception that would make them worshipers of the ten-horned beast. By reason of what the deluded worshipers do, the image (the means by which they have been deceived into adoring the beast) causes persons loyal to God and Christ to be killed. History is replete with examples where individuals have been deprived of their livelihood and suffered death for refusing to revere the political state.

Wisdom is needed to avoid being deluded, making it possible to identify the beast for what it really is. The beast has an identifying number, 666, and that number is a man’s number. (13:18) Spiritual discernment (the possession of a properly directed mind) is needed to make the right calculation respecting the number, seeing the beast for what it is and acting accordingly. The number “seven” represents completeness or perfection (as seven days are a complete week). As a man’s number, 666 is multiple of six and highlights that which is seriously flawed (for man is sinful) and so falls far short of that which is godly. The threefold appearance of the number six emphasizes just how defective all ruling power of this world is.

Throughout the course of human history, some governmental systems have been better than others and varied in the manner in which they treated God’s servants. Still, the book of Daniel portrayed all of them as beasts. The beastly nature especially rears its ugly head in time of war or national crisis when defenseless humans are ruthlessly maimed and slaughtered or innocent victims are treated like criminals, incarcerated, and tortured. All the beasts in the world have never caused the kind of suffering and carnage among humankind as have the wars and oppressive measures undertaken by the ruling powers of this world—conflicts and other violent actions the ecclesiastical authorities usually supported. Furthermore, to the masses, those wielding powerful religious influence have often represented the participation in war and repressive actions as a divine duty.

Disciples of God’s Son need to be on guard against thinking that the ruling power of the world is anything other than a beast. While remaining law-abiding and exemplary subjects of whatever governmental authority under which they may find themselves living, they do not forget that the kingdom of their Lord is not of this world. The most vicious anti-God and anti-Christ development is still future, climaxing in the deadly assault on those represented by the two witnesses. The pages of history provide sufficient glimpses of how terrifying that climax may be. (11:7) Will any of the believers marked with the seal of God succumb to the extreme pressure and lose out? (7:2-4) Or, will all of them be safeguarded by God’s power and share in the inheritance he has promised them?

Notes:

In 12:18, the reading estáthe (“it stood,” referring to the dragon) has superior manuscript support. A number of manuscripts, however, say estáthen (“I stood,” referring to John).

The “image” (13:14, 15) is not portrayed as existing as an entity. Whereas the “beast” and the “false prophet” are later spoken of as being cast into the lake of fire, no mention is made of a like fate for the image of the beast. (19:20)

In 13:18, the number 666 has the best manuscript support. There is limited manuscript evidence for the reading 616.

The Lamb and the 144,000 (14:1-5)

On Mount Zion (evidently the heavenly Mount Zion [Hebrews 12:22]), John saw the Lamb with the 144,000. Earlier, he had heard this number as applying to those who would be marked with the seal of the living God. (7:4) He now saw them with the name of the Lamb and the name of his Father written on their foreheads, indicating that they belonged to him and to his Father. (14:1) This also suggests that the seal of the living God had thus identified them. (Compare 2 Timothy 2:19.) Not a single one of them had been lost. All had endured to the end and maintained their faith, having received needed help from above while the powers of darkness launched their fierce attack against them. (Compare Matthew 24:9-13; John 10:27-30; 17:12; 18:8, 9; Revelation 13:10, 11.)

Coming from the heavens, John heard an impressive sound comparable to the roar of abundant waters in motion and peals of thunder. It was a melodious sound like that of “harpists harping on their harps.” Before the throne of God, the four living beings, and the twenty-four elders, a great throng (probably the entire heavenly host) sang a composition that John perceived as being a new song. The 144,000 had no problem in learning it. As the only ones who had been purchased from the earth before the destructive winds began to blow, they were also the only ones able to learn this song. Apparently their aptitude for learning it rested on their relationship with the Son of God and their having remained faithful to the end when faced with severe trials. They had maintained their virgin purity, not defiling themselves with “women.” (14:2-4) This indicated that they had not amorously attached themselves to any part of the world alienated from God, which would have constituted an act of unfaithfulness to him or adultery. (Compare James 4:4.)

The 144,000 are revealed as having an intimate relationship with the Lamb, following him wherever he may go. (14:4) This is the kind of intimacy the apostles enjoyed while Jesus Christ was on earth. (Compare Mark 3:13, 14.)

John referred to the 144,000 as having been purchased from among humankind as “firstfruits” to God and to the Lamb. (14:4) The term “firstfruits” need not be understood as signifying that the 144,000 were just a small part of a far larger harvest that would eventually follow. In the Septuagint, the term for “firstfruits” (aparché) can simply denote an “offering” (Exodus 25:2, 3) and may have this meaning here — a significance that would agree with Paul’s words that the “offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by holy spirit.” (Romans 15:16) Another possibility is that aparché could denote a choice or precious portion devoted to God and the Lamb.

The 144,000 proved themselves to be upright. They did not make themselves guilty of deceiving others with lies and lived blameless lives. In word and deed, they were without blemish. (14:5; compare Ephesians 1:3, 4; 4:25-5:5, 25-27; Philippians 2:14, 15.)

Notes:

In 14:3, the oldest manuscripts and numerous later manuscripts omit hos (“as” or “like”) before “new song.” The word is, however, found in many other manuscripts, including fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus.

On 14:4, see the Notes section on Revelation 7.

Three Angelic Proclamations (14:6-12)

John saw an angel flying in midheaven, evidently so that his proclamation could be heard far and wide. As the messenger of an eternal evangel or good news for all of earth’s inhabitants (every nation, tribe, language group, and people), he proclaimed with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come, and worship the Maker of heaven and earth and sea and springs of water.” (14:6, 7) The specific content of this evangel belongs to the realm of eternity, as the abiding obligation of all who owe their life to the Most High is to have reverential regard for him and accord him the glory or honor that is rightfully his. At the time of judgment, when the final hour arrives, earth’s inhabitants apparently will still have an opportunity to humbly submit to the Creator and thus escape the frightful judgment that will befall all who defiantly set themselves in opposition to him. (11:13; compare Acts 14:15-17; 2 Peter 3:9.)

John then saw a second angel. He made the announcement, “Fallen, fallen [is] Babylon the great, which made all the nations drink the wine of the passion of her fornication.” (14:8) At the coming hour of judgment, this Babylon will be the first to be punished for her God-dishonoring actions that put people everywhere into a state comparable to a drunken stupor. The identity of “Babylon the great” and the severe judgment to be executed upon her is revealed later. (17:1-18:24)

With a loud voice, the third angel proclaimed that anyone worshiping the beast and its image and accepting its mark on his forehead or on his hand would drink of the wine of God’s fury, poured full strength into the cup of his wrath, and would be tormented with fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the Lamb. The smoke of the torment would ascend forever and ever, with no rest or relief from the torment either day or night for the worshipers of the beast or for anyone accepting the identifying mark of its name. (14:9-11)

For those who adore the beast or the ruling power of this world and oppose God’s will, their having to drink from the cup of his anger would mean their having to experience his unmitigated anger, an irreversible condemnatory judgment. The torment with fire and sulfur evidently is to be understood against the backdrop of similar images of divine judgment. Regarding Edom, the prophecy of Isaiah (34:9, 10, NIV) says about YHWH’s day of vengeance: “Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch, her dust into burning sulfur; her land will become blazing pitch! It will not be quenched night and day; its smoke will rise forever.” The portrayal is that of eternal ruin (comparable to what happens in an area of dried-up vegetation that is engulfed in flames and transformed into a wasteland). This is evidently also the way in which the imagery in the book of Revelation is to be viewed. The worshipers of the beast will be sentenced to eternal doom, with no possibility of any relief or release. Like ascending smoke that gives evidence of a destructive fire, the evidence of their torment or everlasting loss will remain eternally. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah the fires ceased burning long ago, but their end came with such finality and thoroughness that Jude (verse 7) could speak of the cities as undergoing a judgment of eternal fire. The dreadful judgment to be executed on the worshipers of the beast will not be hidden from the holy angels and the Lamb. (Compare Isaiah 66:24.) Moreover, when the time for the execution of the final judgment arrives, those who will be facing their eternal doom apparently will become fully aware of just how great their loss will be. This is suggested by references to “weeping and gnashing of teeth” resulting from the pain or torment of unalterable loss. (Matthew 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28)

Apparently because the pressure to join in worshiping the beast will be intense, God’s people, or the “holy ones” who observe his commands and have the faith that focuses on Christ, would need endurance so as not to give in. (14:12) A full awareness of how severe the judgment will be for those who side with the beast would serve as strong encouragement not to yield and to endure faithfully.

The Dead in the Lord (14:13)

John again heard a voice from heaven, telling him to write, “‘Fortunate are the dead dying in the Lord from now on.’ ‘Yes,’ says the spirit, ‘they will rest from their labors, for their works accompany them.’” (14:13) Those dying in the Lord are believers who are at one with him, united to him as members of his body. They are pronounced fortunate, blessed, or in a highly desirable situation evidently because of immediately receiving their heavenly inheritance. Whereas the worshipers of the beast have no rest, those who remained loyal to God and Christ rest from their earthly labors. The record of their godly deeds accompanies them, leading to a favorable judgment. (Compare 2 Corinthians 5:8-10.) Apparently the “spirit” is referred to as speaking because John received the message of the vision through the operation of God’s spirit. This particular message seems to relate to the climax (the time of judgment). Those represented by the two witnesses would be killed by the beast, and any who may then perish would be resurrected and united with their Lord in the heavens. Others who may escape death but whose testimony would basically have been silenced would be changed and thus come to share in their heavenly inheritance. (Compare 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, 58; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10.)

A Harvest Under Christ’s Direction (14:14-16)

John saw someone like a son of man seated on a white cloud. This one had a golden crown (stéphanos, commonly designating a victory wreath) on his head and a sharp sickle in his right hand. An angel then came out of the heavenly sanctuary, evidently to convey the Father’s message to his Son. That message was for him to use his sickle to reap, for earth’s crop was then ripe. The one seated on the cloud then harvested the earth with his sickle. (14:14-16)

This picture appears to relate to the time of Jesus Christ’s return in glory, which is elsewhere in the Scriptures referred to as his coming on the clouds. (Daniel 7:13; Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27) His crown seemingly identifies him as the one who had conquered the world. This particular harvest apparently relates to the gathering of the “elect,” the faithful servants of God and devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, who will then receive their heavenly reward. (Matthew 24:31, 40-42; Luke 17:34-37) That the announcement respecting the time for this to commence is portrayed as being conveyed to the Son of God harmonizes with his words, “Of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Mark 13:32)

Harvesting the Vine of the Earth (14:17-20)

John saw yet another angel, carrying a large sickle, coming out of the heavenly sanctuary. Another angel, with authority over the fire, came from the altar. With a loud voice, he told the angel with the sickle to use it for harvesting the grape clusters of the vine of the earth, for its grapes were ripe. The angel harvested the vine and cast the grapes into the wine press of God’s anger. The press was then trodden with horses outside the city, and the “blood” came up to the bridle of the horses and flowed for a distance of 1,600 stadia or approximately 200 miles. (14:17-20)

This particular harvest involves the ungodly, and the imagery indicates that angels will share in the execution of divine judgment upon them. (Compare 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8.) As one having authority over the fire, the angel had control over a destructive element, an element indicative of a severe judgment. The grapes that are harvested represent the ungodly who will be facing their doom as if trodden by horses in a large winepress. Suggestive of the large number whom the adverse judgment will affect is the reference to the tremendous amount of “blood” the treading operation would yield. John did not identify the city near which the winepress was located. Based on 11:2, the city could be Jerusalem.

Seven Angels With the Seven Last Plagues (15:1-8)

John saw another great and astonishing sign in heaven. Seven angels had been entrusted with the seven last plagues, and these plagues would bring God’s anger against lawless humans to its completion. (15:1) John later saw the effect the plagues were to have on ungodly humankind. (16:2-21) Possibly the sign is described as being “great” because developments on earth would be reaching a climax and therefore would be of great significance. In relation to the final plagues, the sign may be regarded as inspiring awe, astonishment, or amazement.

Those who had triumphed over the beast and its image and the number of its name (the number that revealed its true identity) stood at what appeared to be a glassy sea mingled with fire. Although fire is a destructive element, it, like water, also can be used for cleansing purposes. According to the law, metal items were purified by first passing them through the fire and then the water of cleansing. (Numbers 31:21-23) So the glassy sea mingled with fire could indicate that all who approach God must be clean from his standpoint, for he is holy or pure in the absolute sense. (15:2)

With “harps of God” (divinely provided instruments suitable for rendering praise and thanksgiving to him), the victors sing the “song of Moses the slave of God and the song of the Lamb.” (15:2, 3) As conquerors who refused to adore the beast and its image, they are portrayed in the presence of God, indicating that they have been either resurrected or changed to be with the Lord Jesus Christ. This suggests that the outpouring of the final plagues occurs after all of Christ’s loyal disciples have been glorified, for it is not until the conquest has been completed that individuals can be called victors. The reference to the “song of Moses” would recall how the Israelites, on the eastern side of the Red Sea, sang a song of thanksgiving after being delivered from Pharaoh and his armies. Like the Israelites at that time, all the victors had experienced a marvelous deliverance. The song is also a “song of the Lamb,” for he conquered the world and made it possible for them to be fellow conquerors. (John 16:33; Hebrews 2:16-18) The complete focus of the song is on God. “Great and astonishing [are] your works, O Lord God the Almighty. Righteous and true [are] your ways, O King of the nations [O King of the ages (eternity), according to other Greek manuscripts]. Who will not fear you, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone [are] holy; for all the nations will come and worship before you, because your just judgments have been revealed.” (15:3, 4)

All of the Almighty’s deeds are outstanding and give rise to wonderment or amazement. In all his ways, he is just and adheres to the ultimate standard of truth, judging and acting on the basis of actuality and not appearances. He is the Sovereign.

The conquerors’ expressions of thanksgiving and praise indicate that, in view of the Almighty’s greatness and ultimate purity, a reverential fear or awe, coupled with praise, is the only proper response before him. At the same time, the song appears to reflect hope regarding humans yet on earth. The effect of God’s righteous judgments would be that persons from all nations would be moved to worship him. Even when expressing his wrath, the Almighty continues to be the God of love and compassion. (Compare Romans 2:4.)

Next John saw the temple, that is, the tent of witness in heaven opened. Seven angels, clothed in bright, clean linen and with golden girdles, then came out. They had been entrusted with the last seven plagues. Possibly the opening of the temple occurred when the screening curtain was pulled aside. Evidently because the ark of the covenant or the ark of the testimony was in the sanctuary, the sanctuary is called the “tent of witness.” In this case, the designation “tent of witness” could suggest that God would fulfill his testimony or solemn promise and would prove true to the covenant he had made. By reason of his covenant with his people and his testimony, he would render justice, and the pouring out of the final plagues served this very purpose. (15:5, 6; see the Note section.)

One of the living beings, likely the one initially mentioned first (the one with the lion’s face [4:7]), gave each of the seven angels a bowl filled with the wrath of the eternal God. Then the sanctuary became filled with a cloud from the glory of God and from his power, and no one could enter the sanctuary until such time as the seven angels had completed their commission respecting the seven plagues. (15:7, 8) Evidently the cloud, because of being a manifestation of God’s presence, gave evidence of his glory and power about to be revealed through the execution of justice resulting from having humans experience the final plagues. That no one would be permitted to enter the sanctuary may have indicated that no prayerful appeal for mitigating the judgment would be heard. The portrayal may serve the same purpose as the Almighty’s words to Jeremiah (15:1, NRSV): “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people.”

It may be noted that, with the loyal disciples of God’s Son no longer being on the earthly scene, this would leave the world of mankind without the wholesome influence for good that believers exercise and so with even less restraint to pursue their God-dishonoring ways. The Most High’s totally abandoning humankind to the terrifying consequences of their disobedience would be an expression of his wrath. (Compare Romans 1:18-32.) The pouring out of the seven bowls of God’s wrath may simply be a pictorial manner of revealing the horrors that would come upon humankind as they reap what they have sown. There is every reason to believe that the final crop of wickedness will yield frightful results. (Compare Luke 23:30, 31.)

Note: In 15:6, the reading línon (linen) has the oldest and best manuscript support. There are later manuscripts that say líthon (stone).

The Seven Bowls (16:1-21)

John heard a loud voice coming from the sanctuary, directing the seven angels to pour out the bowls of God’s wrath upon the earth. Evidently this action is thus represented as occurring at God’s command. (16:1)

The pouring out of the first bowl brought suffering to those having the mark of the beast and worshiping its image. Their affliction came to be a bad and painful sore or ulcer. (16:2) This may well have reminded John of the plague of boils that came upon the Egyptians in the time of Moses. (Exodus 9:8-11; the Greek word in Revelation 16:2 for “sore” is the same word found in the Septuagint in Exodus 9:9, 10, 11.) Apparently the hurtful result from following a God-dishonoring course is here revealed as being like a serious ulcerous condition having a deadly outcome.

When the second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, the water came to be like the blood of a corpse, and all the creatures in the sea died. (16:3) The plague is depicted as far more devastating in proportion than the one occurring after the blowing of the second trumpet, which only affected a portion of the sea creatures. (8:8) This apparently serves to illustrate that the final plagues (or consequences from a God-defiant course) are of far greater severity. The plague is also reminiscent of one of the plagues that came upon Egypt. There is a difference, however. In ancient Egypt, the sea was not affected, and so the resemblance is closer to what occurred upon the pouring out of the third bowl. (Exodus 7:17-21)

Subsequent to the pouring out of the third bowl, the rivers and springs of water turned into blood. (Compare 8:10, 11, where the reference is to a similar plague on a smaller scale.) The “angel of the waters” (likely signifying the angel having control over the waters) then declared, “You are righteous, the one who is and who was [see 1:8], O Holy One, for you have executed justice [regarding] these things. Because they have shed the blood of holy ones and prophets, so you have given them blood to drink. They deserve it.” A voice from the altar, probably representing the blood of the holy ones and prophets that had been shed (compare Genesis 4:10), added a confirmatory response, “Yes, Lord God the Almighty, true and righteous are your judgments.” (16:4-7)

The angel’s proclamation and the voice from the altar thus confirm that the plagues are expressions of retributive justice. All who have defiantly set themselves in opposition to God’s ways would experience the dire consequences of their abhorrent course. Divine judgments are just and in harmony with truth (the actual state of affairs).

The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun. As a result, the heat from the sun became so intense that earth’s inhabitants found it unbearable. Instead of repenting of their evil ways and giving God glory or humbly acknowledging him as having rightly executed justice, they blasphemed the name of God or cursed him on account of their suffering. (16:8, 9) The reference to God’s “authority over these plagues” suggests that those defying God would be aware that they were experiencing the outpouring of his anger. Their refusal to repent and glorify God appears to indicate that, even at this crucial time, they could have changed and become recipients of divine mercy.

The pouring out of the fifth bowl upon the throne of the beast led to its kingdom being darkened. As in the case of the plague of darkness that affected ancient Egypt, apparently the entire realm over which the beast exercised control would be plunged into darkness. (Exodus 10:21, 22) This could point to an intensification of cruelty and ruthless oppression from the beastly ruling authority and its total inability to deal with the consequences of retributive justice. The “throne of the beast” may designate the location from which power is exercised. Those under the beast’s control bit their tongues in pain. Again, instead of repenting of their deeds, they blasphemed or cursed the God of heaven on account of their pains and sores. (16:10, 11) Already following the pouring out of the first bowl, earth’s inhabitants were plagued with a painful sore. This suggests that the effect of the plagues is cumulative and, unlike the plagues that affected ancient Egypt, continue in force.

The sixth angel poured his bowl upon the Euphrates River and its water dried up, evidently preparing the way for the kings from the rising of the sun to vanquish “Babylon the great.” In the case of ancient Babylon, Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates that served as part of the city’s defenses, and this made it possible for his forces to take the city. (Isaiah 44:27, 28; 45:1, 2) Greek historian Herodotus of the fifth century BCE wrote (I, 191, 192) that, by his diversion of the Euphrates, Cyrus “made the stream to sink till its former channel could be forded. When this happened, the Persians who were posted with this intent made their way into Babylon by the channel of the Euphrates, which had now sunk about to the height of the middle of a man’s thigh.” John would have known that Cyrus came from the east and was designated as God’s “anointed” or appointed one and served as his instrument for bringing about the fall of Babylon. Later, John heard a proclamation that credited the destruction of “Babylon the great” to the Most High. (17:17; 19:1, 2) So it may be that the “kings from the rising of the sun” designate the Almighty and his “anointed one,” Jesus Christ. (16:12)

Next John saw three unclean spirits that looked like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet (evidently the two-horned beast [13:11]). According to the terms of the law, frogs were unclean creatures. Appropriately, therefore, the unclean spirits were portrayed as resembling frogs. These demonic spirits performed signs, apparently designed to delude people and garner their support for defying the Most High. The three unclean spirits went forth to the kings of the whole habitable earth to assemble them for “the war of the great day of God the Almighty.” Such a gathering of the kings or rulers would include their subjects. (16:13, 14)

Apparently because the execution of divine judgment would come suddenly and unsuspectedly upon all opposers of the Almighty, John heard the announcement, “Look! I am coming as a thief. Fortunate is the one remaining awake and keeping his garments, that he may not walk naked and people see his shame.” (16:15) These words evidently serve both as encouragement and as a warning, emphasizing the need to be awake and prepared before the execution of God’s vengeance in order to be among the fortunate, blessed, or happy ones because of being found in a divinely approved state. (Compare Luke 21:34-36.) The Scriptures indicate that Christ’s genuine disciples would have been found in this approved condition and then removed from the earthly scene just prior to the decisive time. (1 Corinthians 15:51-53; 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10; 4:15-17; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10) Accordingly, professed believers who are not identified as genuine and approved by their course of life and activity would find themselves on earth during the time for executing judgment. The shame of their nakedness would then be exposed, revealing them to be persons who were spiritually asleep and unprepared.

The place to which the unclean spirits gather the kings of the earth and their armies is called Harmagedon in Hebrew, meaning “Mount Megiddo.” No location in ancient Israel was called “Mount Megiddo,” but anciently the valley lying to the west of the city of Megiddo proved to be the scene for decisive battles. The name, therefore, may call attention to the fact that those defying the Most High would suffer total defeat. (16:16)

The seventh angel poured his bowl upon the air. A loud voice out of the sanctuary, directly from the throne (apparently from the one seated on the throne or the Almighty), declared, “It has been accomplished,” evidently indicating that his wrath has been fully expressed. Manifestations of God’s presence for judgment followed. There were lightnings, voices, thunders, and an earthquake of unparalleled strength in human history. Babylon the great, the “great city,” split into three parts, totally devastating it. The cities of the nations or cities other than those represented by Babylon the great fell or crashed in ruins. For her guilt, God would remember Babylon the great and make her drink from “the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath.” This would mean her complete end, with no hope of recovery. No place would provide refuge from God’s wrath, for all islands fled and mountains as places for hiding disappeared so as not to be found. Huge hailstones, weighing a talent each (perhaps weighing about 75 pounds [if the talent is reckoned according to its weight among the ancient Hebrews]), descended upon rebellious humans. The tremendous weight of the hailstones appears to serve as a pictorial representation of the intensity of the final plague. Unlike the more positive response of some of the Egyptians when Moses announced the impending plague of hail (Exodus 9:13-25), the ungodly persisted in an unrepentant state and blasphemed or cursed God. (16:17-21)

The Harlot, Babylon the Great (17:1-18)

One of the seven angels who participated in pouring out the bowls of God’s anger invited John to come and then see the judgment to befall the great harlot who sits on many waters. With her, the kings of the earth whored, and she made earth’s inhabitants drunk with the wine of her harlotry. In spirit, John was transported into the wilderness and saw a woman seated on a seven-headed, ten-horned, scarlet-colored beast filled with blasphemous names. The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls. In her hand, she held a golden cup filled with the abominable and impure things of her harlotry. The name written on her forehead, “Babylon the great,” was designated as a mystery. She was both a harlot and the mother of harlots and of earthly abominations. John observed that the woman was drunk with the blood of the holy ones and the witnesses of Jesus. Upon seeing her, he was struck with great astonishment. (17:1-6)

Earlier, John had seen the woman that gave birth to the baby boy flee into the wilderness. (12:6) He knew how the once-approved people of God, under the figure of a woman represented by the capital city Jerusalem, had in previous centuries become a harlot. The word of YHWH through the prophet Isaiah (1:21, NRSV) was, “How the faithful city has become a whore!” (See also Ezekiel 23:5-45.) The course of the many among those professing to be God’s people was one of unfaithfulness to him. Instead of relying on the Most High for aid and protection, they looked to foreign nations and their military strength for security. They failed to remain exclusively devoted to their God and engaged in idolatry and the moral corruption associated therewith. In failing to live up to their covenant obligations that bound them to their God as a wife is bound to her husband, they, as a corporate whole, proved themselves to be a prostitute. Still, individual Israelites continued to be loyal to God.

Seemingly, the great astonishment to which John gave way came about from his perceiving the change that had taken place regarding the woman he had earlier seen flee into the wilderness and the enormity of her guilt. Like unfaithful Jerusalem, she had entered into a partnership with the beast, the ruling element of the world, and evidently for the same reason — protection. She had exchanged the heavenly light or glory with which she had once been adorned for worldly splendor — purple, scarlet, gold and gems. Like unfaithful Jerusalem, “the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her” (Matthew 23:37), she had made herself guilty of shedding the blood of “holy ones and the witnesses of Jesus.”

She was drunk with blood, the blood of God’s faithful servants (wheat among weeds) in her midst. That holy ones and witnesses of Jesus were to be found as part of the changed woman (just as a faithful remnant existed in the midst of unfaithful Jerusalem) is shown by the later command, “Get out of her, my people.” (18:4) She was still a woman, outwardly appearing to be Christ’s congregation or church but, in practice, she was a blood-spilling harlot and friend of the world. As the mother of harlots and abominations, she was responsible for disobedience and unfaithfulness to God among many and gave birth to movements that manifested her adulterous and murderous spirit. Instead of being a strong influence for good, the transformed woman would make herself the handmaiden and prostitute of corrupt rulers, aiding and abetting them in their ruthless oppression, and stupefying people with the wine of her harlotry and contributing to their wayward course.

The seven heads, ten horns, and blasphemous names (names to which only God is entitled) suggest that the beast on which the harlot sits is the same one that ascended out of the sea. Her partnership with the beast evidently would not mitigate its fierceness, as its scarlet color is likely indicative of much bloodshed.

The angel noted John’s astonishment and told him that he would reveal to him the mystery of the woman and the seven-headed, ten-horned beast. This beast, the angel explained, “was and is not and is about to ascend out of the abyss, and is to go into destruction.” The ascending out of the abyss appears to parallel the recovery from the fatal blow to one of the seven heads. (13:3) Apparently because of the beast’s ascent as if raised out of the abyss and restored to life, earth’s inhabitants would be amazed. Those who give way to worshipful wonderment would not have their names written in the scroll of life. (17:7, 8) From the foundation of the world or before the world of mankind came into existence, the Most High’s determination has been that life would be forfeited whenever his ways are deliberately disregarded. It may be that the description of the beast’s being in the abyss represents a period during which the ruling element of the world does not function as an active persecuting power. In its final phase, however, before it heads for destruction, the beast would rise from the abyss as a vicious persecutor, ruthlessly directing its initial fury against Christ’s loyal disciples.

Apparently for those having a mind guided by wisdom, the angel’s explanatory words that follow would clarify matters regarding the beast and the harlot. The beast’s seven heads are seven mountains and represent kings or ruling powers. Of the seven, five had already fallen, one existed, another was yet to come but remain only a short time. As for the beast that was and is not, this is an eighth king or ruling power and has its source in the previous seven and, as the embodiment of the entire beast, would be the most vicious and God-dishonoring phase of the ruling power of the world. (17:9-11)

The ten horns are ten kings, seemingly a complete number of governing powers that had at that time not as yet received ruling authority, but they would receive such for a short time, “one hour,” with the beast (in its final and worst phase of existence). These ten kings would have one thought or be of one mind in the decision to yield their authority to the beast, apparently acting out of self-interest so as to share in the beast’s all-embracing authority. As part of the persecuting power of the world that directs its rage against Christ’s disciples, these “kings” range themselves in battle against the Lamb. But the Lamb has powers far greater than theirs. He is King of kings and Lord of lords and will conquer them. Those with him or his followers are “called” (out of this world), “chosen” (as his disciples and servants and sons of his Father) and “faithful” (to God and Christ) and share in the victory. (17:12-14)

The angel’s explanation leaves the impression that the harlot has been sitting on all seven mountains, representing kings or ruling powers of which the majority (five) had already fallen. In the first century CE, Rome occupied the position of dominant ruling power. It was preceded by other successive powers (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece). All these earlier ruling powers had a significant impact on the lives of God’s faithful servants and those who merely professed to be his people. Throughout the centuries, professed servants of God or those falsely claiming to be his people, repeatedly allied themselves with the dominant political powers, adopted their practices, and persecuted and oppressed God’s faithful servants in their midst, making themselves guilty of harlotry and bloodshed. (Compare Isaiah 1:10-17, 21; 3:14, 15; 30:1-3; 31:1-3; Jeremiah 2:18, 19; Ezekiel 20:4-9, 27-38; 23:2-49; Hosea 7:11; Zephaniah 1:4-9; Matthew 23:29-37.) As a corporate whole, therefore, the harlot could be regarded as having existed in prior centuries. In the stage of development in which John saw her, however, she appears primarily to represent the faithless and worldly portion of the Christian congregation, the adulterous friend of the world. (Compare James 4:4.)

“Seven” is a number of completeness, and so the seven heads of the beast do not necessarily mean seven distinct world powers. They could simply represent all the successive powers that have dominated and would dominate humans. That the majority are represented as having fallen apparently should not be taken as an indicator of the closeness of the end. The final manifestation of the beast in its most vicious state is yet future, and the time for that event has not been disclosed. (Compare 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3.)

The waters, where the harlot sits, signify peoples, crowds, nations, and language groups, indicating her extensive influence and the many who are part of her domain. She is described as a great city having a kingdom over the kings of the earth, suggestive of the tremendous power she wields. The “ten horns” (all the ruling powers) that give their authority to the beast and the beast itself (the monstrous final stage of the worldly ruling authority) will hate the harlot, strip her naked, devour her flesh, and burn whatever may be left of her. This indicates that every vestige of the harlot will be destroyed, nothing will remain of her former worldly splendor. Although the horrific judgment is portrayed as being carried out by the beast and the ten horns, it is actually God’s judgment. He is the one who will put it in their hearts to act against the harlot, carrying out his will respecting her even though they would not of themselves be inclined to execute divine judgment but would act in their own interests. (Compare Isaiah 10:5-7.) According to God’s will, future developments will cause the “ten horns” to come to be of one mind in yielding their authority to the beast, making it possible for the full power of the beast’s fury to be unleashed against the harlot and thus to fulfill God’s judgment against her. (17:15-18)

Note: The focus is on the final development of the “beast” in relation to the destruction of Babylon the great. This final phase, the “eighth king,” is “out of the seven.” (17:11) If the number seven is representative of all the ruling powers, as seems likely based on the way numbers are used in the book of Revelation, the final development is not being portrayed as an immediate successor of seven specific ruling powers but only as arising from all the ruling powers that preceded it. The Scriptures do not place the final phase within the framework of a fixed timetable. (Acts 1:7) Therefore, in the absence of a fixed termination point, the reference to “seven,” with five having fallen, does not provide a basis for determining the nearness of the destruction of Babylon the great. Of necessity, the “five” would not be specific fallen world powers if the number “seven” is to be regarded as being representative. The mention of the “five” would then only serve to indicate that a significant portion of the ruling powers had already fallen.

Widespread Effects From the Fall of Babylon the Great (18:1-24)

John saw an angel, vested with great authority, descending from heaven. The glory or radiant splendor of this angel was of such magnitude as to illuminate the earth. He cried out with a strong voice, “Fallen, fallen [is] Babylon the great, and she has become a haunt of demons, and a prison for every unclean spirit, and a prison for every unclean bird, and a prison for every unclean and detested beast. For from the wine of the passion of her whoredom, all the nations have drunk, and the kings of the earth whored with her, and the merchants of the earth enriched themselves from the resources of her luxury.” (18:1-3; see the Notes section.)

This portrayal is of an uninhabited city in ruins, and parallels the foretold fate of ancient Babylon. “And Babylon, glory of kingdoms, proud splendor of the Chaldeans, shall become like Sodom and Gomorrah overturned by God. Nevermore shall it be settled nor dwelt in through all the ages. No Arab shall pitch his tent there, no shepherds make flocks lie down there. But beasts shall lie down there, and the houses be filled with owls; there shall ostriches make their home, and there shall satyrs dance. And jackals shall abide in its castles and dragons in the palaces of pleasure.” (Isaiah 13:19-22, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Wild animals shall live with hyenas in Babylon, and ostriches shall inhabit her; she shall never again be peopled, or inhabited for all generations.” (Jeremiah 50:39, NRSV)

In the case of Babylon the great, the reason for this severe judgment would be her baneful influence on earth’s inhabitants, causing them to be stupefied so as to conduct themselves in a divinely disapproved course. Corrupt, oppressive rulers would find pleasure in her presence as from the caresses of and sexual relations with a prostitute. Because she would amass great wealth from her supporters, she would provide a lucrative market for the commercial element of the world.

Another voice from the heavens resounded with the call, “Get out of her, my people, so as not to share in her sins and so as not to receive of her plagues, for her sins have reached the sky and God has remembered her injustices.” (18:4, 5)

The time for departure from Babylon the great is before the severe judgment befalls her. As in the case of ancient Babylon on the Euphrates, Babylon the great is an enemy of God’s people who may find themselves in her midst. (Compare Psalm 137:1-9.) Once the opportunity to depart opened up, God’s people exiled in ancient Babylon were able to act on the prophetic directive, “Go forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea!” (Isaiah 48:20, NAB)

Over the centuries, many have reached the conclusion that Babylon the great represented Rome in its role as a vicious persecutor of Christ’s followers, paralleling Babylon on the Euphrates (the seat of a dominant political power in ancient times) with Rome (the seat of the dominant political power in the first century). In many respects, the language of the Hebrew prophets regarding ancient Babylon parallels the description in Revelation 18. (Compare Isaiah 21:9 and Jeremiah 51:8 with Revelation 18:2; compare Jeremiah 51:7 with Revelation 18:3; Jeremiah 50:8; 51:6, 9, 45 with Revelation 18:4, 5; Jeremiah 50:15 with Revelation 18:6; Isaiah 47:7-9 with Revelation 18:7, 8.) Historically, however, Rome did not fall like ancient Babylon nor did it become an uninhabited city. The earlier scene of the woman riding the beast (representative of a ruling power) in the wilderness does not match Rome, for Rome was the dominant governing power in the first century. Furthermore, the command for God’s people to get out of Babylon the great does not fit Rome, for merely being a city resident in the first century or in years thereafter would not make one a participant in its sins. To incur guilt, one would have to be a resident who actively shared in God-dishonoring practices.

The portrayal of a change from a woman representative of God’s people to a woman representative of a people disloyal to him does have historical and biblical support. The apostle Paul warned elders in the Ephesus congregation, “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.” (Acts 20:29, 30, NAB) To Timothy, he wrote that there would come to be “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God — having a form of godliness but denying its power.” (2 Timothy 3:4, 5, NIV) In his first letter (4:1, 2, NRSV) to him, Paul said, “In later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron.” Jesus Christ revealed that the “sons of the kingdom” would become so intermingled with the “sons of the wicked one” as to become humanly indistinguishable. (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) He also indicated that there would be those who would seize authority to which they were not entitled, treat believers abusively, and in other ways conduct themselves in a God-dishonoring manner. (Luke 12:42-48) Upon his return in glory, Jesus said, “Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” (Matthew 7:22, 23, NAB)

A review of past and present history confirms that the various religious systems and movements claiming to be Christian have not made a commendable record for themselves. Prominent ones in their midst have courted the favors of the ruling authorities and supported their unworthy aims (with resulting bloodshed), have incited rulers to imprison and kill those not agreeing with them, resorted to bribery and subterfuges to protect assets and to advance church or organizational interests in other ways, concealed the debased practices of those in high positions to protect their image, accumulated wealth to support a lavish life style, emotionally abused others by making them feel guilty for not giving more of their time and money to support the church, assuming the role of lords instead of humble servants, and labeling anyone not agreeing with their interpretations as a heretic deserving the worst punishment imaginable. While certain movements may claim that they are clean respecting bloodshed and friendship with the world, they often have a leadership in place that has no qualms about demanding that the membership treat those disagreeing with their unique doctrines worse than hardened criminals. In their attitude, they reveal the murderous spirit of the harlot and are no different than the hypocrites who adorned the tombs of the righteous and said, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets’ blood.” (Matthew 23:29, 30, NAB)

For those who seek to live upright lives as loyal disciples of God’s Son, getting out of Babylon the great may mean what it did for Levites and many other Israelites when Jeroboam instituted calf worship. They left the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. (2 Chronicles 11:13-17) Mere physical separation from a movement because of being mistreated, witnessing hypocrisy, or coming to see error in doctrines and practices, however, does not in itself constitute an exodus from Babylon the great. Lot’s wife left Sodom, but her attachment to the corrupt city remained. There must be a rejection of the God-dishonoring attitude and worldliness of Babylon the great and an ardent desire to be loyal to God and Christ. It is not an exchange of the flaws a person may see in one particular movement for a different set of errors and wrong practices in another movement, but it is an action that becomes necessary because of needing to be out of an environment that misrepresents God and Christ and proves to be spiritually harmful.

Because the weeds and wheat are intertwined, there are godly persons who have not felt the need for a physical separation from a church, denomination, or nondenominational body with which they may have serious disagreements. Like many in the ten-tribe kingdom who continued to serve God faithfully and did not move to the kingdom of Judah, they do not abandon the group with which they have had a long history. They continue to live godly lives within the system and bring honor to God and Christ by their genuine display of love for others and making expressions about their faith. In attitude, word, and action, they demonstrate that they do not have the spirit of Babylon the great and condemn her works (just as Noah condemned the world in which he lived). (Hebrews 11:7)

According to the angel’s proclamation, the record of Babylon the great’s sin reached up to the sky and deserved twofold retribution. As she had rendered to others, she should be repaid. In keeping with her abominable actions, she should receive twice as much in the way of retribution. As to the cup from which she made others drunk, she should be forced to drink a double portion. Instead of continuing to live in splendor and luxury, she should experience corresponding pain and mourning. Within herself, she imagined herself to be secure, sitting as a queen who would never experience bereavement or loss. On account of her arrogant attitude, plagues would come upon her quickly, in “one day,” death, mourning, and famine, and complete destruction by fire. There would be no escape from or defense against the severe judgment to befall her, for God, the one executing justice, is strong. (18:6-8)

Rulers who benefited from their intimate relationship with Babylon the great would be grieved about her fate and fearfully stand at a distance. They would lament about the suddenness with which impressive Babylon the great had come to an inglorious end. (18:9, 10)

Babylon the great is portrayed as having piled up great wealth and having provided a lucrative market for traveling merchants. This would cause them to mourn over the ruin of their commercial interests. These merchants who enriched themselves through trade with her would fearfully stand at a distance, weeping and mourning their sudden loss. “In one hour,” her wealth would cease to be. (18:11-17)

Those involved in transporting the abundant goods from distant places would likewise give way to mourning over the sudden end of Babylon the great. No longer would they be able to increase their riches through dealings with her, and this would make them weep and mourn. (18:17-19)

Among the angels of heaven, the holy ones or God’s faithful servants, the apostles and prophets, such mourning would have no place. They are invited to share in appreciative rejoicing, for God had executed the deserved judgment on Babylon the great. (18:20)

John saw a strong angel who lifted a stone, like a large millstone, and cast it into the sea. This act represented how Babylon the great would completely disappear as if quickly plunged to the bottom of the sea. All the sights, sounds, activities and functions associated with city life would permanently cease. (18:21-23)

The reason for the severe judgment is again set forth. With her sorcery, she caused nations to go astray. This could mean that she drew them into a God-dishonoring relationship with herself or made them wander in divinely disapproved ways. Only the future will reveal just how great the corruption among the faithless portion of those claiming to be God’s people will yet come to be and the kind of worldliness that will grow to shocking proportions. History is filled with sufficient examples that portend a frightful time prior to the execution of divine judgment. Babylon the great’s record of bloodshed is already extremely shameful, including the blood of prophets, holy ones, and many others. (18:23, 24)

Notes:

In verse 2, the words “prison for every unclean beast” are missing in many manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus.

In verse 3, manuscript readings include “have drunk,” “have fallen” and “she has made drink.”

Heaven Resounds With Praise (19:1-10)

With a unified loud voice, a great throng in heaven cried out, “Hallelujah!” This Hebrew expression means “Praise YHWH!” Then John heard this large crowd ascribing salvation, glory, and power to God because his judgments are true (always in harmony with the actual state of affairs) and just, for he had judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her harlotry and exacted vengeance for his slaves’ blood that she had shed. (19:1, 2)

Again, from the large crowd, John heard, “Hallelujah!” Apparently with reference to the permanent nature of the judgment against Babylon the great, the mighty throng added, “and her smoke ascends for ever and ever.” (19:3; compare Isaiah 34:9, 10 and Jude 7.)

The twenty-four elders (representing the congregation of God’s servants) and the four living beings apparently fell to their knees before God and bowed down with their faces touching the floor of heaven, adding their expression of agreement and praise, “Amen [so be it]. Hallelujah!” (19:4)

John then heard a voice come from the throne, saying, “Praise our God, all you his servants, and you who fear him, small and great.” (19:5) As the Son of God is portrayed as being at his Father’s right hand (Acts 2:33; 7:56), likely his voice is the one coming from the throne, inviting all having reverential regard for his Father to praise him.

From a great throng, John heard a united voice that sounded like abundant waters in motion and like the sound of mighty thunder, saying, “‘Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, has undertaken to reign. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him the glory; because the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has readied herself. And it has been granted her to be dressed in bright, clean linen’ (for the linen represents the righteous deeds of the holy ones).” (19:6-8) By executing judgment on Babylon the great, the Almighty manifested his authority as Sovereign and thus revealed that he reigned. Unlike the purple and scarlet of the harlot and her sky-high record of sin, Christ’s bride is dressed in the radiant splendor of bright, clean linen (representative of a record of upright deeds). Her being united to the Lamb is rightly an occasion for boundless rejoicing and giving God glory or praise.

The angel, probably the one initially sent to John, told him, “Write, ‘Fortunate are those invited to the marriage banquet of the Lamb.” No greater joy could there be than to be found divinely approved to share in this grand event. Fortunate, blessed, or in an enviable state of unbounded happiness would all such persons be. The angel added the solemn assurance, “These are the true words of God.” (19:9)

Seized by deep emotion and overwhelmed by what he had seen and heard, John apparently dropped to his knees at the feet of the angel and prostrated himself or assumed an attitude of worship. The angel refused to be thus honored, telling John, “Do not [do that]. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers entrusted with the testimony of Jesus. To God, prostrate yourself. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (19:10)

As a messenger in the service of God’s Son, the angel did provide testimony about him. The “testimony of Jesus” evidently is the witness that centers on him and is the testimony with which John and his brothers had been entrusted. (Compare Acts 1:6-8; 4:1-20; 5:29-32; 26:12-19.) As a fellow servant, the angel filled a role like theirs, testifying concerning the Son of God. This testimony about Jesus Christ is the “spirit of prophecy,” that is, its aim or objective. In this case, the emphasis apparently is not on the predictive element of prophecy but on the content of the proclamation. It is a proclaiming of Christ. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “We are not proclaiming ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord.” (2 Corinthians 4:5) In the role of a fellow proclaimer of Jesus Christ, the angel refused to accept reverential honors from a fellow slave. His words serve as a strong reproof to all humans professing to be Christ’s disciples but who accept and even require honors that are unbecoming for a servant. (See Acts 10:25, 26 regarding Peter’s commendable example in this respect.)

Note: Basically, the word proskynéo (19:10) denotes “to prostrate oneself.” Forms of this verb occur 24 times in Revelation (3:9; 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4 [twice], 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10 [twice], 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). The context determines whether the ones prostrating themselves are engaging in an act of worship.

The “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” Wages War (19:11-21)

John next saw heaven opened up and beheld a white horse. Its rider, the glorified Son of God, is called “faithful and true,” indicating absolute trustworthiness and dependability. His judging is righteous, and his warfare is conducted in the cause of right. In possession of penetrating vision like eyes of fire, he is not deceived by outward appearances. His unequaled royal authority is revealed by his having many diadems. This harmonizes with his having been granted all authority in heaven and on earth. (Matthew 28:18) The name which only he knows evidently relates to his unparalleled royal authority to be expressed in his punitive actions against the nations, for the name written on his garment and on his thigh is, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Apparently calling attention to the fact that he had poured out his blood to redeem humankind, his garment is portrayed as having been “dipped” in (or, according to another manuscript reading, “sprinkled” with) blood. The name “Word of God” evidently calls attention to the fact that he is the one who fully reveals the Father (just as a person makes himself known to others by what he says). The angelic forces he leads are depicted as clothed in clean, white linen and mounted on white horses. (19:11-14, 16; see the Note section.)

Indicative of executional authority, a sharp sword issued forth from the mouth of God’s Son. With it, he would strike the nations, and he would shepherd them with an iron rod, executing all who defy his royal authority. He would act in harmony with his Father’s will, treading the “winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.” (19:15)

The angel whom John next saw may have been positioned in such as way as to appear that he was standing in the sun or on the sun. With a loud voice, this angel invited the carrion birds to feast on those who would fall before the King of kings and Lord of lords for choosing to battle against him. (19:17, 18)

John saw the beast (representing the governing power of the world) and the rulers and their armies assembled for the fight. The beast and the false prophet (through whose signs earth’s inhabitants had been deceived so as to accept the mark of the beast and adore its image) were seized alive as functioning entities and tossed into a fiery lake burning with sulfur. This lake is later identified as representing the “second death.” (20:14) As for the defiant rulers and their forces, they fell by the sword of the “King of kings,” and carrion birds were satiated with their flesh. (19:19-21)

Note: In 19:16, a number of later manuscripts read “upon the forehead” instead of “upon the garment.”

The “Old Serpent” Is Abyssed (20:1-3)

John saw an angel descending from heaven. This angel had the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand (literally, “upon his hand,” suggesting that the chain was ready for use). The need for a great chain could indicate that the dragon possessed tremendous strength and was fierce. (Compare Mark 5:2-4.) Earlier, the Son of God had identified himself as having the keys of death and of Hades. (1:18) The fact that the angel was seen with the key of the abyss, however, would not require that he be identified as a figure of the Son of God. The angel would simply be the agent for carrying out Christ’s purpose and, ultimately, that of his Father respecting the dragon and, therefore, would need the key of the abyss. John identified the personage as an angel, and there is no contextual reason for adopting a different meaning. (20:1)

The angel seized the dragon, the “old serpent” (recalling the use of the serpent to deceive Eve), the Devil (slanderer of God) and Satan (the resister or opposer of God), and bound him for 1,000 years. He then cast the bound dragon into the abyss, thereafter locking and sealing it shut to prevent the dragon from misleading the nations. At the end of the period of confinement, the dragon would be released for a short time. (20:2, 3)

The period of 1,000 years may simply be descriptive of a long time, as the numbers in the book of Revelation are symbols. Subsequent to the banishing of the powers of darkness, with no possibility of breaking free, the nations (apparently the people from all nations who are not among those perishing because of defiantly fighting against the Son of God) would enjoy a long time under Christ’s beneficent rule and without any satanic influence.

The Participants in the First Resurrection (20:4-6)

John then saw thrones. The ones seated on them were granted judicial authority. Evidently regarding this development, the apostle Paul wrote, “Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world?” (1 Corinthians 6:2) Among the ones sharing in doing this judging would be those (the souls) who had been executed for their testimony concerning Jesus and “the word of God” (faithfully adhering to it and making it known to others). Furthermore, these faithful ones are identified as not having venerated the beast or its image and accepted the mark on their forehead and their hand. As Christ’s loyal disciples, they would be restored to life and share with him in his reign for the full period designated by the 1,000 years. (20:4; 6:9-11)

The reference to the coming to life of the rest of the dead at the end of the 1,000 years is missing from fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest extant manuscript preserving this portion of Revelation. If the words are original, they are parenthetical, for they do not apply to the words that follow, “This is the first resurrection.” (20:5) According to the sequence in the vision John saw, the judging of the dead (other than those sharing in the first resurrection) takes place after Satan is released from confinement, and the parenthetical expression is apparently to be understood accordingly.

Sharers in the first resurrection are pronounced fortunate and holy. Theirs is a fortunate, blessed, or an enviable state of happiness as divinely approved persons, and they are holy by reason of their faithfulness to God and Christ and having the benefits of his sacrifice applied to them. As such blessed and holy ones, they would never be subject to the second death, which denotes the death from which no resurrection is possible. They would serve as priests of God and of Christ (functioning in priestly capacity for those then living on earth) and reign with Christ. (20:6)

The Release of Satan and Its Outcome (20:7-10)

At the end of the period designated as being 1,000 years, Satan is released from his confinement and goes forth to the four compass directions of the earth to mislead the nations, Gog and Magog, and to assemble them for war. The host the dragon is able to marshal is referred to as being numerous as the sand of the seashore. (20:7, 8)

This suggests that, during the time satanic influence ceased to exist on earth, there would be those who distance themselves from Christ’s rule and choose their own ways so as to be styled nations bearing the name “Gog and Magog,” representative of enemies of God’s people. (Compare Ezekiel 38:1-39:20.) They will yield to Satan’s temptation and rebelliously seek to break free from divine rulership. This revolt is portrayed as a military march and the subsequent encirclement of the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. The beloved city is the holy city New Jerusalem, and the holy ones are here depicted as forming a military encampment around the city to protect it from enemy forces. No defensive battle, however, is necessary, for fire from heaven consumes the assembled enemy forces. As for the devil who had deceived them, he would be cast into the lake of fire, where the beast and the false prophet had been hurled earlier. (19:20) No release from this final doom will be possible, for they will be tormented eternally and without letup, night and day. The torment signifies everlasting doom, for the lake of fire is representative of second death. Thus the adversary will be brought to nothingness, with no vestige of the powers of darkness remaining and with absolutely no potential for reviving. (20:9, 10)

Note: In verse 9, there are various manuscript readings, including “out of heaven,” “from heaven,” “from God,” “out of heaven from God,” and “from God, out of heaven.”

The Resurrection and Judgment of the Dead (20:11-15)

John saw a large white throne, the white color suggesting justice in the absolute sense. Before the face or presence of the one seated on the throne, the Most High, earth and heaven fled and seemingly disappeared, for John perceived that “no place was found for them.” (20:11) In view of the fact that the judgment of the dead follows, aspects of the old form of the world (represented by the earth and the visible sky or celestial dome) still remain as those raised to life were once a part of that old form of the world and must face judgment for their deeds. As everything will be made new, nothing of the old, not even a painful memory, would be allowed to remain and all accounts would have to be settled. In view of the complete renewal of everything, the picture of heaven and earth fleeing is most appropriate. (Isaiah 65:17-25; 21:4, 5)

John saw persons from all stations of life before the throne, great and small or insignificant. Scrolls were opened, and the judgment was based on the written record of their deeds. This visionary representation reflects other statements in the Scriptures. “On the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.” (Matthew 12:36, 37; 2 Corinthians 5:10, NAB; see also Romans 2:11-16.) Another scroll was also opened. This scroll, the “scroll of life,” evidently listed all who would be granted life, whereas the scrolls containing the record of deeds explained the absence of certain names in the “scroll of life.” (20:12)

The judgment scene may have reminded John of the one in the book of Daniel (7:9-11). In that case, too, books or scrolls were opened, which apparently contained the record made by the beastly ruling power and on the basis of which punitive judgment was executed.

In order to be judged according to their deeds, the dead everywhere would need to be raised — those who perished in the sea, the dead in Hades or the realm of the dead, and anyone else in the grip of death. Death and Hades are then cast into the “lake of fire,” signifying the annihilation of death and the realm of the dead. As “death and Hades” are not conscious entities, this reveals that the “lake of fire” and the torments associated therewith are not literal. In the case of those whose names are not recorded in the scroll of life, they, too, would be cast into the lake of fire or have the punishment of second death imposed on them. (20:13-15)

Notes:

In the scene of judgment (20:11-15), the focus is on a large white throne and the one seated thereon, but none of the elements of the earlier heavenly scene (4:1-3) are mentioned. John did not say anything about the location of the throne. Possibly, as in Daniel’s vision (7:9-14), the throne was seen under the visible sky, perhaps in midheaven.

The concept about a 1,000-year probationary period followed by a judgment based on post-resurrection deeds for persons who do not share in the first resurrection cannot be supported contextually. Moreover, references to judgment elsewhere in the Scriptures relate to deeds committed prior to death, and understanding the scrolls to contain the record of pre-resurrection deeds requires no interpretation outside the framework of the immediate context of Revelation 20.

A New Heaven and a New Earth (21:1-27)

Earlier, John had seen heaven and earth disappear (20:11) and now saw a new heaven and a new earth. In addition to the passing away of the former heaven and earth, John observed that there was no sea. (21:1)

Based on his knowledge of Isaiah’s prophecy, he would not have understood the passing away of the former heaven and earth to have meant the destruction of the universe and its being replaced by an entirely new creation. Isaiah’s prophecy pointed to a transformation of the former heaven and earth, with an end to everything that had given rise to sadness and suffering. (Isaiah 65:17-25) As evident from 2 Peter 3:13, believers in the first century looked forward to the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. In his letter to the Romans (8:19-21, NAB), the apostle Paul wrote: “For creation awaits with eager expectation the revelation of the children of God; for creation was made subject to futility, not of its own accord but because of the one who subjected it, in hope that creation itself would be set free from slavery to corruption and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God.” Human sinfulness has adversely affected the whole environment (the realm in which humans live, or the earth and the visible sky or celestial dome). Accordingly, the liberation of the creation from the baneful effects of human sinfulness and the creation’s enjoyment of the “glorious freedom of the children of God” could not possibly mean destruction but must mean a grand renewal or transformation.

The absence of the sea could signify that the dangers with which the sea was associated in ancient times would cease to exist. Another possibility is that the element from which the beast rose would be no more. (13:1)

The scene John next saw confirms that this renewal or transformation is related to the revealing of the children of God. Out of heaven from God, the holy city, New Jerusalem, descended. That city is the Lamb’s adorned bride or the entire body of God’s beloved children. (21:2, 9)

A loud voice from the throne (probably from the Son who is at his Father’s right hand, as God thereafter is referred to in the third person) revealed the kind of transformation that would follow the descent of the New Jerusalem or the start of the city’s beneficent rule over the earth. Humans would enjoy the blessing of God’s presence, for he would tent among them and acknowledge and treat them as his people. He would wipe away all tears, removing all causes of sadness. Death, mourning, wailing, and pain would cease to be, ending everything associated with the old form of the world. (21:3, 4)

John heard the assurance of the Almighty, the one seated on the throne, “Behold, I am making all things new.” The Most High then directed John to write, evidently what he had heard, and added still another assurance, “These words are trustworthy and true,” leaving no doubt respecting the dependability of the promise and its certain fulfillment. (21:5)

So sure is the fulfillment respecting everything revealed to John that he heard the one seated on the throne say, “They have come to be.” As the one who is the originator and the one who brings all that he starts or initiates to a successful conclusion, the Almighty identified himself as the “Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” To anyone “thirsting,” probably in the sense of earnestly desiring an abiding relationship with him, he would give them free drink from the fountain of water of life. This would assure the thirsty one of an eternal future and an abiding relationship with the Most High. For anyone who conquers, remaining loyal to God as did his Son Jesus Christ while on earth, the promised blessings are a sure inheritance. To the victor, the Most High says, “To him, I will be God, and to me, he will be a son.” (21:6, 7)

Cowards (persons who out of fear deny God and Christ and abandon the way of uprightness), faithless ones, those indulging in filthy, degrading deeds, murderers, persons persisting in a life of sexual immorality, practicers of occult arts, idolaters, and liars who mislead and harm others with their falsehoods are permanently excluded from any relationship with the holy God. They are destined for the lake of fire, condemned to second death (from which no resurrection is possible). (21:8)

One of the seven angels involved in pouring out the seven last plagues spoke to John, telling him that he would show him the Lamb’s bride. In spirit, John found himself transported to a very high mountain, enabling him to see the holy city, New Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. The city, representing the entire company making up the composite bride of Christ, proved to be one of unsurpassing splendor. It had the “glory of God,” a radiance like that of a precious gem, resembling jasper (perhaps white in color), with every facet reflecting like crystal. The city’s high wall had twelve gates (three on each of its four sides), with an angel stationed at each gate. Indicative of the city’s link to God’s servants prior to Jesus’ time on earth, each gate bore the name of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. The city’s wall rested on twelve foundation stones, with each oblong stone supporting one twelfth of the wall and being inscribed with the name of one of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (21:9-14)

The angel serving as John’s guide had a golden measuring rod to make known to him the dimensions of the city, its gates, and its wall. In the shape of a cube, the city measured 12,000 stadia (approximately 1,500 [c. 2,400 kilometers] ) in width, length, and height. (It is possible that the 12,000 stadia refer to the sum of the north, south, east and west sides of the city. If so, the city would be smaller but still of colossal proportions.) The measurement of 12,000 stadia parallels the number from each tribe of Israel marked with the seal of the living God. (7:5-8) Similarly, the 144-cubit wall height suggests a link to the total number of 144,000. The measurement of the wall is specifically identified as being according to a man’s measure and identical to the standard the angel used. As the city ascended many miles upward, the wall height of 144 cubits or some 200 feet (over 60 meters) was comparatively low, suggesting that it basically served to indicate that the city needed no defenses and that the wall kept out any unworthy ones from entering the city. The jasper wall surrounded a city of pure gold, clear like glass (or possibly meaning having a reflective quality like that of a polished mirror). Each of the twelve sections of the jasper wall stretching for many miles on each side of the twelve gates rested on a different precious or semiprecious stone—jasper (perhaps white), sapphire (blue), chalcedony (milky white, gray, or pale blue), emerald (green), sardonyx (possibly reddish brown), sardius (red), chrysolite (golden yellow), beryl (bluish green or green), topaz (yellow), chrysoprase (golden green), hyacinth (blue), and amethyst (purple or violet). Each gate consisted of one pearl, and the city’s main thoroughfare was gold, transparent like glass (possibly meaning that the gold reflected like a polished mirror). (21:15-21)

The city had no need for a temple, for God himself resided in the city and so did the Lamb. By their presence, the Almighty God and his Son constituted the city’s temple. With the glory or splendor of God serving as illumination and the Lamb shining like a lamp, the city was not dependent on light from the sun by day or from the moon at night. Divine illumination would provide what the nations needed to guide their path. Portrayed as a capital city exercising unlimited authority, the city would be receiving tribute from the “kings of the earth,” which would contribute to its glory or magnificence. Constantly illuminated and thus always in a state of absolute purity and free from any negative trait associated with darkness, night would never be experienced in the city and its gates would never need to be closed. Everything that is magnificent and honorable or noble from the nations would have free access, but nothing of a profane nature or anyone guilty of degrading behavior or lying would be able to enter. Entrance would be reserved only for those recorded in the Lamb’s scroll. (21:22-27)

The colossal proportions of the city, including incomprehensible quantities of the finest gold and precious gems and semiprecious stones of huge dimensions, provide a powerful visual image of the inestimable value the Almighty God and his Son assign to the faithful ones. During the time of their alien residence on earth, many of them were treated with contempt, like refuse. In God’s eyes and those of his Son, however, they proved to be very precious. For persecuted believers, the visual image would have served as a strong motivator to continue living a life of faith.

Note: Eight of the precious and semiprecious stones mentioned in Revelation 21:19 and 20 are the same ones the Septuagint lists for the high priest’s breastpiece. They are sardius (sárdion), topaz (topázion), emerald (smáragdos), sapphire (sáppheiros but a different spelling in Revelation [sápphiros]), jasper (íaspis), amethyst (améthystos), chrysolite (chrysólithos), and beryl (beryllion, which is the diminutive form of the term appearing in Revelation [béryllos]). (Exodus 28:17-20; 36:17-20)

The River of Water of Life and Christ’s Assurance (22:1-21)

The angel showed John a crystal-clear river of water of life, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Apparently trees of life lined both sides of the main thoroughfare of the New Jerusalem and both sides of the river as it flowed outside the city. The trees produced fruit each month, and the people of the nations could also use the leaves for healing purposes. As a holy city, the New Jerusalem would not be subjected to any curse. Located therein is the throne of God and of the Lamb, and the servants of the Most High would serve him and be identified as belonging to him by having his name (YHWH) on their foreheads. With God’s light shining upon them in the New Jerusalem, his servants would not need the light of the sun nor of the moon, and night would never settle down upon the city. Besides serving God, they would also reign for ever and ever. (22:1-5)

This scene doubtless would have reminded John of a similar vision seen by the prophet Ezekiel (47:1-12) In Ezekiel’s vision, the river flowed from the temple and its life-giving properties resulted in making it possible for fish to flourish in the Dead Sea. Based on Ezekiel’s vision and what John saw, the river of water of life evidently represents the provision for life having God and Christ as its source, and the trees yielding fruit each month and their leaves would be part of that provision. For people of the nations to benefit from what issues forth from the New Jerusalem, they would need to acknowledge their indebtedness to God and his Son in making it possible for them to be liberated from the death-dealing effects of sin on the basis of his Son’s sacrifice. The continuance of an abiding relationship with God and his Son would rest on availing themselves of all the divine provisions for life indicated by continuing to eat the fruit from the trees and making use of their leaves for healing purposes. People of the nations would also benefit from the services of those portrayed as residents of the New Jerusalem, as these servants of the Most High would be reigning and, in the capacity of associates of Christ in rulership, would be ministering to their needs.

The angel assured John that what he had revealed to him was deserving of absolute trust, saying, “These words are trustworthy and true.” This was so because the “God of the spirits of the prophets” had sent his angel to make known to his servants what would shortly take place. The expression “God of the spirits of the prophets” evidently indicates that the Most High is the source of true prophetic inspiration. The certainty of the fulfillment of the revealed prophetic message is set forth in the words, “the things that must take place shortly.” Those hearing the message were not to regard its fulfillment as being so distant as if it were never to be realized but were to consider it with a sense of immediacy and allow themselves to be comforted and strengthened by it during the course of their alien residence on earth. (22:6)

John heard the words, “Behold, I am coming quickly. Fortunate is the one who observes the words of the prophecy of this scroll.” (22:7) The speaker is not identified, but a number of translations insert Christ. Either the Father or the Son could be intended, for John did hear first-person expressions about coming from both the Father and the Son. (1:4, 8; 2:5, 16, 3:11; 16:15) In view of the angel’s focus on God as the source of prophetic inspiration, there is a basis for concluding that John may have heard the words of the Father or that his words were conveyed through his angel. All who would choose to live in harmony with the prophetic message would indeed be fortunate or in the enviable state of being among those to share in the resulting blessings. The coming would relate to the coming to execute judgment and to reward those then found to be approved. (11:17, 18; compare Malachi 3:5.) As this coming is by means of his Son, the basic meaning with respect to the results does not change if the words are understood as having been those of Jesus Christ.

John heard and saw all the things he recorded. Again moved emotionally by all the angel had shown him, John fell to his knees and prostrated himself before the angel’s feet. As earlier, the angel reminded him not to do so, as he was but a fellow servant of his and his brothers the prophets and those living in harmony with the words of “this scroll” (evidently containing the words John progressively had been writing). As the time for the fulfillment was near and not to be regarded as coming in the far distant future, the angel directed John not to seal the words of the prophecy recorded in the scroll, making it accessible to all who wanted to consider the message contained therein. The next statement indicates that individuals have a choice of either responding in a positive way to the prophetic word or ignoring it and pursuing a ruinous course. “Let the one practicing unrighteousness practice unrighteousness still; let the filthy one be filthy still; let the righteous one practice righteousness still, and let the holy one be holy still.” (22:8-11)

The one who promises to come quickly, repaying each one according to his work, identified himself as “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” At the outset of the revelation of which he is the ultimate source, the Almighty God revealed himself to be the Alpha and the Omega, the one who brings to a successful end all that he promises and initiates, and as the one who is coming. (1:8) Fittingly, like the opening of the book, the concluding part of the book includes the expression of the Father, and there is no contextual evidence for viewing it otherwise. According to 11:18, the Almighty is declared to be the one who will reward his servants the prophets, the holy ones, and those having reverential regard for his name. In harmony therewith, the one who is the Alpha and the Omega provides the assurance, “my reward is with me.” (22:12, 13; see the Notes section.)

The reward is sure for faithful ones. Fortunate, blessed, or in an enviable state of joyous well-being are those who do not defile their garments but continue to live upright lives. They will be granted to eat of the tree of life (denoting a never-ending relationship with the Almighty and his Son) and permitted to enter the city, the New Jerusalem, to share in all the joys and blessings associated with being part of Christ’s bride. Outside the city or cut off from all that an abiding relationship with the Father and the Son signifies would be those conducting themselves like vicious and promiscuous scavenger dogs, the practicers of occult arts, sexually immoral ones, and persons who prefer lies to truth, habitually lying to deceive others so as to take advantage of them or to escape deserved punishment. Their lot will be eternal doom. (22:14, 15; see the Notes section.)

Having received the revelation from his Father, Jesus identified himself as the one who sent his angel to testify to John and all believers in the various congregations who would be receiving the information that it came from God. When referring to himself as “the root and offspring of David,” Jesus Christ revealed that, besides being the “offspring” of David by reason of his human descent, he was also the “root” of David, the one through whom the royal authority of David came to life, fulfilling all the divine promises and godly hopes to which those earnestly looking for the coming of the Messiah held fast. As the morning star, he is the herald of a new day and the one through whom the darkness of former afflictions and distresses will vanish forever, not even being a lingering, painful memory. (22:16)

Possibly, in response to Jesus and the certainty of his coming and all that this would mean for believers, the spirit operating within the prophets moves them to cry out, “Come!” And Christ’s bride, the entire body of believers collectively, says, “Come!” And, individually, all those hearing the spirit-inspired call of the prophets and that of the bride, as from one united voice, are to take up the cry, “Come!” All thirsty ones are invited to come, to come to the one who can satisfy their thirst, making it possible for them to be refreshed and enjoy a newness of life. (22:17; see the Notes section for additional comments.) As Jesus Christ said when on earth, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink.” (John 7:37, 38, NRSV) Through him alone, all thirsty ones can obtain water of life free. This is what Jesus made clear to the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. “Everyone who drinks of this water [from the well] will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” (John 4:13, 14, NRSV)

Seemingly, the Lord Jesus Christ is the one who added his warning: “I solemnly charge all who hear the words of the prophecy of this scroll [which John appears to have written progressively as he saw the vision]. If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the things written in this scroll. And if anyone takes away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take away his share from the tree of life and from the holy city.” (22:18, 19) The message about faithfulness to God and Christ was not to be diluted or altered in any way that would weaken its force, suggesting something contrary to its intent. At the same time, the marvelous promises were not to be altered to mean something else, depriving the afflicted believers of the comfort and hope they needed to sustain them.

The concluding assurance of God’s beloved Son is, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” To this, John responded, “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.” (22:20)

For believers in every generation, this has been the message that brought them comfort. Christ will return. The beastly power of the world may rage, and many claiming to belong to Christ may actually, in attitude, word, and deed, reveal themselves to be his bitter enemies. Wars, famines, and dreadful diseases may plague earth’s inhabitants. Still, Christ’s cause continues to be victorious. No human has ever had more than a few decades of life on earth. For all God’s devoted servants, awakening from death means being with Christ and sharing in witnessing his triumph over all the forces of evil. As for those then alive, they will experience the relief from distress that they awaited and be united with him.

Meanwhile, the fulfillment of the prayerful expression with which the book concludes, is one in which all believers earnestly desire to continue to share, “The favor of our Lord Jesus [be] with all of you.” (22:21; see the Notes section.) That “favor” or grace includes all the help and guidance believers need in their daily walk regardless of whatever external pressures and trials they may face. As Jesus Christ told Paul when the apostle sought to be relieved from his “thorn in the flesh,” “My favor is sufficient for you.” (2 Corinthians 12:9)

Notes:

Many commentators dogmatically state that, in 22:13, Jesus Christ identifies himself as the Alpha and the Omega. The designation, however, is not preceded by “I, Jesus” (as are the words in 22:16). Moreover, up to this point, the focus has been on God. (22:9) In the absence of a specific identification of the speaker, insufficient evidence exists for the interpretation that, in the concluding chapter of Revelation, Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega. It would appear that the passage unmistakably identifying the Alpha and the Omega as the Almighty should govern the way the same designation is to be understood in a less specific context.

In 22:14, the earliest extant manuscripts contain the reading “wash their robes,” but numerous later manuscripts say “do his commands.”

In 22:17, the Greek verb “come” is singular, providing a basis for concluding that it is directed to Christ. Another possibility is that the “come” serves as a personal invitation for others to come to the water of life or to the one through whom this life-giving water is available. In the vision, the river of water of life proceeds from the throne of God and of the Lamb (22:1), identifying the Father as the ultimate source of this river and revealing that the Son figures prominently in this arrangement for life. God is the one who made the provision for life through his Son, and all who would come to enjoy the life of an abiding relationship with him must come to the Son. Apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, eternal life is impossible.

For verse 21, manuscript readings include “Lord Jesus,” “Lord Jesus Christ,” “our Lord Jesus Christ,” “with all,” “with all of you,” “with all of us,” “with the holy ones,” “with your holy ones,” “with all of the holy ones,” and “with all of his holy ones.”

Gleanings from Genesis

The contents of the book of Genesis were committed to writing long after the narrated events occurred, and efforts to identify ancient sources are mere conjectures. At the same time, oral transmission from generation to generation about certain events may well have been involved, accounting for the repetition of identical wording. Being a very ancient book, Genesis should be read as such and not against the backdrop of modern concepts. One must avoid assigning meanings to words, phrases, and the narratives themselves that would have been foreign to persons who first read Genesis or heard the book read to them.

It is also possible to draw wrong conclusions when the Genesis narratives are considered as a reworking of myths that anciently existed among Near Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. There is, for example, a marked difference between the Babylonian Enuma Elish creation myth and the account in Genesis chapter 1. At the very start of the Genesis account the focus is on the creative activity of one true God, and his “word” is portrayed as bringing everything into existence. The Babylonian myth, however, depicts the created world as the product of the violent, murderous conflict of gods and goddesses.

When reading Genesis, one must keep in mind that the book was originally committed to writing for Israelites who believed in one true God. Therefore, the reader must not forget that Genesis needs to be understood with this fact in mind. Individuals who reject belief in the one true God will not derive lasting benefit from what was recorded many centuries ago. Instead, they will most likely join the chorus of those who criticize and ridicule the ancient book, never giving thought to the reality that it was never meant for them. Genesis is not their book. It is foreign to them. Regrettably, with some of their interpretations, many who ardently defend Genesis as part of the “inspired Word of God,” have contributed to increasing and intensifying the ridicule of unbelievers.

Chapter 1

According to verses 8 and 9 of chapter 1, the Hebrew words for “heavens” (the dual form shamáyim) and “earth” (’érets) designate what appears to a human observer as a celestial dome and a land area (literally, the “dry”). Therefore, it appears preferable to consider verse 1 as introducing the coming into existence of the apparent celestial dome and the dry land that rises above the sea. Verse 1 does not need to be understood as referring to the creation of the universe, with its billions of galaxies as by a “big bang” that God originated. The focus in Genesis is on the progressive steps that came about through the expression of God’s will to shape a watery void without form and shrouded in darkness (verse 2) into a place where plant, animal, and human life could exist. A number of modern translations interpretively render verse 1 to be explicit as an introduction to the words that follow. “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth —” (NAB) “When God began to create heaven and earth —” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition])

In Genesis 1:5-2:4, the Hebrew word yohm appears with four different meanings — the period of daylight (1:5, 14, 16, 18), the six creative days followed by the day of rest (1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; 2:2, 3), the day consisting of a period of daylight and of night as people would reckon it on the basis of the appearance of the sun and the moon (1:14), and the entire period of the seven creative days (2:4) The various meanings for the Hebrew word yohm, as indicated by the context, provide good reason for avoiding arguments about the length of each of the six creative days.

Verse 2 mentions the activity of the rúach. The Hebrew word rúach can either mean “spirit” or “wind.” This explains why translations differ in their renderings (“a mighty wind sweeping over the waters” [NAB], “a wind from God sweeping over the water” [Tanakh (JPS, 1985 edition)], “the spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water” [REB]). The attribution of creation to what God says (not to his spirit) suggests that “wind” here may be the preferable meaning of rúach. Targum Jonathan on Genesis (thought to date probably from the second century CE), however, refers to the “spirit of mercy from before YY [Yeya (YHWH)].”

In the Hebrew language, the state of the earth at the beginning is described as tohú va-vohú, and the Septuagint renders this expression as “unseen and unformed.” No land and no seas teeming with life existed at that time. What would become land and seas was a “deep,” an “abyss” (LXX), a watery void enshrouded in the blackness of gloom. “Day one” witnessed the coming into existence of “light” or the removal of the darkness. Just how this state of darkness ended through the “light” is not revealed nor is the manner in which developments occurred explained in relation to other days. With the total darkness having vanished, “day one” was marked by a period of daylight (“light”) and a period of darkness (“night”). Like the 24-hour day that began for the Israelites at sundown, “day one” (as also the other “days” that followed) began in the evening. (1:2-5)

God’s word or the expression of his purpose on “day two” is represented as causing a division between the “waters,” with “waters” coming to be above the “expanse” or the celestial dome (“heaven” or the “sky”) and beneath it. Whereas God is portrayed as acknowledging as good the creative work accomplished on days one, three, four, five, and six, the extant Hebrew text does not include “good” for “day two.” This may be because the work involving the expanse above the “waters” was not completed until “day four.” The Septuagint, however, does contain the phrase, “and God saw that [it was] good.” (1:6-8) In the case of the ancient Israelites, they apparently would have understood “waters” as being above the expanse because rain descended from the sky or the celestial dome that towered above them.

In expression of God’s will on “day three,” the dry region of land (literally, the “dry”) appeared as an area for greenery and trees to flourish. God is represented as calling the dry region “earth” or “land,” and as designating the “waters” that had been collected into one place as “seas.” Once land came into being, it began to produce a great variety of plants and trees. (1:9-13)

Seemingly, from the standpoint of a human observer, “day four” was marked by the appearance of two “lights” and also of “stars” in the sky or on the celestial dome. The “greater light” (the sun) served to provide daylight, and the “lesser light” (the moon) provided illumination during the night. At a time when the people of other nations worshiped the sun and moon as deities, the Genesis account proved to be truly revelatory. The sun and moon were not deities, just “lights” that functioned as “signs” or as means for establishing seasons, days, and years. They were mere creations that came into existence through the expression of the purpose of the one true God. (1:14-19)

There being an ample provision of food in the form of plants and fruit growing on the land and apparently also sufficient means of nourishment in the seas to support marine life, the time had come, on “day five” for the coming into existence of both marine and flying creatures. This included huge ones in the seas. With God’s blessing, the great variety of creatures (literally, “living souls”) could reproduce their own kind. (1:20-23)

On “day six,” quadrupeds, reptiles and other creeping things began to live on the land. All of these creatures had the capacity to reproduce their own kind. (1:24, 25) Also, on “day six,” God is quoted as saying, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness.” According to Targum Jonathan (considered to date probably from the second century CE), God spoke to the “angels who ministered before him” and says that they had been “created in the second day of the creation of the world.” Angels are mentioned in the book of Genesis, and so it is understandable that the people of ancient Israel would have concluded that God spoke to them. The view expressed in the Targum about the creation of the angels on the second day probably was based on associating the realm of the angels as being above the expanse or celestial dome that came into existence on “day two.” For “man” to be in the “image” of God would not mean that humans were made to look like God but that they would be in possession of noble qualities such as love and wisdom, of the capacity for thought and creativity, and of an appreciation for order and beauty. (1:26)

God is represented as giving man “dominion” over all marine and terrestrial life forms. This was not a grant to destroy or to exploit living creatures, but a stewardship or a responsibility toward them, for they were God’s creation and did not belong to man. Throughout the centuries, humans have failed greatly in the exercise of proper dominion, having made themselves responsible for the senseless extinction and abuse of many living creatures. (1:26)

According to Targum Jonathan, God created man “with 248 members, with 365 nerves,” overlaying them with “skin” and filling it “with flesh and blood.”

After creating “man” in his image, creating male and female, God blessed them. They were to have offspring, “subdue” or cultivate the land, and exercise dominion over all living creatures. Plants and trees would provide them and also animals with abundant food. Targum Jonathan indicates that trees that did not bear fruit suitable for food were to be used “for building” and as material “for burning.” Everything that had come into existence on “day six” was “very good.” (1:27-31)

Chapter 2

After six creative days, all the works pertaining to the land, sea, and the celestial dome were complete. Everything is represented as having come into existence on the basis of what God said. Nothing is revealed about any work or activity on God’s part nor is there any reference to any time element in conjunction with the creation of what was required to transform a watery void into land and seas where plant and animal life began to flourish in great abundance and variety. For example, nothing is said about any work needed or time required for the land to come into existence and afterward for a variety of plants and trees to appear on the land. Day seven, however, is identified as God’s day of rest “from all his work that he had done” and as a day he blessed and set apart as sacred. (2:1-3)

There is a reason for the focus on God’s spoken word rather than on his activity. Once his word or purpose is expressed, that purpose is certain to be realized. God’s word, therefore, brought into the realm of reality everything that was represented as having been spoken by him. The processes or specific times involved in bringing the revealed purposes into the realm of actuality are not included in the biblical narratives. The emphasis on God’s word can help the one who reads the biblical narratives or hears them read to recognize that what God says is trustworthy and that all of his promises are certain to be fulfilled.

Work or activity was involved in bringing into being everything that God had purposed. His resting on “day seven,” however, does not mean that he needed time for recuperation after everything was finished. The fact that he is represented as seeing the creative works as good indicated that his purpose had been fully accomplished, with no need for any additional creative activity. God could rest from the standpoint of looking upon all creation with delight and satisfaction as work that had been finished. (2:3)

For the people of Israel, the divine precedent of six days of work followed by a day of rest provided them with a lofty spiritual reason for faithfully observing the seventh day as a day of rest. Referring to the “rest” that followed the six creative days, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote, “In just six days the world and all that is therein was made; and the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations — whence it is that we celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.” (Antiquities, I, i, 1; compare Exodus 20:8-11.)

Verse 4 of chapter 2 appears to be the introduction for the creation narrative that focuses specifically on the beginning of the human race. “These [are] the generations [or beginnings] of the heavens [the sky or celestial dome] and the earth [or land] in their being created in the day YHWH God made [the] earth [or land] and the heavens [the sky or celestial dome].” This is the first occurrence of the divine name (YHWH). Based on Exodus 3:14, the four Hebrew consonants, YHWH, making up this name evidently incorporate the verb “to be” (Compare the Septuagint reading, egó eimi ho ón [I am the one who is], and the words of Revelation 1:4, ho ón kaí ho en kaí ho erchómenos [the one who is and who was and who is coming]). In view of the Septuagint reading of Exodus 3:14 and the words of Revelation 1:4, the name apparently identifies the Supreme Sovereign as the One who is and continues to be and as the ultimate Source of everything that exists and that will come to be in fulfillment of his word and purpose. The name stands as an absolute guarantee that the Supreme Sovereign would never deviate from what he has declared or revealed he would prove himself to be. He and his word, therefore, are deserving of the utmost confidence. Whereas the Greek eimi (am) is in the present tense, the Hebrew expression ’ehyéh is in the imperfect state. Hence, the words of Exodus 3:14, ’ehyéh ’ashér ’ehyéh, may be rendered “I will be who I will be.” This suggests that the Almighty would prove to be exactly who he has revealed himself to be.

The creation narrative starts with a description of desolate, uncultivated land devoid of plant, animal, and human life. Conditions for the sprouting of greenery did not exist. The stated reason for this was that “YHWH God had not caused it to rain upon the earth” or land. There also was no man to cultivate the ground. The watering of the surface of the ground is attributed to a “mist” that rose from the land. According to the Septuagint, the source for the watering was a “fountain.” Targum Jonathan (considered to date probably from the second century CE) provides a different explanation. It says that a “cloud of glory descended from the throne of glory, and was filled with waters from the ocean, and afterward went up from the earth,” causing rain to come down and to water the entire surface of the ground. (2:5, 6)

YHWH God is represented as forming man from the dust of the ground or from the elements that are a part of the soil and breathing into his “nostrils the breath of life.” By having the animating principle of life imparted, the lifeless body became a “living soul” or a living being. (2:7) Targum Jonathan adds that God created the first man “red, black, and white.” The Jewish historian Josephus of the first century CE wrote regarding the man, “This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth” or soil. (Antiquities, I, i, 2)

As a home for the man (Adam), YHWH God is represented as planting a garden (a paradise [LXX]) in the eastern part of the region of Eden. (2:8) One long-held conjecture is that Eden was located in the mountainous area of eastern Turkey just south of Lake Van.

The garden featured delightful fruit-bearing trees. There were also two special trees in the garden — the “tree of life” and the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Targum Jonathan greatly exaggerates the height of the “tree of life” (a “journey of five hundred years”). A river, with its source in Eden, watered the garden. This river divided and formed four rivers — the Pishon (Ganges [Josephus]), Gihon (Nile [Josephus], flowing around Cush (Ethiopia [LXX]; through Egypt [Josephus]), Hiddekel (Tigris [LXX]), flowing east of Asshur (Assyria), and Perath (Euphrates [LXX]). (Antiquities, I, i, 3) The Pishon is associated with the “land of Havilah,” a region where quality gold, bdellium (a resinous gum [carbuncle (LXX)), and onyx (shóham) stone (“light green” stone [LXX]) were found. Havilah, however, cannot be linked to any known region. (2:9-14; see the Note section.)

After YHWH God had created the man, he placed him in the “garden of Eden” to cultivate it and to keep, guard, or preserve it. (2:15) He also commanded him not to eat of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” warning him that he would die that day if he were to eat its fruit. As for all the other trees in the garden, their fruit was available to the man for food. (2:16, 17) The command not to eat of the one tree implied no moral defect in the man, for eating was essential for sustaining life and only God’s command respecting the tree made its fruit unacceptable for food. This tree is not identified. Therefore, the view that it was an apple tree is baseless. For the man to eat fruit from the tree would bring upon him the immediate judgment of death, but the actual death would not necessarily follow on that 24-hour day.

YHWH God is represented as declaring that it was not good for the man to be alone (to “be sleeping alone” [Targum Jonathan]) Therefore, he determined to make a suitable “helper” for him or a companion like him, a genuine support. Before the man received this “helper,” he was given the opportunity to name animals and birds that YHWH God had formed from the soil or the elements of the ground. Among all these creatures, the man did not see any of them as a suitable “helper” for him. The man’s naming the creatures implied his superiority over them. Only humans possess the capacity to name creatures, and this has continued to the present time. (2:19, 20)

YHWH God is portrayed as causing the man to fall into a deep sleep, removing from him one rib and then closing up the flesh over the place from which the rib had been taken. Thereafter he formed the rib into a woman and brought her to the man. (2:21, 22) Targum Jonathan says that the “thirteenth rib of the right side” was removed. This view probably is based on the reality that both men and women have the same number of ribs — 24. It may be noteworthy, however, that a partially removed rib can regenerate if the periosteum (the membrane of connective tissue around the bone) remains intact. Moreover, the bone does contain the potential for the formation of another human.

Rabbi Sa’adiah ben Yosef Gaon (882/892 – 942 CE) explained that the creation of the woman from the rib of the man was done with wisdom. It would motivate the man to treat her mercifully as she was one of his body parts, and she would regard him as the source of her life. He would look after her as a man would guard a piece of himself, and she would follow him in the manner a limb would follow the body. Abarbanel (a fifteenth-century Portuguese Jewish Bible commentator) concluded that the woman was not created from the man’s foot so that he would not consider her to be a lowly maidservant, nor was she created from his head so that she would lord over him. Instead, she was created from his side so that she would be equal to him.

The man was delighted when he saw the woman and is quoted as expressing himself in poetic language. “At last this one [is] bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called woman, for from man this one was taken.” (2:23)

The union that would result from a man with his wife would become closer than that which had existed with his parents. A man would leave his father and his mother, attaching himself to his wife and forming a partnership as “one flesh,” comparable to that of just one person or a union of the closest kinship possible. (2:24) Both the man and the woman remained naked in their created state, but they were not ashamed. (2:25)

Note

Considerable uncertainty exists whether the Hebrew word shóham (2:12) designates onyx. The Septuagint is inconsistent in how it renders this word (berýllion [beryl], ónyx, prasinos [“light green” stone], sárdion [sardius], smáragdos [“bright green” stone, probably emerald], and soóm [possibly carnelian]).

Chapter 3

Among all the creatures of the “field” that YHWH God made, the serpent is described as being more clever or crafty (‘arúm). It may be that the reason for this description was the deceit with which the serpent became associated, for all creation was good and so no part of it could fittingly be identified as clever, crafty, or deceitful. Targum Jonathan (considered to date probably from the second century CE) refers to the serpent as being wiser respecting evil. The serpent is portrayed as asking the woman, “Did God indeed say that you must not eat from any tree of the garden?” This question implied that God was depriving her of partaking of the fruit from all the trees and that it was unfair for him to prohibit her from enjoying even a little of the abundance of available fruit. She responded correctly to the cleverly worded question. “Of the fruit from any tree of the garden, we may eat. But from the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God said, You must not eat from it and you must not touch it, lest you die.” Although the woman was fully aware of God’s command regarding the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” the question led to her focusing her attention on that very tree and preparing her for an answer respecting the reason for the prohibition regarding it. The answer was a lie that slandered God who had provided everything needful for her enjoyment and that of her husband. “You will certainly not die (literally, “dying, you will not die”), for God knows that, in the day of your eating of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God in knowing good and evil.” According to Targum Jonathan, she was told, “You will be as the great angels, who are wise to know between good and evil.” Completely deceived by the words coming from the serpent, the woman saw the tree in a different light, not as something to be avoided. It was good for food, pleasant to behold, a tree to be desired and having the capacity to make one wise. She then ate the fruit. Later, when her husband was with her, she gave him fruit, and he also ate it. (3:1-6)

Prior to partaking of the fruit, the woman and her husband had no knowledge of evil on the basis of personal experience. She and her husband had conducted themselves in a good way, and the thought of doing evil by transgressing the command they had been given apparently did not even occur to them. At the time she chose to eat the fruit, however, the woman determined that God’s command was not good. In this manner, she elevated herself to be like God in establishing what was good and what was evil for her personally. The result was not what she expected. Her eyes and those of her husband were opened, and they experienced the disturbing effect from having chosen to do evil. They became uncomfortable in the presence of one another because their conscience condemned them. Perceiving their naked or exposed state, they covered their private parts with fig leaves. Targum Jonathan says that “they knew they were naked, divested of the purple robe in which they had been created.” (3:7)

The ancient view among the Jews regarding this narrative appears to have been that the serpent possessed the capacity to speak and to express thoughts. First-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote: “All the living creatures had one language.” At that time, the serpent lived together with Adam and his wife. At seeing them living happily and in obedience to the commands of God, the serpent manifested an envious disposition. Imagining that, if they were to disobey the commands, they would fall into calamities, the serpent “persuaded the woman, out of a malicious intention, to taste of the tree of knowledge.” The serpent told the woman “that in that tree was the knowledge of good and evil, which knowledge,” when obtained, would lead to a happy life — a “life not inferior to that of a god.” By this means, the serpent “overcame the woman, and persuaded her to despise the command of God. Now when she had tasted of that tree, and was pleased with its fruit, she persuaded Adam to make use of it also. Upon this, they perceived they were naked to one another.” Being ashamed thus to be seen abroad, they invented coverings for themselves. The tree had “sharpened their understanding, and they covered themselves with fig leaves.” Tying these leaves together, “out of modesty, they thought they were happier” than they had been before, as they had discovered what they lacked. (Antiquities, I, i, 4)

Early Christians understood the serpent to have been more than a talking snake. They considered the serpent to have been the instrument the Devil used to deceive the woman. In John 8:44, Jesus Christ is quoted as identifying the Devil as a murderer, a liar, and the “father” or originator of lies, and Revelation 12:9 refers to the one called “Devil and Satan” as the “ancient [or original] serpent.”

Just like the woman long ago, many people since then have been deceived by the same lie, imagining that their best interests are served when they set their own ever-changing norms or standards respecting what is good and what is bad. They prefer to make themselves like God, or the highest authority, with no accountability for rejecting what is set forth as the “word of God” in the “holy scriptures” that have been preserved throughout the centuries. Often those who disregard the “word of God” ridicule what is set forth in Genesis, never recognizing themselves as having adopted a course like that of the woman.

During the windy part of the day (literally, the “wind of the day) or the “late afternoon” (deilinós [LXX]), the man and his wife heard the “sound of YHWH God walking in the garden.” It appears that the one whom the man and his wife heard walking was the direct representative of YHWH or the “angel of YHWH,” the one who many centuries later spoke to Abraham and who is referred to as YHWH and as one of three “men” or angels whom Abraham met. (Compare Genesis 18:1, 2, 16, 17, 22, 33; 19:1.) In view of their guilt-ridden conscience, the man and his wife went into hiding “from the face [or the presence] of YHWH God among the trees of the garden.” (3:8)

YHWH God called out to the man with the question, “Where are you?” The man admitted that he had heard his sound (apparently of his walking) in the garden and had hidden himself, being afraid on account of his nakedness. Targum Jonathan represents God as saying, “Is not all the world that I have made manifest before me — the darkness as the light? How did you think in your heart to hide from before me? Do I not see the place where you are concealed? Where are the commandments that I commanded you?” The Jewish historian Josephus added that the man had previously been pleased to respond to God and to converse with him whenever he came into the garden. He then quoted God as saying, “I had before determined about you both, how you might lead a happy life, without any affliction, and care, and vexation of soul; and that all things which might contribute to your enjoyment and pleasure should grow up by my providence, of their own accord, without your own labor and pains-taking; which state of labor and pains-taking would soon bring on old age, and death would not be at any remote distance.” (Antiquities, I, i, 4) Questioned as to who had told him that he was naked and whether he had eaten from the prohibited tree, the man, just like many people today, failed to acknowledge personal responsibility for his sin. He framed his answer in a manner that implicated God in his transgression and placed the blame for his sin on his wife. “The woman you gave [to be] with me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree, and I ate.” Faced with the question as to what she had done, the woman also did not take full responsibility for her deed but said that the serpent had deceived her. (3:9-13)

YHWH God first pronounced judgment on the serpent. Among all the animals, the serpent would be cursed, move on its belly, and eat dust “all the days of [its] life.” There would be enmity between the serpent and the woman, between the serpent’s seed or offspring and the woman’s seed or offspring. The offspring of the woman would bruise the serpent in the head, and the serpent would bruise the woman’s offspring in the heel. Targum Jonathan represents this to mean that the serpent’s means of locomotion changed and that it became a venomous creature. “Upon your belly you will go, and your feet will be cut off, and you will cast away your skin once in seven years. And the poison of death will be in your mouth, and dust you will eat all the days of your life.” The Jewish historian Josephus likewise made a literal application to the serpent. He indicated that God, out of indignation at the serpent’s malicious disposition toward Adam, deprived it of speech, had poison inserted under its tongue, made it an enemy of man, had its feet removed, and made it to drag itself on the ground. Additionally, God suggested to men that they should direct their strokes against the head of the serpent (the source of its malicious designs toward men). (Antiquities, I, i, 4) Of course, a serpent does not have legs, and it may be regarded as appearing to eat dust because of the proximity of its flickering tongue to the ground as it moves on its belly or rib cage. (3:14, 15)

Besides making a literal application to the serpent, Targum Jonathan includes, in God’s pronouncement of judgment, the prospect of a Messianic hope. “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between the seed of your son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite you upon your head. But when they forsake the commandments of the law, you will be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless, for them there will be a medicine, but for you there will be no medicine. And they will make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha.” In view of their understanding that the serpent was an instrument of Satan or the Devil, early Christians considered the judgment to incorporate the messianic hope. The time would come when the “seed” or offspring that would come through a woman would crush the Devil, triumphing over him and all the powers of darkness, and liberating humans from sin and its baneful consequences. Accordingly, the reference in Genesis has been applied to Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah who came to be “out of a woman” (Galatians 4:4) and who through his sacrificial death destroyed the works of the Devil (1 John 3:8), making it possible for humans to be reconciled to God as his approved children by having their sins forgiven. Jesus Christ’s being killed was comparable to his having a heel wound inflicted on him, for he recovered upon being resurrected from the dead. There is no such recovery for the Devil after he is totally crushed and God’s approved children find themselves in a completely sinless state like that of his unique Son, the resurrected Jesus Christ. (3:15)

As a consequence of the woman’s sin, her life would not be as it could have been. Bearing children would be a very painful experience. Her longing or desire (apostrophé [returning, turning back, or inclination], LXX) would be for her husband, apparently wanting his help and support, and he would lord over her. The Hebrew word for “longing” or “desire” is not limited in its application to women. In the Song of Solomon (7:10[11]), the Shulammite said respecting her beloved that his “desire” (epistrophé [turning or attention], LXX) was for her. Sin would have effected a change in the close relationship of the man and the woman, causing him to regard her as less than a fellow partner. He would exploit her need for him and act as a master. (3:16) Targum Jonathan indicates that he would rule over her “unto righteousness and unto sin.”

The man’s failure to obey God is attributed to his listening to his wife’s words. According to Josephus, she persuaded Adam. (Antiquities, I, i, 4) In his letter to Timothy, however, the apostle Paul said that Adam was not deceived. (1 Timothy 2:14) The man made a choice to cast in his lot with his wife, making himself responsible for the entrance of sin into the world and his becoming the progenitor of only sinful or morally flawed humans. (Romans 5:12) His eating of the forbidden fruit had serious consequences for him personally. Cultivating the cursed ground to grow plants for food would prove to be an arduous task. The land would produce thorns and thistles, greatly diminishing the results from his labor. He would perspire as he worked the land. In this way, he would eat bread “in the sweat of his face.” The time would come when he would die, returning to the ground or the elements of the soil from which he had been taken. He had been taken from the dust and would return to the dust. (3:17-19) Targum Jonathan includes the thought that, in the future, the man would rise from the dust to render an account “in the day of great judgment” for all that he had done. After the divine judgment had been pronounced, the man called his wife “Eve,” meaning “Living One,” for she would become the “mother of all living” persons. (3:20)

Animals had to be slaughtered to obtain skins to clothe the man (Adam) and his wife Eve. Apparently, therefore, it would have been the first time for them to see the loss of life by a violent act that would not have occurred had they heeded God’s command. This must have made a deep, if not also highly disturbing or shocking, impression on them. Whether they discerned that a covering for the effects of sin required a sacrifice, one involving the pouring out of blood, is not stated in the account. It is, however, a conclusion many have drawn from the incident. Targum Jonathan presents a very different version of this event. For the man and his wife, God made garments of honor from the skin of the serpent that it had shed instead of the adornment (the purple robe in which they were created) that they lost when they sinned. (3:21)

YHWH God is quoted as saying, “Look, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.” According to Targum Jonathan, God spoke to the “angels who ministered before him.” The quotation continues as an incomplete statement, “lest he [Adam] put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live for limitless time —” Apparently the implied thought appears to be that preventive action needed to be taken. YHWH God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden in Eden. Outside the garden, Adam would have to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken in order for him and his wife to have food to eat. Access to the garden was barred on the east entrance, where cherubs were stationed to guard “the way to the tree of life.” Seemingly, between the cherubs the “flame of a sword” turned continually. This description fits the time when swords existed, but the reference likely is to a revolving brilliant flame that resembled the turning of the bright blade of a sword. (3:22-24)

Neither the tree of the knowledge of good and evil nor its fruit contained the essential properties for imparting knowledge. Disregard of God’s command respecting this tree made it possible for Adam and Eve to experience or come to know evil and the accompanying disturbing emotions. Prior to their transgression they had only known good. Through their disobedience, they had elevated themselves to the level of gods as persons with no authority over them to establish for them what was good and what was evil. In reality, though, they were not like God. As was the case with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil concerning the imparting of knowledge, the tree of life seemingly did not inherently have the needed properties to grant never-ending life to persons who were entitled to eat fruit from this tree. Instead, the tree served as a tangible means to assure all who were entitled to eat its fruit that they would continue to enjoy life as persons with an approved standing before God. Therefore, when Adam and Eve transgressed God’s command, they lost the right to partake of the fruit from the tree of life. Expelled from the garden, they were prohibited from access to the tree of life and any attempt to reverse the judgment of death that had been pronounced against them. They had forfeited their life, and a reversal was impossible.

Chapter 4

According to a literal reading of the Hebrew text, “Adam knew his wife Eve.” This indicated that he knew her sexually or had intercourse with her. She gave birth to a son whom she named “Cain,” seemingly drawn from the verb meaning “acquire” and fitting the significance that Eve attached to his birth. “I have acquired a man with [the help of] YHWH,” suggesting that God had made it possible for her to have a son. (4:1)

Eve gave birth to another son. His name “Abel” may mean “emptiness,” “vanity,” or “exhalation.” Likely this name was not given to him at birth, but came to be attached to him when his life was cut short through Cain’s violent act against him. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus described Abel as a “lover of righteousness” who believed God to be “present at all his actions” and as a person who “excelled in virtue.” (Antiquities, I, ii, 1) Abel became a shepherd, and his brother Cain cultivated the soil. (4:2)

On the occasion that Cain and Abel brought their respective offerings to YHWH, they were grown men in a family that included sisters. According to Genesis 5:4, Adam fathered daughters and other sons besides Cain and Abel. So there is a possibility that there may have been offspring from sons by their sisters, for later Cain feared that he would be killed for having murdered his brother. (4:14)

Targum Jonathan says that it was the fourteenth of Nisan when Cain and Abel presented their offerings. Perhaps this was at a location near the place where the cherubs were stationed to prevent access to the garden in the region of Eden. Cain brought an offering from the produce of the ground that he had cultivated, and Abel brought an offering from the firstlings of his flock and their fat portions. YHWH approved the offering of Abel but did not look favorably upon Cain’s offering. This infuriated Cain and his countenance became downcast. (4:3-5) Regarding this development, Josephus expressed a view that may have been common among the Pharisees of the first century. It pleased God more when he “was honored with what grew naturally [firstlings from Abel’s flock] of its own accord” than “with what was the invention [cultivated plants] of a covetous man, and obtained by forcing the ground.” (Antiquities, I, ii, 1) The reading of the extant text of the Septuagint suggests that Cain failed to make the offering in an acceptable manner. “If you offer properly but did not divide properly, did you not sin?” (Genesis 4:7, LXX) According to 1 John 3:12, Cain was not in the right condition before God to make a proper sacrifice, for his “works were evil.” Josephus (Antiquities, I, ii, 1) also referred to the evil works of Cain, saying that he was “very wicked in other respects” and “wholly intent upon getting.”

After his asking Cain why he was angry and why his countenance had become downcast, YHWH, probably the “angel of YHWH,” is quoted as saying, “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door and its desire is for you, and you should master it.” (See the Note regarding the “angel of YHWH.”) Targum Jonathan (thought to date probably from the second century CE) expresses the thought with additional interpretations. “If you do your work well, will not your guilt be forgiven you? But if you do not do your work well in this world, your sin is retained until the day of the great judgment, and at the doors of your heart lies your sin. And into your hand have I delivered the power over evil passion, and to you will be its inclination, that you may have authority over it to become righteous or to sin.” (4:6, 7) Cain chose not to get the mastery over the inclination to harm his brother.

The extant Hebrew text does not say what Cain said to Abel, but the Septuagint does. “Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go into the plain.” While there alone with Abel, Cain killed him and, according to Josephus (Antiquities, I, ii, 1) hid the dead body to escape discovery. (4:8) Targum Jonathan includes the words of an argument between Cain and Abel before Cain killed him. Cain is quoted as saying, “I perceive that the world was created in goodness, but it is not governed [or conducted] according to the fruit of good works, for there is respect to persons in judgment; therefore, it is that your offering was accepted, and mine was not accepted with good will.” Abel replied, “In goodness the world was created, and it is governed according to the fruit of good works. And there is no respect of persons in judgment; but because the fruits of my works were better than yours,” my sacrifice was “accepted with good will.” Cain countered with the words, “There is neither judgment nor judge, nor another world; nor will good reward be given to the righteous, nor vengeance be taken on the wicked.” Abel replied, “There is a judgment, and there is a judge; and there is another world, and a good reward is to be given to the righteous, and vengeance is to be taken on the wicked.” Thereafter Cain rose up against his brother and “drove a stone into his forehead,” thus killing him.

When YHWH questioned him about the whereabouts of his brother Abel, Cain lyingly claimed that he did not know and, with an impudent question, callously denied any responsibility toward him. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (4:9) After having told him that his brother’s blood was crying out from the ground for vengeance or justice, YHWH pronounced his judgment against Cain. The ground that had received the blood of his brother from his hand would be cursed ground for him. Cain would toil to cultivate the soil, but it would not produce the expected yield, and he would be a “wanderer and fugitive” on the earth,” likely meaning that he would be exiled from the land where the offspring of Adam and Eve resided. The Septuagint does not refer to his being a “wanderer and fugitive.” It says that Cain would be “groaning and trembling on the earth.” (4:10-12)

Like a hardened criminal who may regard his penalty as too harsh, Cain (according to the Hebrew text) replied that his punishment was greater than he could bear. The Septuagint rendering represents Cain as saying, “Too great [is] my sin to be forgiven.” Targum Jonathan conveys a similar thought. “Heavier is my rebellion than can be borne [away].” These words are then followed by a positive expression regarding God. “Yet there is power before you to forgive it.” Cain felt that, in view of his banishment, he would be hidden from the face of YHWH and thus left totally vulnerable. As a fugitive and a wanderer, he thought that whoever might find him would kill him. Targum Jonathan designates the one who might find Cain as “any just one,” but Josephus wrote (Antiquities, I, ii, 1) that he feared that “he should fall among wild beasts, and by that means perish.” (4:13, 14)

YHWH said to Cain that sevenfold vengeance would be exacted from anyone who would slay him, and he put a mark on Cain to indicate that he should not be killed. (4:15) Many have concluded that thereafter an identifying mark appeared on Cain’s forehead. Targum Jonathan identifies the mark as “the great and honorable name,” apparently meaning the name of God, and says that it was “sealed upon the face of Cain.”

Cain went away “from the face” or the presence of YHWH, suggesting that any past relationship with YHWH had ended. Thereafter Cain began dwelling east of the region of Eden in what came to be known as the “land of Nod.” Targum Jonathan refers to this land as “the land of the wandering of his exile.” The wife of Cain, either one of his sisters or possibly a niece, accompanied him. He “knew” her sexually or had sexual intercourse with her, and she gave birth to a son named Enoch. The city Cain later built and named after this son may have consisted of a group of dwellings surrounded by a protective wall constructed from stones or timber. (4:16, 17) Josephus (Antiquities, I, ii, 2) wrote concerning this development, “He built a city, and fortified it with walls, and he compelled his family to come together to it.”

Enoch’s line of descent is traced through Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, and Lamech. With Lamech, polygamy had its start. His two wives were Adah and Zillah. According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, ii, 2), Lamech had 77 children by these two wives. The sons of Lamech made a name for themselves with their inventions. Jabal, the son by Adah, became the “father” or founder of those who lived in tents and tended flocks and herds. Jubal, Jabal’s brother, invented musical instruments — stringed instrument and pipe — and playing songs with them. Tubal-cain, Lamech’s son by Zillah, devised forging implements of copper (or brass) and iron. (4:18-22) Josephus (Antiquities, I, ii, 2) referred to him as a man who “exceeded all men in strength, and was very expert and famous in martial performances. He procured what tended to the pleasures of the body by that method.” Apparently the implements made from metal could be used as weapons, and violence came to be associated with the descendants of Cain. According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, ii, 2), “the posterity of Cain became exceedingly wicked, everyone successively dying one after another more wicked than the former.”

Lamech had a daughter by his wife Zillah, and her name was Naamah. The fact that this daughter, the sister of Tubal-cain, is mentioned by name suggests that she had a prominent role in the family, but nothing specific is mentioned about her. (4:22)

Lamech may have used a weapon his son Tubal-cain fashioned when killing a young man. Seemingly, to assure his wives Adah and Zillah that there was no reason for them to fear that vengeance would be taken against him, he said to them: “Hear my voice, you wives of Lamech; give ear to my saying. A man I have slain for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain is to be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” The poetic words of Lamech imply that he had far stronger reason than Cain for being avenged, for he had acted in self-defense. Targum Jonathan represents the words of Lamech as having an entirely different significance. “I have not killed a man, that I should be slain for him; neither have I destroyed a young man, on whose account my children should perish. For Cain who sinned and was converted by repentance [had protection] extended to him unto seven generations.” To Lamech, “who had not sinned, it is just that it shall be extended unto seventy-seven.”

Adam again “knew” his wife Eve or had sexual intercourse with her, and she gave birth to another son. Eve named him Seth, meaning “appointed one,” because, as she said, “God has appointed for me another seed [or offspring] instead of Abel whom Cain killed.” (4:25) Josephus (Antiquities, I, ii, 3) referred to Seth as an outstandingly good man. He “became a virtuous man; and as he was himself of an excellent character, so did he leave children behind him who imitated his virtues. All these proved to be of good dispositions. They also inhabited the same country without dissensions, and in a happy condition, without any misfortunes falling upon them till they died.”

During the lifetime of Seth’s son Enosh, certain ones “began to call on the name of YHWH.” (4:26) While some have attributed a positive meaning to this development, Targum Jonathan says the very opposite. “That was the generation in whose days they began to err, and to make themselves idols, and surnamed their idols by the name of the Word of the Lord.” The Septuagint rendering, however, does not support this significance. It indicates that that Enosh “hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.”

Note

As in chapter 3 and also here in chapter 4, it is probably the “angel of YHWH” who did the speaking. See the comment on Genesis 3:8 regarding this.

Chapter 5

The introduction to this section of Genesis identifies it as the “book” of the “generations of Adam” or of his descendants. This introduction repeats words from Genesis 1:26-28, indicating that “God created man” in his “likeness.” God created them male and female, gave them the name “man,” and blessed them. Being in the “likeness” of God did not mean that Adam looked like God, but he had attributes that the animals he named did not possess. Adam could love, manifest wisdom, think, reason, be creative, and appreciate beauty and order. (5:1, 2)

After Adam lived 130 (230 [LXX]) years he became the father of a son “in his own likeness, after his image.” This son was like him and also had the flaw of the sinful condition that made it impossible for him to reflect the likeness of God in the manner his father could prior to his transgression. Adam named his son Seth. According to verse 25 of chapter 4, Seth was the name his mother Eve gave him. This suggests that Adam agreed with his wife on the name of this son who was regarded as a replacement for Abel. (5:3)

When, according to the extant Hebrew text, the ages at which Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mehalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah became father to a son are added, the total comes to 1,456 years. The sum in the existing Septuagint text is 2,142 years. This difference exists because the age for each of the seven men from Adam through Enoch is increased by a 100 years. Additionally, Methuselah is said to have become father to Lamech at the age of 167, and Lamech to Noah at the age of 188. Instead of 167 and 188, the Hebrew text says 187 and 182. Another difference is in the number of years that Methuselah lived after becoming father to Lamech (802 [782 Hebrew text] years, with the age at death being 969 [as in the Hebrew text]) and the number of years Lamech lived after becoming father to Noah (565 [595, Hebrew text]) and the age at death (753 [777, Hebrew text]). In his Antiquities (I, iii, 4), Josephus follows the Septuagint for the men from Adam through Enoch but agrees with the Hebrew text for Methuselah and Lamech. (5:3-32)

The age at which Methuselah became father to Lamech as contained in the Septuagint cannot be correct, for it would mean that Methuselah lived 802 years after becoming father to Lamech and, therefore, about 14 years after the flood began (802 years minus 788 years [the age of Noah when the flood began (600 years), plus the age of Lamech at Noah’s birth (188 years [LXX])]). An ancient explanation for the addition of the 100 years is that the Septuagint translator considered the ages to be a tenth of the numbers and then added 100 when it would have been impossible for a man to have been old enough to become father to a son. He also subtracted 100 from the number of years the man lived after becoming father to a son, preserving agreement with the age at death found in the Hebrew text. The writings of Josephus are in Greek, and this probably accounts for his use of the numbers for the ages that are increased by a hundred years and, in his preface to the Antiquities (section 3), for his reference to the “sacred books” as containing a history of 5,000 years. (5:3-32)

With the exception of Jared, the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Hebrew text for the ages at which each of the seven men from Adam through Enoch became father to a son. It contains different ages at which Methuselah and Lamech became fathers to a son (67 for Methuselah and 53 for Lamech). For Jared, the number of years he lived after he became father to Enoch was 785 (800 [Hebrew text]), and his age at death was 847 (962 [Hebrew text]). Disagreement with the Hebrew text also exists regarding the ages for Methuselah and Lamech after the birth of a son (653 for Methuselah and 600 for Lamech; 782 for Methuselah and 595 for Lamech [Hebrew text]) and for the ages at death (720 for Methuselah and 653 for Lamech; 969 for Methuselah and 777 for Lamech [Hebrew text]). When, according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the ages at which each of the ten men from Adam to Noah became father to a son are added, the total comes to 1,207 years.

Only regarding Enoch and Lamech are a few details provided aside from the ages at which they fathered a son, the number of years they lived thereafter, and the total years of their life. Additional details about Enoch are found in other writings and in the book of Hebrews and the letter of Jude.

Enoch is identified as a man who “walked with God,” indicating that he proved to be a man devoted to God throughout his life. Regarding Enoch it is then stated, “He was not, for God took him.” The Septuagint reads, “Enoch pleased God well. And he was not found, for God removed him.” (5:22-24) According to the reading of Genesis 5:24 in the extant text of the Septuagint, the Greek term for the “change” or “removal” is the same as in Hebrews 11:5. Ancient Jewish writings present the view that the change or removal referred to Enoch’s being taken to another realm without undergoing death. Josephus (Antiquities, I, iii, 4) wrote that Enoch “departed and went to God,” and for this reason nothing was recorded about his death. Philo maintained that Enoch was “carried off in such a way as to be invisible, for then he was not found,” and suggested that he “was translated from a visible place, perceptible by the outward senses, into an incorporeal idea, appreciable only to the intellect.” (Book 41, Questions and Answers on Genesis, I) The “Book of Jubilees” (chapter 4) says that Enoch was conducted “into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honor.” According to chapter 12 of the Book of Enoch, “Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him.” Targum Jonathan states that Enoch “ascended to the firmament,” whereas the Targum of Onkelos says that the “Lord had not made him die.”

The letter of Jude refers to Enoch as “the seventh one from Adam” and as prophesying, “Look! The Lord came with myriads of his holy ones to render judgment against all and to convict every soul [‘all the ungodly,’ according to other manuscripts] regarding all their ungodly works that they committed in an ungodly manner and regarding all the harsh [literally, ‘hard’] words [missing in numerous manuscripts] ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 14, 15) These words indicated that God, accompanied by a host of numberless angels, would expose the record the impious had made for themselves and execute judgment against them for their words and deeds, which had dishonored him.

The Genesis account does not contain any mention of Enoch’s prophesying (verses 14 and 15 of Jude), but the same basic thought is expressed in 1 Enoch 1:9. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, twenty fragments of the book of Enoch have been found. This is just as many fragments as were discovered for the book of Genesis, suggesting that the book of Enoch appears to have been highly valued. At the present time, only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) accept 1 Enoch as part of the Scriptures.

The portion of 1 Enoch 1:9 that is preserved in 4Q204 (a manuscript thought to date from the latter part of the first century BCE but copied from a manuscript believed to have been approximately 100 years older) is very limited. Most of the text has to be reconstructed to be meaningful. In the book The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, by Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Edward M. Cook, the rendering with the supplied parts in brackets is as follows, “[...he will come with] myri[ads of his] holy ones […] [… to judge all f]esh for [their] works [of …] […] great and harsh […].” The complete text, as preserved in the Ethiopic version (in the Ge’es language), reads, “And look! He is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly; and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness that they have committed in an ungodly manner, and of all the hard things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Comments about Enoch contained in the Scriptures do not provide enough details for reaching any definitive conclusions about what actually happened to him after 365 years of life. It would appear that Jesus’ words (in John 3:13) do not support the view that Enoch was taken to heaven. “No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”

Lamech, the father of Noah, is quoted as saying about his son, “This one will bring us rest [or relief] from our work and from the toil of our hands on account of the ground that YHWH has cursed.” The thought appears to be that, during the lifetime of Noah (whose name appears to be drawn from a Hebrew word meaning “quietness,” “rest,” or “consolation”), the ground would no longer remain under the curse God expressed against it after Adam and Eve transgressed the command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (5:29) Noah did not have any sons until he reached the age of 500. His three sons were named Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (5:32)

In the first century CE and in earlier centuries, the Jews regarded the names in Genesis as those of men who had actually lived, and so did the early Christians. Jesus Christ used the written record in the early chapters of Genesis in a way that recognized them to be reliable history. (Matthew 19:4, 5; 23:35; Mark 10:6-9; Luke 11:51) Many have found the reference to the long life spans of the men questionable. It should be kept in mind, though, that people lived far shorter lives when the words in Genesis were committed to writing. The collection of sacred songs known as Psalms contains the words, “The days of our years [are] seventy years and, if for [reason of] strength, eighty years.” (Psalm 90:10) Based on what is recorded about the time Noah and his family spent in the ark, the years men lived before the flood were full years and not much smaller parts of a year. (Genesis 7:11, 12, 17, 24; 8:3-6, 10-14) Nevertheless, life spans far longer than 70 or 80 years have been preserved in writing, translating, and recopying of the Genesis account. Persons who believe in God as the Creator of the first humans accept that men lived far longer in very ancient times, although no other corroborating writings exist. There is, however, a significant difference between the ages in the Genesis account and the fantastically huge number of years that antediluvian rulers are said to have reigned. The Sumerian King List, for example, indicates the length of the reigns of eight rulers to have been 28,800, 36,000, 43,200, 28,800, 36,000, 28,800, 21,000, and 18,600 years respectively.

Millions of people today would be unable to trace their ancestry back for more than 400 years, and no one can definitively verify the exact length of life spans of their earliest ancestors who lived thousands of years ago. As to what conclusion individuals may draw about the ages recorded in the book of Genesis, this depends on whether they believe that God is the Creator of the first humans or that he does not exist. Just because a person cannot prove the existence of ancestors beyond a relatively recent time in history does not establish that earlier ancestors who accomplished remarkable tasks never lived. Likewise, one cannot prove that there is no God or that he had no part in bringing earthly life into existence. At a certain point in history, we reach a beginning for humankind, and Genesis identifies YHWH as the Creator and the God who is linked to that beginning.

Chapter 6

After the human population had increased significantly, certain “sons of God” began to notice that the women (literally, “daughters of the man” [the earthling]) were attractive. Of their choosing or to their liking, these “sons of God” took wives from among the women. Targum Jonathan says that these women were beautiful, painted, and curled (apparently having curled their hair). They walked about with “revelation of flesh” or with much of their body exposed and with thoughts of wickedness. (6:1, 2)

Verse 6 of the letter of Jude indicates the “sons of God” to have been “angels who did not keep their original place for themselves, but left their own dwelling.” The Genesis account makes no mention about the punishment inflicted on these “sons of God.” Sources familiar to Jews living in the first century CE, however, did include references to their punishment as being restraint in bonds and confinement in a place of darkness. This is also mentioned in verse 6 of the letter of Jude and 2 Peter 2:4.

First Enoch 12:4 identifies the “sons of God as “the Watchers of the heaven” who “left the high heaven, the holy eternal place,” and took “wives for themselves.” As to their punishment, 1 Enoch 10:11 says that God instructed the angel Michael to “bind Semjâzâ and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness.” This binding is not represented as their final punishment, but they are said to remain in their bound state until “the day of their judgment and of their consummation.” (1 Enoch 10:12) “In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire.” (1 Enoch 10:13) Regarding Azâzêl, God directed the angel Raphael to bind him “hand and foot,” and to “cast him into the darkness.” He would then remain bound and in a state of total darkness until the “day of the great judgment,” at which time he would be thrown “into the fire.” (1 Enoch 10:4-6)

There is uncertainty about the significance of the Hebrew word dun in the opening sentence of verse 3. A literal rendering of the sentence could be, “And YHWH said, My spirit will not contend [dun] in [or with] man for limitless time.” This could mean that YHWH’s spirit or attitude toward wayward humans would change. He would cease to trouble himself with them, refraining from executing severe punitive judgment. The Septuagint conveys a different meaning. “And the Lord God said, By no means [literally, not, not] will my spirit remain in these men.” This could signify that God would not allow the life force or life principle that he had imparted to humans continue to animate them. Man was but “flesh,” a mere mortal who had no strength to resist God in carrying out his purpose. YHWH determined to tolerate corrupt humans for no more than 120 years and to act against them after the allotted time was up. According to Targum Jonathan, the practicers of wickedness were given an extension of 120 years so that they might come to repentance and not perish. (6:3)

At the time the “sons of God” had sexual relations with women (literally, “the daughters of the man”), the “Nephilim” were on the earth. The designation “Nephilim” means “fellers” or individuals who caused other persons to fall by violent means. In the Septuagint, they are called “giants.” They were mighty men, “men of name,” but not men of renown known for good deeds. As the offspring of the “sons of God,” they apparently were men of extraordinary strength. (6:4) Josephus, in his Antiquities (I, iii, 1), referred to them as the offspring of “angels of God” and described them as unjust and as men who despised everything good, “on account of the confidence they had in their own strength.” The “tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.”

The Nephilim and their fathers must have greatly contributed to the extreme corruption that came to exist among the people of that time. This did not escape the attention of YHWH. He saw that the “wickedness of man” was great. In their thoughts, humans continually were focused only on bad. The complete moral breakdown that existed caused YHWH to look with regret upon his having made man because of how evil humankind had become. He was grieved or pained at heart or in his inmost being. Therefore, YHWH purposed to blot out man, beast, crawling creature, and bird. The evil for which man was responsible had led to impending calamitous results for the whole environment, including the animals. This is still true of the environmental ruin that humans cause and which brings about the destruction of animal life. (6:5-7)

Among his contemporaries, Noah “found favor in the eyes of YHWH.” He was an upright, blameless man, one who “walked with God,” or a man who conducted himself with a wholesome regard for God and according to the guidance of his God-given conscience. Noah was the father of three sons — Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (6:8-10)

As an upright God-fearing man, Noah remained undefiled by the corruption and the violence that “filled the earth.” In view of the corruption that came to exist among “all flesh,” or all the other humans then alive, YHWH revealed to Noah his purpose to destroy “all flesh.” The destruction of corrupt humankind was to be “with the earth,” indicating that everything on the land in the then-existing condition would come to an end. (6:11-13)

For the preservation of his life, that of seven immediate family members, and that of animals, Noah was divinely directed to build an “ark,” a huge rectangular box-like vessel. Gópher is the Hebrew word for the wood that was to be used for the construction of the ark. There is uncertainty about which tree the term gópher designated. The Septuagint rendering is “squared [lengths of] wood.” The lumber may have been obtained from a resinous tree like the cypress. Compartments were to be constructed in the interior of the ark. To make the vessel watertight, both the interior and exterior were to be covered with pitch. Based on a cubit of 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters), the ark was 450 feet (c. 137 meters; 300 cubits) long, 75 feet wide (c. 23 meters; 50 cubits), and 45 feet high (c. 13.7 meters; 30 cubits) high. (6:14, 15; see the Notes section.)

There is uncertainty about the meaning of the feature of the ark that is designated as the tsóhar. Perhaps the word tsóhar referred to an 18-inch (c. 46-centimeter; 1-cubit) opening below the roof of the ark and on all four sides of the vessel. Such an opening would have provided needed ventilation and some daylight. The entrance of the ark was on its side, and the interior of the vessel had three decks. (6:16)

YHWH revealed to Noah that he would flood the earth, destroying human and animal life. He concluded a covenant with Noah, his wife, his three sons, and the wives of his three sons. That covenant assured them that they would survive the deluge. To preserve every kind of bird, animal, or crawling creature, Noah was to bring two of each, male and female, into the ark. Additionally, he was to arrange for provisions of food to last for the duration of the flood. Noah followed through on everything he had been commanded to do. (6:17-22; see the Notes section.)

Notes

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters). This would make the dimensions of the ark approximately 438 feet (133.5 meters) by 73 feet (22 meters) by 44 feet (13.4 meters). Possibly the cubit was significantly longer.

Of the clean animals, there were to be more than two or more than one pair (male and female) of each kind. See chapter 7.

Chapter 7

In the then-existing generation, among the contemporaries of Noah, YHWH found him to be righteous and, therefore, directed that he and his household enter the ark. Of the clean animals, he was to take seven pairs (literally, “seven, seven” [or seven by seven]), male and female, and one pair, male and female of unclean animals, into the ark. At the time Noah lived, no distinction existed between animals that were clean or suitable for food and those which were not. When, however, the narrative was committed to writing, the people of Israel were fully aware of the distinction and needed no explanation as to what was meant. To preserve all the different kinds of birds, Noah was told to select seven pairs of each kind, male and female. It appears that seven days were allotted for Noah and his family to bring all the animals and birds and the essential supply of food into the ark. Targum Jonathan (thought to date probably from the second century CE) indicates that the seven-day period was granted so that the people might repent. If they repented, God would forgive them. If, however, they did not change, God decreed that he would cause rain to come down upon the earth. It would rain for forty days and forty nights, leading to a deluge that would destroy every living thing on the surface of the land. (7:1-4)

Based on the ages of the men listed in Genesis chapter 5, Methuselah died in the year the deluge began. This may be the reason that Targum Jonathan also refers to the seven-day period before the downpour began as a time of mourning for Methuselah. The mourning for Methuselah, however, did not cause the people to turn away from their wayward conduct.

Noah did exactly what he had been commanded to do. He was then in his 600th year of life. To escape the deluge, he, his wife, his sons, and their wives entered the ark. The clean and the unclean animals, birds, and crawling creatures, two by two, male and female, went into the ark as God had commanded Noah. Just as God had revealed, the waters of the flood came down upon the earth at the end of seven days. On the seventeenth day of the second month, the downpour began. Targum Jonathan refers to the “second month” as Marchesvan (Heshvan; mid-October to mid-November), for formerly “the months had been numbered from Tishri” (mid-September to mid-October), “which was the beginning of the year at the completion of the world.” Rain from the sky above and water on the earth below (“all the fountains of the great deep” that had “burst forth”) began to cover the land as the rain continued without letup for forty days and forty nights. (7:5-12)

All who had entered the ark were safe — Noah, his wife, his three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives, and every kind of beast, domestic animal, crawling creature, and bird, male and female, that had gone into the ark with Noah. As the flood waters rose, no one could come into the ark, for YHWH had closed the entrance. Once the flood waters rose high enough to cover land, including the higher elevations, the ark began to float. All hills and mountains (the then-existing highest elevations on the flooded land) were covered with water. The reference to fifteen cubits (22.5 feet; c. 7 meters) may indicate that the depth of the water over the highest elevations corresponded to the approximate draft of the ark. Every bird, domestic animal, beast, crawling creature, and human outside the ark died — “all flesh” or every living fleshly creature, the life of which depended on breathing (the “breath of life” in the nostrils). YHWH blotted out every living creature. Only Noah, members of his family, and the living creatures with him inside the ark survived. For 150 days the waters of the deluge remained unabated. (7:13-24)

Chapter 8

After the flood had overwhelmed the land for 150 days (7:24), YHWH remembered or directed his attention to Noah and all the other occupants inside the ark and caused a drying wind to blow across the earth. Then the waters began to recede. (8:1)

“The fountains of the deep” (abyss [LXX]) and the “windows of the heavens” (“cataracts of heaven” [LXX]) were stopped up. At the start of the deluge, the “fountains” were the source of water that had burst forth from the land below, and the “windows of the heavens” were like floodgates that had been opened to let huge quantities of water descend as rain from the sky above. The stopping up of all sources for additional water made it possible for the floodwaters to recede progressively after the period of 150 days. (8:2, 3)

On the seventeenth day of the seventh month (Nisan [Targum Jonathan], mid-March to mid-April), the floodwaters had diminished sufficiently for the ark to come to rest on the mountains of Ararat. In his Antiquities (I, iii, 5), Josephus referred to the place where the ark rested as a “certain mountain in Armenia” (a mountain in what is today eastern Turkey). The floodwaters continued to recede until the tenth month (Tammuz [Targum Jonathan], mid-June to mid-July). On the first day of the tenth month (eleventh month [LXX] or Ab, mid-July to mid-August), the tops of the mountains became visible. (8:4, 5)

Noah had made a “window” in the ark. He opened this window at the “end of 40 days” and released a raven. As the raven flew to and fro until the floodwaters had dried up from the earth, Noah was unable to determine anything specific about the conditions outside the ark. Therefore, he next released a dove to see whether the floodwaters had receded from the surface of the land. With the floodwaters still covering the land, the dove located no place to settle and flew back to the ark. Noah then reached out his hand to the bird and brought it inside through the open window. He waited another seven days and again sent out the dove. This time the bird returned toward evening with a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak. Josephus, in his Antiquities (I, iii, 5), added that the dove was “covered with mud.” Based on the evidence from the return of the dove, Noah knew that the floodwaters had diminished. When, after seven days, he sent forth the dove once more, the bird did not return to him. (8:6-12)

By the first day of the first month (Tishri [Targum Jonathan]; mid-September to mid-October) in the 601st year of Noah’s life, the floodwaters had begun to dry off from the surface of the land. Upon removing the cover of the ark, probably meaning a section thereof that made it possible for him to see the terrain, Noah determined that the ground was dry. On the twenty-seventh day of the second month (Marchesvan (Targum Jonathan), Heshvan; mid-October to mid-November), the earth or land was found to be dry. (8:13, 14)

God directed Noah and his family, together with every bird, land animal, and crawling creature, to leave the ark after having been inside for over one year. (Compare Genesis 7:11 with 8:14.) The living creatures that had survived inside the ark were to breed and increase greatly on the land. Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, and every beast, crawling creature, and bird came out of the ark according to their respective kinds or “families” as had been divinely commanded. (8:15-19) In his Antiquities (I, iii, 5, 6), Josephus commented about the place where all the occupants of the ark made their exit. “The Armenians call this place (Apobatérion) The Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day. Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark” Among them is Berosus the Chaldean. After describing the circumstances of the flood, Berosus continued: “It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs.” Hieronymus the Egyptian who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a “great many more, make mention of the same.” Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, is quoted as having written: “There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.”

Likely in gratitude for having been saved from the deluge, Noah built an altar and sacrificed creatures from among the clean ones as holocausts or burnt offerings. These creatures would have been domestic animals like bovines, sheep, and goats, and birds like doves. YHWH is represented as “smelling” the “pleasing odor” of the sacrificial victims or as recognizing the offerings as acceptable. (8:20, 21) Targum Jonathan says that Noah “took of all clean cattle, and of all clean fowl, and sacrificed four upon that altar. And the Lord accepted his oblation with favor.” Josephus did not identify Noah’s offering up clean animals on the erected altar as an expression of thanksgiving. He wrote, “As for Noah, he was afraid, since God had determined to destroy mankind, lest he should drown the earth every year; so he offered burnt offerings, and entreated God that nature might hereafter go on in its former orderly course, and that he would not bring on so great a judgment any more, by which the whole race of creatures might be in danger of destruction.” Josephus also referred to Noah as entreating God “to accept of his sacrifice, and to grant that the earth might never again undergo the like effects of his wrath; that men might be permitted to go on cheerfully in cultivating the [land]; to build cities, and live happily in them; and that they might not be deprived of any of those good things which they enjoyed before the flood.” (Antiquities, I, iii, 7)

“In his heart” or within himself, YHWH is represented as saying that he would never again curse the ground on man’s account, the reason being that, from youth onward, the inclination of the human “heart” or the inmost self has been toward bad. Although a corrupt human society perished in the deluge, this did not eradicate the serious moral flaw with which Adam infected his offspring by the transgression that alienated him from God. The frightening atrocities, acts of violence, oppression, fraud, and other evils that humans have committed in past centuries down to the present time undeniably prove that the serious moral flaw continues to exist. In view of inherent human sinfulness, YHWH purposed not again to destroy every living creature as he had by means of the deluge. (8:21)

“All the days,” or for as long as, the earth remained, the natural cycles would not end. “Seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter [spring (LXX)], and day and night would not cease. Targum Jonathan is more specific in referring to “sowing in the season of Tishri” (mid-September to mid-October), “harvest in the season of Nisan” (mid-March to mid-April), “coldness in the season of Tebeth” (mid-December to mid-January), and “warmth in the season of Tammuz” (mid-June to mid-July). (8:22)

Chapter 9

With God’s blessing upon Noah and his sons, the family was to repopulate the earth or land. Although Noah and his family were permitted to add meat to their diet, land and marine creatures and birds would continue to have a natural fear of them. This suggested that wild animals would not pose a threat to the deluge survivors. To the present time, even predators commonly avoid contact with humans. (9:1-3)

When killing an animal for food, Noah and his family were not to eat the blood. A creature’s life depended on the blood. Seemingly for this reason, the blood is referred to as “its soul” or its life. Targum Jonathan (thought to probably date from the second century CE) does not include the prohibition against eating blood. It rules out eating flesh that is torn from an animal that is still alive or from a slaughtered animal while there yet remains breath in it. (9:4)

God revealed that he would require an accounting from any beast or human responsible for shedding the lifeblood of any person. This accounting authorized capital punishment for murder and killing any animal that killed a human. The taking of human life showed disregard for the reality that man was made in the “image of God” and so was a unique creation with the capacity to love, to manifest wisdom, justice, and compassion, and to value and appreciate beauty and order. (9:5, 6) According to Targum Jonathan, “the judges, by witnesses,” were to condemn the murderer to death. If there were no witnesses, God himself would “bring punishment on him in the day of the great judgment.”

The family of Noah was to increase greatly in numbers, and God assured Noah and his sons that they and all the other occupants of the ark would never again experience a deluge. “For all future generations,” God made a covenant or solemn agreement with all the deluge survivors that never again would “all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood.” The rainbow was to serve as a sign of this covenant. Whenever the rainbow appeared “in the clouds,” God would remember the “everlasting covenant” between himself and every living soul of all flesh [or every mortal creature] that is upon the earth.” (9:7-17)

Of Noah’s three sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth (the ancestors of the post-flood human family), Ham, the father of Canaan, became the focus on account of a disrespectful act toward his father. Noah became intoxicated from the fermented juice of the grapes he obtained from the vineyard he had planted. In his drunken state, he lay exposed in his tent. Ham witnessed his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers about it. Shem and Japheth then took a garment, placed it on their shoulders and, walking backwards, covered their father’s nudity without looking upon it. (9:18-23)

In Leviticus chapter 18, the expression “to uncover nakedness” refers to illicit sexual relationships. This has provided the basis for a conjecture that Canaan may have been involved in a perverse act toward his intoxicated grandfather and that Ham failed to respond with appropriate corrective action. When Noah woke up from the effects of the wine he had drunk, he learned what his “youngest son had done to him.” It seems somewhat unusual that Ham would be called the “youngest son,” for he is always mentioned in the second place (Shem, Ham, and Japheth). Possibly, therefore, the designation “youngest son” applies to the grandson Canaan. (9:24) The comments of Josephus do not support this conjecture. He understood the “youngest son” to be Ham and wrote that the “youngest son” saw sleeping Noah in his intoxicated state lying “naked in an unseemly manner.” “When his youngest son saw this, he came laughing, and showed him to his brothers; but they covered their father’s nakedness.” As to the reason Noah did not curse Ham, Josephus wrote that it was on account of “his nearness in blood” or because Ham was a closer blood relative to Noah than his offspring would have been. “When the rest of [the offspring of Ham] escaped that curse, God inflicted it on the children of Canaan.” (Antiquities, I, vi, 3)

Upon coming to know what had happened, Noah pronounced a curse on Canaan, indicating that he would become “a slave of slaves to his brothers.” Noah also said, “Blessed [or praised be] YHWH, the God of Shem, and let Canaan be his slave.” Seemingly, the prophetic curse on Canaan pointed forward to the time when the descendants of Shem, the people of Israel, would subjugate the Canaanites and make the survivors of the conquest of the land of Canaan their slaves. It is noteworthy that the Canaanites were known for engaging in abhorrent sexual practices, and the earliest sign of this may have already been in evidence in the case of Ham’s son Canaan. (9:25, 26)

Noah continued, “May God enlarge Japheth,” either greatly increasing the number of his descendants or expanding the boundaries of the territory in which they would reside. Let Japheth “dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his slave.” The form of the Hebrew word for “enlarge” or “expand” consists of the same consonants as does the proper name “Japheth” and, therefore, the verb and the proper name constitute a wordplay. Descendants of Japheth (Persians, Greeks, and Romans) did conquer Canaanite territory in later centuries, and this may be regarded as fulfillment of the prophetic words that Canaan would become a slave of Japheth. As for Japheth dwelling “in the tents of Shem,” this could mean that the descendants of Japheth would at a future time derive benefits from the descendants of Shem. (9:27) One great benefit was the translation of the sacred writings from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and the associated spread of the knowledge about the one true God, YHWH. Targum Jonathan indicates that the sons or descendants of Japheth would become proselytes and “dwell in the schools of Shem.”

After the deluge, Noah lived an additional 350 years and died at the age of 950. (9:28, 29) Commenting on the long lives of Noah and others, Josephus (Antiquities, I, iii, 9) wrote: “Let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the shortness of our lives at present an argument that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life, for those ancients were beloved of God, and [lately] made by God himself; and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years: and besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue and the good use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries.”

Chapter 10

After the deluge, Noah’s sons fathered their own sons. The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. (10:1, 2) Gomer’s sons were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. Javan became father to Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. The descendants of Japheth settled in the coastlands. In their territories, they became families and nations and came to speak their own distinctive languages. (10:3-5)

Josephus indicated that the area where the descendants of the sons of Noah settled became known by the name of their forebears. By the time he wrote in the first century CE, some of the original names of the regions had been lost, but others could still be recognized. He attributed to the Greeks changes in names that sounded better to them than the original designations. (Antiquities, I, v) Gomer has been linked to the Cimmerians who settled in the vicinity of the Black Sea. The descendants of Magog may have inhabited the region to the south of Gomer. Madai has been identified with the Medes, Javan with the Greeks, and Tubal with the Tabalu mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions. The descendants of Tubal are thought to have inhabited a region in eastern Asia Minor. Meshech’s descendants may also have resided in Asia Minor and may be identified with the Mushku to which people references are found in Assyrian inscriptions. A possible identification for Tiras may be the seafaring people known to the ancient Greeks as Tyrsenoi. Ashkenaz has been identified with the Scythians who settled north of the Black Sea. The descendants of Riphath may have lived in the northwestern part of Asia Minor. Togarmah has been linked to the Armenians. Elishah has been associated with various locations — Crete, Italy, and Cyprus. Tarshish has been linked to the Iberian Peninsula, Kittim to Cyprus, and Dodanim (or Rodanim) to the island of Rhodes.

The comments of Josephus probably reflect views that were current among Jews in the first century CE. He indicated that the descendants of the seven sons of Iaphtha (Japheth; Iapheth [LXX]) “occupied first the mountains of Tauros [Taurus, a mountain range in southern Asia Minor] and Amanos [Amanus, a mountain range in Asia Minor] and proceeded through Asia as far as the river Tanais [the Don River in European Russia) and across Europe as far as Gadeira [Cadiz, a city in southern Spain], settling the lands they encountered where none had lived before, and calling the nations by their own names. Gomaros [Gomer; Gamer (LXX)] founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, but were then called Gomarites. Magoges [Magog (Hebrew and LXX)] founded the Magogites after himself, whom they call Scythians. The sons of Iaphtha [Japheth; Iapheth (LXX)], Iauanos [Javan; Ioyan (LXX)] and Mados [Madai], were also founders of nations: from Mados [Madai] came the Madaians, whom the Greeks call Medes, and from Iauanos [Javan; Ioyan (LXX)] are descended Ionia and all the Greeks. Theobelos [Tubal; Thobel (LXX)] founded the Theobelians, who are now called Iberes [Iberians]. The Meschenians were founded by Meschos [Meshech; Mosoch (LXX)] and are now called Cappadocians, though a trace of their ancient name is still visible, for there is still among them a city called Mazaca, an indication to those who understand such things that this was once the name of the whole nation. Theires [Tiras; Thiras (LXX)] called his subjects Theirians, but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians. … Of the three sons of Gomaros [Gomer; Gamer (LXX)], Aschanaxes [Ashkenaz; Aschanaz (LXX)] founded the Aschanaxians, who are now called by the Greeks Reginians; and Riphath founded the Riphathaians, now called Paphlagonians, and Thugrames [Togarmah; Thorgama (LXX)] the Thugramaians, whom the Greeks called Phrygians. Of the three sons of Iauanos [Javan; Ioyan (LXX)], son of Iaphtha [Japheth; Iapheth (LXX)], Halisas [Elishah; Elisa (LXX)] named the Halisaians whom he ruled, who are now the Aiolians [Aelonians]; and Tharsos [Tarshish; Tharsis (LXX)] (the former designation of Cilicia) named the Tharsians, an indication [for the name Tharsos being] the name of their noblest city and metropolis Tarsus, the tau having replaced the theta. Chethimos [Kittim; Kitioi (Kitians), LXX] occupied the island of Chethimaand, now called Cyprus, from which all islands and most of the seacoasts are called by the Hebrews Chethim [Kittim], an indication of which is that one city in Cyprus has kept that name. It is called Kition by those who use the Greek language, not far removed from the name Chethim [Kittim]. … To please my readers, the names are here rendered in the Greek style, as our native language does not pronounce them like that.” (Antiquities, I, vi, 1)

The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. Descendants of Cush are thought to have settled in ancient Ethiopia, those of Mizraim in Egypt, and the offspring of Put in Libya. Descendants of Canaan occupied the Levant, the region that borders the easternmost part of the Mediterranean Sea and includes the land that the people of Israel occupied in later centuries. (10:6) Josephus made the same identification. “Of the four sons of Ham, time has in no way changed the name of Chousaios [Cush; Chous (LXX)], for his Ethiopian descendants … are even to this day called Chousaioi [Cushites], both by themselves and by everyone in Asia. … All of us living [in Judea] call Egypt Merse and the Egyptians Mersaians. Phoutes [Put; Phoud (LXX)] was the founder of Libya and called the inhabitants Phoutians, after himself. … Chananaios [Canaan], the fourth son of Chamas [Ham; Cham (LXX)], lived in the country now called Judea and called it by his own name Chananaia [Canaan; Chanaan (LXX)].” (Antiquities, I, vi, 2) The sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca; and Sheba and Dedan were the sons of Raamah. Their descendants may have lived in Arabia, probably in the southwestern part of the peninsula. (10:7)

The son of Cush who made a name for himself among his contemporaries was Nimrod. He was the first one to distinguish himself as a “mighty man” (a hero or a warrior) and a “mighty hunter before the face of YHWH.” (10:8, 9) From ancient times the expression “before the face of YHWH” has been understood to mean that Nimrod acted defiantly toward God. Targum Jonathan (thought to date probably from the second century CE) says about Nimrod that “he began to be mighty in sin, and to rebel before YY [Yeya (YHWH)] in the earth. He was a mighty rebel before YY [Yeya (YHWH); therefore, it is said, From the day that the world was created there has not been [one like] Nimrod, mighty in hunting, and a rebel before YY [Yeya (YHWH)].” In the first century CE, Josephus also expressed himself to this effect. Nimrod was a bold man of great strength who incited his contemporaries to have contempt for God and persuaded them not to attribute their prosperity to God, but to ascribe it to their own courage. “He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way to turn men away from the fear of God and to bring them into a constant dependence upon his power.” (Antiquities, I, iv, 2)

Nimrod began to exercise dominion over his contemporaries in the “land of Shinar,” the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. His kingdom had its beginning over the cities of Babel (Babylon [LXX]), Erech, Accad, and Calneh. From Shinar he headed northward, probably in command of a military force intent on seizing territory in Asshur (Assyria). There he later directed the building of the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen situated between Nineveh and Calah. The “great city” apparently was Nineveh, with Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen being suburbs. (10:10-12)

Mizraim, the son of Cush, became father to Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim, and Caphtorim. All seven names are plural and, therefore, may be understood to represent distinct peoples or tribes, the majority of whom settled in northern Africa. Casluhim is identified as the one from whom the Philistines came. The Philistines took up residence on the southeastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 2) wrote that the descendants of Mersaios (Mizraim; Mesraim [LXX]) possessed the region “from Gaza to Egypt.” Lehabim (Labimos [Josephus]; Loudiim [LXX]) “settled alone in Libya and called the country after himself.” With reference to his own time, Josephus said, “Of Nedemos [Naphtuhim; Nephthaliim (LXX)] and Pethrosimos [Pathrusim; Patrosoniim (LXX)] and Chesloimos [Casluhim; Chasloniim (LXX)] and Cephthomos [Caphtorim; Caphthoriim (LXX)] we know nothing except their names, for the Ethiopian war … destroyed those cities.” (10:13, 14)

The firstborn son of Canaan was Sidon (Sidonios, Josephus). According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 2), Sidonios “built a city of the same name,” and the Greeks called it Sidon. This city has been identified with modern Saida, a coastal city of southwestern Lebanon. Other offspring of Canaan included Heth, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, Hamathites. It appears that Josephus referred to the Hamathites as “Amathous who lived in Amathine, which the locals even now call Amathe, although the Macedonians gave it the name Epiphania.” Josephus continued, “Aroudaios (Arvadites; Aradios [LXX]) occupied the island of Aradus [an island off the northern coast of Syria], and Aroukaios (Arkites; Aroukaios [LXX]) occupied Arke in Libanus [Lebanon]. Of the seven others, Euaios [Hivites; Euaios (LXX)] , Chettaios [Heth (Hittites); Chettaios (LXX)], Iebousaios [Jebusites; Iebousaios (LXX), Amorraios [Amorites; Amorraios (LXX)], Gergesaios [Gergashites; Gergesaios (LXX)], Seinaios (Sinites, Asennaios [LXX]), and Samaraios [Zemarites; Samaraios (LXX), we have nothing from the sacred books except their names, for the Hebrews destroyed their cities.” (10:15-18)

The territory that the Canaanites occupied extended from coastal city of Sidon in the north to Gerar and nearby Gaza in the south. From Gaza, Canaanite territory extended eastward to the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim in the Dead Sea area and then either near or as far as Lasha. (10:19)

The concluding words about the “sons” or descendants of Ham relate to the respective regions of their residence after all of them began to speak their own distinctive languages. “These [were] the sons of Ham by their families, by their languages, in their lands, according to their nations.” (10:20)

Noah’s son Shem also fathered sons. All the “sons” or descendants of Eber came through the line of Shem. The apparent reason for the focus on Eber is that the people of Israel descended from him through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In his Antiquities (I, vi, 4), Josephus wrote that it was from Heber that the Jews were originally called Hebrews. The Hebrew text could be understood to indicate that Shem was either the older brother of Japheth or that Japheth was Shem’s older brother. According to the rendering of the Septuagint, Japheth is definitely identified as the “greater” or the “older” (“brother of Iapheth [Japheth] the greater [or the older]).” (10:21)

Shem’s sons were Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. In the Septuagint, “Kainan” (Cainan) is mentioned after Aram, and Arpachshad (Arphaxad) is referred to as the father of Kainan. The name Kainan is missing in the Hebrew text, but it is included in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Luke 3:36) Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 4) also omitted Kainan and referred to Shem as having five, not six, sons. The sons of Aram were Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. Arpachshad became father to Shelah (or, according to the Septuagint, to Kainan [Cainan] and Kainan to Sala [Shelah]), and Shelah to Eber. Eber had two sons, Peleg and Joktan. The reason for the name Peleg was that in this son’s “days” the earth was “divided.” Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 4) wrote that Phalegos (Peleg; Phalek [LXX]) “was born at the dispersion of the nations to their several countries; for phalek, among the Hebrews, signifies division.” This dispersion took place after the confusion of the language while the tower at Babel was in the process of being built. (10:22-25; 11:7, 8)

According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 4), the descendants of Shem’s sons resided in the region that extended from the Euphrates River to the Indian Ocean. “Elymos [Elam; Ailam (LXX)] left behind him the Elymaians [Elamites], the ancestors of the Persians. Assouras [Asshur; Assour (LXX)] lived at the city of Ninon [Nineveh] and named his subjects Assourians [Assyrians], who prospered greatly. Arphaxades [Arpachshad; Arphaxad (LXX]) named the Arphaxadaians, now called the Chaldaians [Chaldeans]. Aramos [Aram (LXX)] had the Aramaians, whom the Greeks call Syrians. … Loudas [Lud; Loud (LXX)] founded the Loudians, now called Lydians. Of the four sons of Aramos [Aram (LXX)], Ouses [Uz; Os (LXX)] founded Trachonitis and Damaskus [Damascus]. This country is between Palestine and Coele-Syria. Otros [Ouros; Ul; Oul (LXX)] founded Armenia, and Getheres [Gether; Gather (LXX)] the Bactrians, and Mesas [Mash; Mosoch (LXX)] the Mesanaians in the region now called Charax Spasini [a place between the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers].”

Peleg’s brother Joktan became father to Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. (10:26-29) The region in which they settled is described as extending from Mesha (Masse [LXX] as far as Sephar (Sophera [LXX]), “to the mountainous area of the east.” It is likely that the settlements were in the Arabian Peninsula, possibly as far south as Yemen. Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 4) indicates that they resided in the region around Kophenos (Cophen), a river of India, and the adjoining part of Asia. (10:26-30)

The concluding statements regarding the “sons” or descendants of Shem and the families of the descendants of Noah pertain to the situation that existed after the dispersion on account of the confusion of the language. “These [were] the sons [or descendants] of Shem by their families, by their languages, in their lands, according to their nations. These [were] the families of Noah’s sons [or descendants] according to their genealogies, by their nations, and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the deluge.” (10:31, 32)

Note

To indicate the differences in the spelling of the names found both in the Greek text of Josephus and in the Septuagint, these names have been transliterated to correspond more closely to the Greek. Therefore, the transliterated names in the text of Josephus differ from those in English translations of the works of Josephus. Other minor changes have also been made in the wording of the translated text.

Chapter 11

As the descendants of Noah’s family increased in number, they continued to have one “language” and the same “words,” the same vocabulary, or the same way of expressing themselves. According to the Septuagint, the people had “one lip and one voice,” sound, or pronunciation. Both in the Hebrew text and in the Septuagint, the entire human population that then lived on the land is referred to as “all the earth.” (11:1)

From the original location where the family of Noah first lived after the deluge, a significant number of their descendants moved eastward. They found a “plain in the land of Shinar,” a region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and settled there. In the vicinity, stone was not available for building projects. Therefore, the people decided to use kiln-dried bricks made from clay and bitumen for mortar. Their plan was to build a city and a very high tower (a tower with its top in the heavens or reaching up to the clouds). They also wanted to make a “name” for themselves, not wanting to be scattered over the surface of “all the earth” or over the extensive land areas that they knew existed. The “name” they wanted to make for themselves apparently was that of a reputation that defied God and opposed his purpose for the human family to spread abroad throughout the vast regions of land. (11:2-4)

In his Antiquities (I, iv, 2, 3), Josephus attributed to Nimrod the building project in the land of Shinar. Nimrod persuaded the multitude that “he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach, and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers. Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God. They built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work.” By reason of the many hands employed on the project, the tower “grew very high, sooner than anyone could expect.” Its thickness “was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was.” The tower “was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water.” Targum Jonathan (thought to date probably from the second century CE) linked the tower to idolatry, indicating that the builders intended to place an idol for worship at its top.

Whereas the builders of the tower attempted to have it reach the “heavens,” YHWH is represented as coming down to see the city and the tower they had built. He is then quoted as saying, “Look, they are one people, and they all have one language.” The building of the city and the tower was just the beginning of acts that defied God’s purpose for them to spread to various regions of the earth, and other acts of defiance were bound to follow. With the kind of united action that speaking the same language made possible, the people would have been able to carry out any of their God-defying plans. Everything that they devised would have been “possible for them to do.” Therefore, YHWH is represented as determining to go down to confuse the language of the builders so that they would be unable to understand one another and thus be prevented from carrying out corrupt plans as a united body. In Targum Jonathan, God is portrayed as addressing angels to make known to them his purpose. He “said to the seventy angels which stand before him, Come, we shall descend and shall there commingle their language, that a man will not understand the speech of his neighbour.” In the Targum, the “seventy angels” are then linked to “seventy nations.” The confusing of the language led to scattering the people “over the surface of all the earth” or the land, and they stopped building the city. According to the Targum, each one of the seventy nations came to have its own distinctive language. This development was the reason the city became known as “Babel.” (11:5-9) Commenting regarding what occurred at the city, Josephus (Antiquities, I, iv, 3) wrote, “When God saw that [the people] acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they had not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners.” He brought about confusion among them by causing them to speak a multitude of different languages so that they could no longer understand one another. “The place where they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion.”

From this point onward, the focus in Genesis chapter 11 is on the descendants of Shem, starting with his son Arpachshad and then continuing consecutively to (Kainan [Cainan]), Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, and Terah. Neither the Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text) nor the Samaritan Pentateuch include Kainan (Cainan), but the Septuagint does in Genesis 11:12, 13. The name Kainan (Cainan) is also found in the genealogy of Jesus Christ at Luke 3:36.

Arpachshad was born two years (twelve years [Josephus, Antiquities, I, vi, 5) after the deluge when his father Shem was 100 years old. The Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch are in agreement about the age of Shem at the time Arpachshad was born and that Shem died at the age of 600 or 500 years after the deluge. Regarding Arpachshad and the other descendants, however, there are differences in the ages at the time of the births of the listed sons and the length of life after this event. The following are the ages of each man at the time his listed son was born: Arpachshad (Arphaxad) to Kainan, 135 (LXX); Arpachshad to Shelah, 35 (Masoretic Text); 135 (Samaritan Pentateuch); Kainan to Shelah (Sala), 130 (LXX); Shelah (Sala) to Eber, 30 (Masoretic Text); 130 (LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch); Eber to Peleg (Phalek), 34 (Masoretic Text); 134 (LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch); Peleg (Phalek) to Reu (Ragau), 30; 130 (LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch); Reu (Ragau) to Serug (Serouch), 32 (Masoretic Text); 132 (LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch); Serug (Serouch) to Nahor (Nachor), 30 (Masoretic Text); 130 (LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch); Nahor (Nachor) to Terah (Thara), 29 (Masoretic Text); 79 (LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch). The following are the ages of each man at his death on the basis of the number of years he lived after becoming father to the listed son: Arpachshad (Arphaxad), 438 [Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch]; 565 [LXX]; Kainan [Cainan], 460 [LXX]; Shelah [Sala], 433 [Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch]; 460 [LXX]; Eber, 464 [Masoretic Text]; 504 [LXX]; 404 [Samaritan Pentateuch]; Peleg (Phalek), 239 (Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch); 339 (LXX); Reu, 239 (Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch); 339 (LXX); Serug (Serouch), 230 (Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch); 330 (LXX); Nahor (Nachor), 148 (Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch); 208 (LXX). (11:10-26)

An ancient explanation for the addition of 100 years to the ages of the men at the time they became fathers to the listed sons is that the years were only a tenth of the twelve-month year. This explanation, however, does not fit the way the year is calculated in connection with the time that Noah and his family spent in the ark during the deluge. It is noteworthy that the men born after the deluge did not live as long as those who lived during the preflood period. For believers in YHWH as the true God and the Creator of the first humans, the explanation for the decline in the life spans is that the generations after the deluge progressively lost the potential for a long life that Adam continued to possess after his sin and which potential his earlier descendants still retained. Finally, at the time Psalm 90 was committed to writing, the typical life span was around 70 years, and an approximate age of 80 came to be attributed to the possession of greater strength.

The ages contained in the works of Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 5) do not correspond to those in the extant Hebrew text. For Arpachshad (Arphaxados), Shelah (Selos), Eber (Heberos), and Peleg (Phalegos), Josephus has the same ages as does the Septuagint for the time the men became fathers to the listed sons. Although increasing the ages at the birth of their sons by 100 years for Reu, Serug, and Nahor, the ages do not agree with the Septuagint nor with the Hebrew text when the sum of 100 is subtracted (Reu [Reumos], 130; Serug [Serougos], 132; Nahor [Nachoros], 120). Also unlike the Septuagint, Josephus does not include Kainan (Cainan).

At the age of 70, Terah (Thara) became a father. His family came to include three sons, Abram, Nahor (Nachor), and Haran (Harran). Although listed first, Abram was not the firstborn son of Terah. At the time Terah died at the age of 205, Abram was 75, indicating his father was about 130 years of age at the time of his birth. The reason for mentioning Abram first may have been on account of his prominence as the ancestor of the people of Israel and his outstanding example of devotion to God. (11:26, 27; see 11:32 and 12:4.) According to the Samaritan Pentateuch, however, Terah died at the age of 145. Based on this shorter life span, Abram would have been the firstborn son. In view of the absence of any corroberative support from the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, Targum Jonathan, and Josephus, the rendering of the Samaritan Pentateuch is in doubt. Possibly the age of 145 (instead of 205) was introduced into the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch because Abram was considered to have been the firstborn son of 70-year-old Terah.

Abram’s brother Haran was the father of Lot and preceded his father Terah in death, dying at Ur in Chaldea, the land of his birth. Terah’s surviving two sons, Abram and Nahor, married before Abram’s departure from Ur (commonly identified with Tell el-Muqayyar on the south bank of the Euphrates in southern Iraq). Abram’s wife was Sarai who had remained barren, and Nahor’s wife was his niece Milcah, the daughter of his deceased brother Haran. The siblings of Milcah were her brother Lot and her sister Iscah. Although Abram was the one whom God called upon to leave Ur, the move, as was customary in ancient times, was attributed to the family head Terah. The members of Terah’s family who left Ur included Abram and his wife Sarai, and Abram’s nephew Lot, the son of his deceased brother Haran. According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, vii, 1), Abram adopted Lot because he had no son of his own. The final destination for the family was to be Canaan, but it was not possible to travel westward through the inhospitable desert. Therefore, the family headed north on the usual route from Ur to Canaan. When they reached Haran, a city in northern Mesopotamia, Abram, Sarai, and Lot remained there until Terah died at the age of 205. The Genesis account does not list Nahor and his wife as accompanying his father Terah from Ur, but later in the account he and his family are mentioned as having their home at Haran. (11:28-32; 22:20-23; 24:15, 24, 47) Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 5) wrote that Terah had come to hate Chaldea because of his mourning for his son Haran and that the entire family (“they all,” which would have included Nahor and his wife) “removed to Haran of Mesopotamia.”

Note

The Hebrew word for “father” can designate a grandfather or even an earlier ancestor. Targum Jonathan identifies Iscah (11:29) as Sarai. This identification is only possible in the event that Terah was the grandfather of Sarai but the father of Abram. If Terah was her grandfather, she would have been Abram’s niece. This is what Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 5) understood the relationship between Abram and Sarai to have been, for he wrote that Abram and his brother Nahor “married their nieces.”

Chapter 12

YHWH directed Abram to leave the country where he had settled after leaving the city of Ur and the relatives of his father’s family who were residing in that country and to go to the land he would be shown. His willingness to respond would be richly rewarded. YHWH is quoted as saying, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great. And you will be a blessing. And I will bless those blessing you and curse the one cursing you. And by you all the families of the earth will bless themselves.” (12:1-3)

Abram did become a great nation, for he came to have many descendants. He was blessed with much wealth and a long life. Most importantly, he came to be known as YHWH’s “friend.” (Isaiah 41:8) The greatness of his name likely relates to his outstanding reputation as a man with exemplary faith in and devotion to YHWH. To this day, millions of people acknowledge the greatness of the name of Abram (Abraham). Historically, individuals and peoples who aligned themselves with descendants of Abram were blessed, but those who demonstrated themselves to be bitter enemies suffered serious consequences. (Joshua 2:9-13; 6:22, 23, 25; 11:16-20; Ruth 1:16, 17; 4:13-22; Amos 1:3-15; Matthew 1:5) Targum Jonathan includes the example of one who would attempt to curse the descendants of Abraham. “Bileam [Balaam], who will curse them, I will curse, and they will slay him.” Abram would prove to be a source of blessing for other peoples, for through his line of descent the sacred writings that reveal the identity of YHWH, the only true God, and his will and purposes were preserved. Moreover, the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, came through the line of Abram. In Abram, through his descendant Jesus Christ, all the families living on earth can obtain the greatest blessing possible. When Jesus Christ surrendered his life for the human family, including future generations, people everywhere were provided with the basis for having their sins forgiven and coming to enjoy an approved relationship with God as his beloved children. Moreover, as Paul wrote (Galatians 3:7), the real children of Abraham are such “out of faith” or on the basis of their faith. Therefore, their being blessed “in” Abraham could also mean that people of the nations would share in the blessing by reason of belonging to Abraham. He is their spiritual forefather or ancestor. As his spiritual children, they share in his blessing. (12:2, 3)

The Genesis account does not disclose how YHWH spoke to Abram. It could have been in a dream, a vision, or through his representative angel. Abram, though, understood God to have been the source of the message that was revealed to him, and he responded in faith. It would not have been easy for Abram and his wife to leave family behind and to head for a foreign land about which they knew nothing. At the age of 75, he, with his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and the “souls” or servants he had acquired, left Haran in upper Mesopotamia for Canaan. They also took with them all their possessions, which would have included domestic animals. Upon arriving in Canaan, they traveled through the land in which the Canaanites were residing until they reached Shechem by a well-known landmark — the tree of Moreh (the “lofty oak” [LXX]). Shechem has been linked to Tell Balata about 30 miles (48 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and at the east end of the Nablus Valley. (12:4-6)

At Shechem, YHWH (probably the angel of YHWH) appeared to Abram and declared that he would be giving the land to Abram’s “seed” or descendants. In view of the appearance (the nature of which is not revealed), Abram built an altar there to YHWH. Thereafter Abram and all those with him traveled southward, reaching an elevated site to the east of Bethel (identified with Beitin situated about 11 miles [c. 7.5 kilometers] north of Jerusalem and at an elevation of approximately 3,000 feet [over 900 meters] above sea level. There, between Bethel on the west and Ai on the east, Abram set up his tent, built an altar to YHWH, and “called on the name of YHWH.” Apparently he presented an offering on the altar and prayed. The area in the vicinity of Bethel was not where Abram chose to settle. With his wife, his nephew Lot, his servants, and domestic animals, Abram headed southward, arriving in the Negeb, the semi-arid region to the south of the mountainous territory in the land that centuries later came to be assigned to the tribe of Judah. (12:7-9)

At an unspecified time, the people in the land of Canaan experienced a severe famine, and Abram decided to go to Egypt. Before entering Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai that, because she would be desired as a wife on account of her beauty, he feared that he would be killed, whereas she would be preserved alive. Therefore, he entreated her to identify herself as his sister so that he would be spared from death. (12:10-13)

Evidence exists that Abram’s fear was justified. Unas, an ancient Pharaoh, had the following expression attributed to him on an inscription in his pyramid: “Unas is the lord of seed, he who takes the women from their husbands, wherever Unas wants, according to the desire of his heart.” (Unas Pyramid Texts, Utterance 317) An extrabiblical manuscript (The Genesis Apocryphon [1QapGen], thought to date from the late first century BCE or the early first century CE) relates that Abram acted out of fear because of a dream he had. In his dream, he saw a cedar tree and a palm tree. When someone tried to cut down and uproot the cedar, the palm tree spoke up, requesting that the cedar not be cut down, and the plea of the palm tree saved the cedar. Abram interpreted this dream to mean that the Egyptians would seek to kill him but would spare his wife Sarai. Therefore, he asked Sarai to tell them that he was her brother and thereby protect him from being killed.

The account in The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) continues: While in Egypt, Sarai was very careful that the Egyptians would not see her. After five years had passed, three Egyptian princes, including Harkenosh, came to see Abram to inquire about his affairs and about his wife, and they presented him with numerous gifts. At that time, the princes saw Sarai and, upon returning to Pharaoh, described her exceptional beauty and added that no virgins or brides entering the bridal chamber were more beautiful than she. Her beauty was superior to that of all other women. In addition to beauty, she possessed much wisdom. The glowing report about Sarai prompted Pharaoh to send for her and take her away from Abram. Impressed by her beauty, Pharaoh took her as his wife and planned to kill Abram. Sarai intervened, telling him that Abram was her brother and thereby saved him from death.

According to the Genesis account, the Egyptians, including princes of Pharaoh, who saw Sarai did notice that she was very beautiful. The princes praised her to Pharaoh, leading to his taking her into his house to be his wife. As he believed Abram to be Sarai’s brother, Pharaoh treated Abram well on her account. Therefore, Abram came to have sheep, cattle, male and female donkeys, camels, and menservants and maidservants. The mention of camels has often been referred to as an anachronism, but an ancient drawing, a pottery head, and an ointment pot that were found in Egypt suggest that camels appear to have been known in that land from a time before Abram arrived. (12:14-16)

The “great plagues” that affected Pharaoh and his house or the entire royal establishment may have included the inability to conceive or to bring babies to full term. (12:17; compare 20:18) Commenting on the plague that came upon Pharaoh and subsequent developments, Josephus (Antiquities, I, viii, 1) wrote: “God put a stop to his unjust inclinations [to enjoy Sarai] by sending upon him a distemper, and a sedition against his government. And when he inquired of the priests how he might be freed from these calamities, they told him that this his miserable condition was derived from the wrath of God on account of his inclination to abuse the stranger’s wife. He then out of fear asked Sarai who she was …” The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) refers to the cause of the affliction that affected Pharaoh and his household to have been a God-sent pestilential spirit that attacked him and every member of his household. Pharaoh was unable to approach Sarai and had no sexual relations with her during the two years she remained with him. At the end of the two years the distress he and his household experienced intensified. Pharaoh then summoned the sages of Egypt, all the magicians, and all the physicians, desiring that they heal him and the members of his household. They could do nothing, for the pestilential spirit attacked all of them, and they fled. Thereafter Harkenosh, one of Pharaoh’s princes, came to Abram, requesting that he pray for the monarch and lay his hands on him so that he might recover from the affliction. It was on account of Pharaoh’s dream that Harkenosh had been sent to Abram. Lot spoke up, “My uncle Abram cannot pray for the king while his wife Sarai remains with him. So now go and tell the king that he should send [Sarai] … back to her husband. Then he will pray for him, and he will recover.”

Upon coming to know the actual relationship of Abram and Sarai, Pharaoh reproved Abram, asking him why he did not tell him that she was his wife and say that she was his sister. Sarai was Abram’s half sister (or, according to ancient Jewish sources, his niece), the daughter of his father Terah but not the daughter of his mother. (20:12; see the Note section.) Nevertheless, when concealing their relationship as a married couple out of fear, Abram implied that she was available for marriage. Therefore, Pharaoh had taken her to be his wife. Upon coming to know the full truth, he returned Sarai to Abram and instructed him to leave Egypt. Additionally, he gave orders to men in his service to conduct Abram, his wife, and everything he owned out of Egypt, apparently to provide them with safe passage. (12:18-20)

The Genesis account does not censure Abram for concealing that he and Sarai were married but simply reports what he did. Abram was childless at the time, and God’s promise to make him into a great nation could not be fulfilled until he had a son. Faith in that promise, however, was not then strong enough to overcome fear for his life and to trust in God to protect him and Sarai. Nevertheless, God did not abandon Abram, but came to his aid so that Sarai was not violated and that his purpose respecting Abram would be fulfilled. From what happened to Abram and Sarai, God-fearing persons can take comfort. Through God’s providential care for them, they may mercifully be shielded from the consequences of past regrettable actions on account of having yielded to fear instead of relying fully on God.

Note

The Hebrew word for “father” can designate a grandfather or even an earlier ancestor. Targum Jonathan identifies Iscah (Genesis 11:29) as Sarai. This identification is only possible in the event that Terah was the grandfather of Sarai but the father of Abram. If Terah was her grandfather, she would have been Abram’s niece. This is what Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 5) understood the relationship between Abram and Sarai to have been, for he wrote that Abram and his brother Nahor “married their nieces.”

Chapter 13

After Abram, his wife, and his nephew Lot departed from Egypt with everything they owned, they came into the Negeb, the semi-arid area south of the mountainous region in the territory that later came to be part of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah. At that time, Abram was very wealthy, owning many domestic animals and much silver and gold. After traveling through the Negeb and heading north, Abram and those with him arrived near Bethel (identified with Beitin situated about 11 miles [c. 17.5 kilometers] north of Jerusalem), at the site between Bethel and Ai where they earlier had tented when they arrived from Mesopotamia. It was also there that Abram had erected an altar and called on the name of YHWH. Apparently he presented a sacrifice on the altar and prayed. (13:1-4) The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen, thought to date from late in the first century BCE or early in the first century CE) quotes Abram as saying after he had come back to the land of Canaan, “I gave thanks to God for all the riches and favors he had bestowed on me. For he had dealt kindly with me and brought me back in peace into this land.”

Like his uncle Abram, Lot, who according to The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) was by then married to an Egyptian woman, also had flocks, herds, and tents. In view of their abundant possessions and large flocks and herds, it became impossible for them to remain in close proximity with one another. Conflicts arose between the herders of Abram and those of Lot. These disputes likely involved areas for pasturing the animals and the essential sources for watering flocks and herds. Abram seems to have recognized that it was not good for the Canaanites and Perizzites who were residing in the land to witness strife. Therefore, he took the initiative in telling Lot that, because they were “brothers” or closely related, there should not be conflicts between them and between their respective herders. Ample land was available for tending flocks and herds, and Abram gave Lot the choice of the section of land where he preferred to pasture his animals. (13:5-9)

Lot chose the valley of the lower Jordan River, which appears to have included the area around the southern end of the Dead Sea. At the time, this was a well-watered region and was described as being like the “garden of YHWH [paradise of God (LXX)], like the land of Egypt.” The reference to Zoar appears to be to a city south of the Dead Sea, and the Hebrew phrase that literally reads “your coming [to] Zoar” has usually been translated to indicate that the well-watered region extended as far south as Zoar. According to the Septuagint rendering, the desirability of the region ended at that location (“until one came to Zogora [Zoar]”). (13:10, 11)

With his flocks and herds, Lot separated from Abram and headed eastward, where he lived among the cities of the lower Jordan and the Dead Sea area, moving his tent as far as the city of Sodom. Eventually his permanent residence came to be in Sodom itself. According to The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), Lot bought a house in the city. Targum Jonathan (thought to date probably from the second century CE) describes the people of Sodom as having sinned “in their bodies,” sinned “with open nakedness,” shed innocent blood, and engaged in strange worship. The Genesis account refers to them as evil and great sinners against YHWH. (13:12, 13)

While Abram continued to tent in the area of Canaan west of the region where Lot resided, YHWH (likely the angel of YHWH) communicated with him, telling him to look northward, southward, eastward, and westward to see all the land that would be given to him and his “seed” or descendants. The place from which Abram viewed the land likely was the site near Bethel situated at an elevation of about 3,000 feet (900 meters) above sea level. From this elevated site, Abram would have been able to see an extensive area of land. (13:12, 14, 15)

According to the divine promise, the “seed” or descendants of Abram would become as numerous as the dust particles of the land and so beyond his ability to count. Apparently to indicate that he would be given the land through his descendants, Abram was to traverse the length and breadth of the land. (13:16, 17)

The location where Abram moved his tent as his place of residence was by the big trees of Mamre (the “oak of Mamre” [LXX]) at Hebron. This ancient city, situated about 19 miles (c. 30 kilometers) south of Jerusalem and at an elevation of about 3,000 feet (c. 900 meters) above sea level, was built seven years before the Egyptian city of Zoan (Tanis) in the northeastern Delta region. At Hebron, Abram erected an altar to YHWH. (13:18; Numbers 13:22)

Note

Targum Jonathan (thought to date probably from the second century CE) says that the wife of Lot was from Sodom (not from Egypt, as does The Genesis Apocryphon).

Chapter 14

Josephus (Antiquities, I, ix) and The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen, thought to date from the late first century BCE or the early first century CE) indicate that the servitude of the rulers Bera (Balla or Bara [LXX]; Balas [Josephus]), Birsha (Barsa [LXX]; Balaias [Josephus]), Shinab (Sennaar [LXX]; Synabanes [Josephus]), Shemeber (Symobor [LXX]; Symmoboros [Josephus]) and the king of Bela (Balak or Bala [LXX]; Balenoi [Josephus]; a place also known as Zoar [Segor, LXX]) began when they suffered defeat. For twelve years, these five rulers had served Chedorlaomer, paying him, according to Josephus and 1QapGen, the required tribute. In the thirteenth year, they rebelled, which signified that they refused to pay tribute. It was then, in the fourteenth year, that Chedorlaomer (Chodollogomor [LXX]; Chodolamoros [Josephus]) the king of Elam, with the support of Amraphel (Amarphal [LXX]; Amarapsides [Josephus]) the king of Shinar, Arioch (Ariochos [Josephus]) the king of Ellasar and Tidal (Thargal [LXX]; Thadalos [Josephus]) the king of Goiim (or king of nations [LXX]), undertook punitive war against Bera the king of Sodom, Birsha the king of Gomorrah, Shinab the king of Admah, Shemeber the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela. (14:1-5)

With the forces of each of these rulers and his own, Chedorlaomer first engaged in a military campaign that began east of the Jordan River at Ashteroth-karnaim (a site thought to have been located east of the Sea of Galilee). There they triumphed over the Rephaim (the “giants” [LXX]). The invading forces also defeated the Zuzim in Ham (likely a city some distance to the south of Ashteroth-karnaim), the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim (a plain near Kiriathaim, east of the Dead Sea), the Horites in the mountainous region of Seir (the region that the descendants of Abram’s [Abraham’s] grandson Esau or Edom many years later inhabited). It appears that the most southerly location that the victorious forces reached was El-paran on the border of the wilderness (possibly at the most easterly section of the “wilderness of Paran” [Genesis 21:21]). The invaders then appear to have headed westward, reaching En-mishpat (also known as Kadesh), a city on the western extremity of the region that later became Edomite territory, and defeated the Amalekites in the region and also the Amorites who were occupying Hazazon-tamar, probably a site near the valley of Siddim. (14:5-7)

Apparently Bera the ruler of Sodom with his force headed the alliance with Birsha, Shinab, Shemeber, and the “king of Bela” with their respective warriors. They assembled in the valley of Siddim, “that [is] the Salt Sea.” This may mean that the valley no longer existed but was covered by the water of the Dead Sea. A number of modern translations make this meaning explicit in their renderings. “These kings joined forces in the valley of Siddim, which is now the Dead Sea.” (REB) The “kings rebelled and came together in Siddim Valley, which is now covered by the southern part of the Dead Sea.” ([CEV] 14:3, 8)

In the ensuing conflict the warriors under the command of Bera the king of Sodom, Birsha the king of Gomorrah, Shinab the king of Admah, Shemeber the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela faced the warriors of Chedorlaomer the king of Elam and those of his allies — Tidal the king of Goiim, Amraphel the king of Shinar, and Arioch the king of Ellasar. The defending alliance of five kings fought with the invading alliance of four kings. (14:8, 9)

The invading warriors triumphed, and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled. Their falling into the bitumen pits in the valley of Siddim is to be understood as indicating that their fighters fell into them during their flight from the enemy. Other defending warriors made their escape to the mountainous region. A number of modern translations are more specific in their renderings than is the Hebrew text. “When the troops from Sodom and Gomorrah started running away, some of them fell into the pits. Others escaped to the hill country.” (CEV) “And as the army of the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some fell into the tar pits, while the rest escaped into the mountains.” (NLT) “When the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some of their men fell into [the bitumen pits], but the rest made their escape to the hills.” (REB) From Sodom and Gomorrah, the enemy warriors and their four kings seized all the property, probably including flocks and herds, and all the provisions or food supplies. They also captured Lot and plundered his property, which would have included his flocks and herds. Josephus (Antiquities, I, ix) attributed Lot’s capture to his assisting the men of Sodom. (14:10-12)

An escapee of the military campaign made his way to Abram and told him about what had happened. The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) identifies this man as a shepherd whom Abram had given to Lot and who had escaped from captivity. At the time, Abram was tenting by the big trees of Mamre (the “oak of Mamre” [LXX]) the Amorite chieftain. The trees that belonged to Mamre were near Hebron, situated about 19 miles (c. 30 kilometers) south of Jerusalem and at an elevation of about 3,000 feet (c. 900 meters) above sea level. Mamre and his two brothers Eshcol and Aner had a covenant or agreement with Abram, but the terms of this agreement are not included in the Genesis account. Possibly because he was a resident alien, Abram had an agreement with the three men to be able to pasture and water his flocks and herds in the area. (13:18; 14:13)

Both the Antiquities (I, x, 1) of Josephus and The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) mention Abram’s emotional reaction to the news that his “brother” or kinsman Lot had been captured. Josephus wrote that Abram feared for Lot and pitied the people of Sodom, Lot’s friends and neighbors. The Genesis Apocryphon says that Abram “wept” on account of Lot.

With 318 men who had been born in his household, Abram set out to rescue Lot. The Hebrew word chaník, which designates these men, is often rendered “retainers” in modern translations, but its meaning is uncertain. This word does not appear elsewhere in the Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures. The 318 men must have been trustworthy and doubtless had experience in carrying out collective defensive action to protect Abram’s flocks and herds and the members of his household. From their location near Hebron, Abram and his men, accompanied by Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner (likely with their own dependable strong men) hastily went in pursuit of the enemy warriors, catching up with them in the vicinity of Dan. The distance from Hebron to Dan is about 120 miles (over 190 kilometers). (14:14)

According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, x, 1), Abram launched his attack on the fifth night after the departure with his men. The surprise attack made it impossible for the enemy warriors to arm themselves. Some were asleep and were killed. The others were too intoxicated to fight and fled. Abram and his men pursued the warriors who had fled and, on the second day thereafter, “drove them in a body into Hoba (Hobah).

The biblical account indicates that Abram divided his servants, apparently to enable them to approach the encampment of the enemy from different directions, and made the attack at night. After routing the enemy warriors, Abram and his men pursued the enemy to Hobah, a place north of Damascus and well over 40 miles (over 60 kilometers) northeast of Dan. Abram succeeded in recovering all the property the enemy had seized, freeing his nephew Lot and recovering his property, and liberating the women and other people who had been captured. (14:15, 16)

After Abram returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the three other “kings,” the king of Sodom traveled to meet Abram at the valley of Shaveh or the valley of the King, apparently a location not far from Salem (or ancient Jerusalem). The king of Sodom requested that Abram give him the “souls” (the people who were subject to him as ruler) and keep all the property he had recovered. Abram refused to retain any part of the property, declaring with a solemn oath to YHWH, the Most High God, the Maker of heaven and earth, that he would not take anything, not a thread nor a sandal strap. He depended solely on the blessing of God, making certain that the king of Sodom would be unable to say that he had made Abram rich. There was to be nothing for Abram aside from what the men who were with him had eaten, and he considered it right for his allies Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre to take their share. (14:17, 21-24)

It was also at the valley of Shaveh that Melchizedek the king of Salem met Abram, bringing with him bread and wine. Besides being king, he was a priest of the Most High God. Melchizedek blessed Abram and said: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, and blessed [or praised] be God Most High who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Abram then gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything (apparently of the booty taken from the enemy but nothing from the property belonging to the king of Sodom). (14:18-20) Commenting regarding Melchizedek, Josephus (Antiquities, I, x, 2) wrote: His “name signifies the righteous king; and such he was without dispute, insomuch that, on this account,he was made the priest of God … Now this Melchizedek supplied Abram’s army in a hospitable manner and gave them provisions in abundance.” … While they were eating, Melchizedek praised Abram and “blessed God for subduing his enemies under him.” When Abram gave him a tenth part of the spoils, Melchizedek accepted the gift.

Notes

At this early period of history, the “kings” were rulers over cities and surrounding areas or over comparatively small geographical regions and not over realms with sizable populations. Josephus, in his Antiquities (I, xi), did not draw a distinction between the realm of Chedorlaomer (Chodorlaomer) and those allied with him but referred to all of them as “Assyrians.”

Regarding verse 14, there is a question about whether the name Dan was associated with the site in the time of Abram. It was not until centuries later that his descendants changed the name of the site called Leshem or Laish to Dan, the name of their ancestor. (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:7, 27-29) Possibly the name Dan reflects the name of the location at the time the Genesis account came to be in its final form.

Targum Jonathan identifies Melchizedek (14:18) as Shem the son of Noah.

Regarding the application made in the book of Hebrews concerning Melchizedek, see the Commentary section for Hebrews 7:1-28; also see Psalm 110:4 and Hebrews 5:4-10; 6:20.

The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) is specific in identifying the tenth given to Melchizedek (14:20) to have been from all the possessions of the king of Elam (Chedorlaomer) and his allies.

Chapter 15

Targum Jonathan indicates that one development Abram feared was that the “brothers” or relatives and the companions of those whom he had killed in the campaign to rescue his nephew Lot would “combine in legions” and come against him. That he must have had a measure of fear appears to be evident from the divine assurance that he was given. He received a vision from YHWH, telling him not to be afraid. He was promised protection, for YHWH would be a shield for him. Additionally, Abram’s reward would be very great. (15:1)

Abram responded in a state of discouragement because he had no offspring and his servant Eliezer of Damascus, one born in his household, would inherit everything. (15:2, 3) YHWH’s word then made it clear to Abram that Eliezer would not be the heir but that he would indeed have a son who would be. (15:4)

YHWH brought Abram outside, apparently outside his tent, and told him to look at the night sky, asking him to number the stars if he could do so. Then Abram received the assurance that his “seed” or descendants would be just as numerous. Abram believed what YHWH had revealed to him, and his faith was reckoned to him as “righteousness,” indicating that he had an approved relationship with YHWH. (15:5, 6)

YHWH is quoted as identifying himself as the One who brought Abram out of Ur of the Chaldeans (a city commonly identified with Tell el-Muqayyar on the south bank of the Euphrates in southern Iraq) to give him the land of Canaan. The giving of the land to Abram’s descendants as their inheritance was so certain that it was as if they received it as their possession from YHWH through Abram. At this point, YHWH made a covenant with Abram respecting the land. For this purpose, Abram was to select three-year-old domestic animals — a heifer, a female goat, and a ram — and a turtledove and a young pigeon. Abram cut all three animals in two and positioned them so that the halves of each animal matched, but he did not cut the birds in two. He probably placed the turtledove on one side and the young pigeon on the opposite side. (15:7-10)

The preparations that Abram made with the sacrificed animals corresponded with the ancient practice for concluding a covenant. After the procedure was carried out, the parties to a covenant or agreement would pass between the parts of the sacrificed victims, indicating thereby that they would merit death, or the same fate as the dead animals, if they did not live up to the terms of the covenant.

When birds of prey descended upon the carcasses, Abram drove them away as he continued to wait for what YHWH would do or would reveal to him. The Septuagint does not refer to Abram’s scaring the birds away but indicates that he sat by the sacrificed animals. “As the sun was going down, Abram fell into a deep sleep,” probably a trance. He then found himself enshrouded in a “fearful darkness,” one that must have made it impossible for him to see anything. That darkness apparently pointed to a coming dark or distressful time for the descendants of Abram, as is apparent from what was next revealed to him. His “seed” or descendants would find themselves in a land not belonging to them, come to be in a state of servitude, and be oppressed “400 years.” (15:11-13)

From the immediate context, one cannot establish how the reference to 400 years is to be understood. Therefore, explanations that have been given over the course of centuries vary. One way to understand the period of 400 years is to reconcile it with the chronology set forth in Exodus 12:40 and Galatians 3:16, 17. The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, wrote that 430 was the number of years that passed between the time that God made his covenant with Abraham (Abram) and the giving of the law to his descendants at Mount Sinai. When Abram responded in faith, leaving behind his country and relatives, and later entered Canaan, YHWH confirmed the covenant promise that Abram’s “seed” or descendants would be given the land of Canaan. (Genesis 12:7). Abram was then 75 years old. (Genesis 12:4) From that time until the giving of the law a period of 430 years passed, 215 years of which Abram (Abraham) and his descendants lived in the land of Canaan. (Genesis 12:4-6; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9) During the remaining 215 years, Abraham’s grandson Jacob and his descendants resided in Egypt. This agrees with the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint that the Israelites lived in “Egypt” and “Canaan” 430 years. (Exodus 12:40; the Masoretic Text, however, omits the mention of Canaan.) With seeming reference to Exodus 12:40, Josephus wrote that the Israelites left Egypt “430 years” after Abraham (Abram) came into Canaan, but “215 years only” after Jacob came to reside in Egypt. (Antiquities, II, xv, 2) In the year the Israelites departed from Egypt, the law covenant was concluded with them.

Based on the age of Abraham at the birth of Isaac, Isaac’s age at the birth of the twins Esau and Jacob, and the age at which Jacob and his family came to live in Egypt, a 400-year residence in that land is ruled out. Moreover, the descendants of Abraham did not suffer any oppression in Egypt for well over five decades after Jacob’s death. Accordingly, the period of oppression from Egyptians apparently is not to be regarded as continuing without letup for 400 years. One way to understand the affliction as coming upon the “seed” of Abram (Abraham) is to start it with what Isaac experienced from Ishmael, the son of his Egyptian mother Hagar. At the weaning of Isaac, Ishmael “played” with him. (Genesis 21:9) This playing apparently took the form of mocking. In Galatians 4:29, the apostle Paul referred to it as persecution. Abraham was 100 years old at the time Isaac was born. If the weaning of Isaac is considered as taking place when Abraham was 105 years old, the period of Egyptian affliction of the “seed” of Abraham had its start then and terminated 400 years after this incident when his descendants departed from Egypt as a free people.

YHWH made known to Abram that he would execute judgment against the nation responsible for oppressing his descendants and that they, with much property, would be able to leave that nation. As for Abram, he would die at a “good old age,” joining his forefathers in the realm of the dead “in peace,” not in a time or as a consequence of trouble or conflict. “In the fourth generation,” the descendants of Abram would come back to the land of Canaan, the land that YHWH had promised to give to Abram and his descendants. It was, however, not then the time for executing punitive judgment against the Amorites, the main inhabitants of Canaan. Their record of sin had not reached its ultimate level. (15:15, 16)

If the reference to the “fourth generation” is to be fitted into the period of about 215 years, it could be reckoned as follows: Jacob’s son Levi, his grandson Kohath, his great-grandson Amram, and his great-great-grandson Aaron. (Exodus 6:16, 18, 20)

While it continued to be dark after the sun had gone down, Abram saw a smoking fire pot, oven, or furnace and a flaming torch pass between the carcasses of the animals he had cut in half. According to the Septuagint, initially a “flame appeared.” What Abram witnessed tangibly confirmed to him that the promises YHWH had made to him would be fulfilled. As this was a unilateral covenant with him, Abram did not pass between the halves of the sacrificed animals. His descendants would be given the land extending from the “river of Egypt” (commonly identified with Wadi el-‛Arish to the southwest of Gaza) to the Euphrates River. The people then living in the land were the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and Jebusites. The Septuagint includes the Heuites (Hivites). (15:17-21)

Note

For the application that the apostle Paul made of Genesis 15:5, 6, see Romans 4:3-12, 18; Galatians 3:6-9. Also see the comments on the verses from Romans and Galatians in the Commentary section.

Chapter 16

The desire to have children can be very strong. In modern times, many couples have gone to great efforts and expense to have offspring. These efforts have included the use of surrogate mothers. Among people of ancient times, the only option available to barren women was to offer their female servants to their husbands so that they might have children through them. In keeping with what had become customary among barren women, Sarai, after a ten-year residence in the land of Canaan, offered her Egyptian maiden Hagar to Abram to obtain offspring by her. She must have had high regard for Hagar to have selected her for this role. Abram cooperated with Sarai in the effort to have offspring, and Hagar conceived. As a result, Hagar appears to have become arrogant, probably seeing herself as the mother of a son who would inherit everything and be the future master of the entire household. She likely regarded herself as occupying an elevated status as the mother of Abram’s child and began to look down upon her barren mistress Sarai. (16:1-4) This was the troublesome outcome from a failure to wait patiently on God to fulfill his promise to make the descendants of Abram very numerous. The first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, I, x, 4), however, seemingly did not view the situation in this light but added that Sarai acted “at God’s command.”

Although Sarai had taken the initiative in seeking to have offspring by her maid, she blamed Abram for the contemptuous manner in which Hagar looked down upon her, saying, “The wrong done to me be upon you.” (“I am being wronged by you.” [LXX]) Sarai also called upon YHWH to judge. “May YHWH judge between you and me.” (16:5) Targum Jonathan expands on the expressions of Sarai. “All my affliction is from you [Abram]. Being secure that you would do me justice, I left the land and house of my father and came up with you to a foreign land. Inasmuch as I could not become a mother, I set my handmaid free and gave her to lie in your bosom. She sees that she had conceived, and my honor is despised before her.”

Abram chose not to handle the matter personally but gave Sarai the right to deal with Hagar in the manner she considered “good in [her] eyes” [“pleasing” to her (LXX)]. Sarai then treated Hagar in a harsh way, probably like a female slave with the lowest standing in the household. This prompted Hagar to escape from her. (16:6)

At a spring in the wilderness on the way to Shur (probably to a location in the northwestern part of the Sinai Peninsula) and while Hagar appears to have been making her flight to Egypt, the “angel of YHWH” (his representative angel) appeared to her. In response to his question about from where she had come and where she was going, Hagar replied that she was fleeing from her mistress Sarai. The angel of YHWH directed her to return to her mistress and to submit herself to her. He assured Hagar that her “seed” or offspring would become numerous and that she would give birth to a son whom she was to name Ishmael (“God hears”). This name indicated that YHWH had “heard” or given attention to her distress. Her son would be a “wild donkey of a man” (a country dweller or a rough or rugged man [LXX]), indicating that he and his descendants would be fiercely independent. Ishmael’s “hand” would be against everyone, and everyone’s “hand” would be against him, and he would reside “by the face of all his brothers.” Apparently he, particularly his descendants, repeatedly would be involved in conflicts and feuds stemming from strong tribal loyalties. According to Targum Jonathan, his hands would “take vengeance on his adversaries, and the hands of his adversaries” would reach out “to do him evil.” The Hebrew expression that literally may be translated “by the face” in relation to “his brothers” could be understood to mean that he would dwell alongside his kinsman or that he would be in conflict with his kinsman (“at odds with all his kin” [REB]; “in open hostility against all his relatives” (NLT)). (16:7-12)

Hagar called the “name of YHWH,” the God who had spoken to her, “You are a God of seeing [El-roi].” There is a measure of obscurity in the Hebrew text that provides the reason for the name she applied to YHWH (“Have I even here seen after him who sees me?”). The text of the Septuagint may be translated, “For even face to face I saw the one having appeared to me.” (16:13) Modern translations vary in their renderings, with many choosing to opt for an emended reading of the extant Hebrew text. “‘You Are El-roi,’ by which she meant, ‘Have I not gone on seeing after He saw me!’” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Have I indeed seen God and still live after that vision?” (REB) “Have I really seen God and lived to tell about it?” (TEV) “Have I truly seen the One who sees me?” (NLT)

Hagar called the “spring” or “well” where she had seen the angel of YHWH “Beer-lahai-roi,” meaning “Well of the Living One who sees me.” This well or spring was located between Kadesh (a city on the western extremity of the region that later became Edomite territory) and Bered. (16:14)

Hagar did return to her mistress and gave birth to a son whom Abram named Ishmael (the name by which the angel of YHWH told Hagar her son should be called). At the time of the boy’s birth, Abram was 86 years old. (16:15, 16)

Chapter 17

YHWH, apparently his representative angel, appeared to 99-year-old Abram, encouraging him to “walk” or to conduct himself blamelessly before him. Abram was given the assurance that YHWH’s covenant or agreement with him would for a certainty lead to his having many descendants. Abram dropped to his knees and prostrated himself before the angel, with his face touching the ground. (17:1-3)

Evidently as the direct representative of YHWH, the angel spoke for him, telling Abram that, on the basis of the covenant, he would become the “father of a multitude of nations.” Therefore, his name would be changed from Abram (“exalted father”) to Abraham (“father of a multitude”). YHWH, through the descendants of Abraham, would make him fruitful, resulting in his having nations and kings come forth from him as their ancestor. God’s covenant with Abraham would include his “seed” or his descendants in all future generations. This covenant would continue in effect for limitless time to come. Another part of the covenant was the provision that Abraham and his “seed” or descendants would be given the entire land of Canaan as a lasting possession. YHWH would be the God of Abraham’s descendants, assuring that all the promises associated with the covenant would be fulfilled. (17:3-8)

Abraham and his descendants throughout coming generations were to keep the covenant that YHWH had concluded with them. Every male should have his foreskin removed. Unlike circumcision that is a rite of passage in numerous cultures, circumcision in the case of Abraham’s descendants constituted the sign of the covenant between them and YHWH. Every male of the household, including those purchased from foreigners, were to be circumcised, and all baby boys were to be circumcised on the eighth day after birth. It is noteworthy that, on the eighth day after a normal birth, the baby’s blood-clotting substances (Vitamin K and prothrombin) reach their highest level. For a male not to be circumcised constituted a breach of the covenant with God, and the judgment for failure to be circumcised would mean being “cut off” from the people whom he had chosen as his own. Targum Jonathan includes as an exception the complete unavailability of one who could perform the circumcision. The nature of the “cutting off” is not specified. It may denote severance from God’s people and exclusion from the benefits associated with the covenant between YHWH and his people. (17:9-14)

Abraham’s wife also was to have her name changed. Instead of Sarai, she was to be called Sarah (“princess”). YHWH would bless her, and Abraham would have a son by her. Through Sarah, nations and kings would come into existence. In the fulfillment, there was the nation of Edom and the nation of Israel, and both nations came to have kings. Abraham dropped to his knees and prostrated himself, with his face touching the ground. He laughed “in his heart” or within himself, likely out of astonishment. The prospect was far beyond the ordinary, for Abraham was 100 years old and his wife Sarah was 90. (17:15-17)

In view of the promise of a son by Sarah, Abraham appears to have been concerned about what this would mean for Ishmael, the son whom he must have greatly loved. He then made his prayerful appeal, “O that Ishmael might live before you [literally, before your face].” Again Abraham was told that Sarah would bear him a son whom he was to call Isaac (“laughter”). Not with Ishmael, but with this son to be born would YHWH establish his covenant and also with the “seed” or descendants of this son. YHWH had “heard” or given attention to Abraham’s appeal respecting Ishmael. He would be blessed and his descendants would become numerous and form a great nation. Ishmael would become the father of twelve princes or chieftains. According to Genesis 25:13-15 and 1 Chronicles 1:29-31, the twelve sons were Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. (17:18-20)

With Isaac, the son to whom Sarah would give birth in the following year, YHWH would establish his covenant, the covenant that had originally been concluded with Abraham. After he had completed speaking to Abraham by means of his representative angel, God is said to have “gone up.” This indicated that the angel, the direct representative of God, ascended and disappeared from Abraham’s sight. (17:21, 22)

Ninety-nine-year-old Abraham did not delay in circumcising all the males of his household, including the purchased male servants and the male offspring of his servants. On the same day as he circumcised his thirteen-year-old son Ishmael, Abraham also was circumcised, likely by one of his servants. (17:23-27)

Chapter 18

Abraham’s tent was located by the big trees of Mamre (the “oak of Mamre” [LXX]) at Hebron, situated about 19 miles (c. 30 kilometers) south of Jerusalem and at an elevation of about 3,000 feet (c. 900 meters) above sea level. During the hottest part of the day, people usually did not work nor travel. Yet it was then, while Abraham sat at the entrance of his tent, that YHWH (his representative angel) appeared to him. As Abraham looked up, he saw three men coming toward him and he quickly left his tent to meet them, respectfully bowing down before them. He requested that they not pass him by but consent to have their feet washed and to rest under the nearby tree. Meanwhile he would get a “little bread” for them to “refresh [their] heart” or to provide them with food to renew their strength. In view of their having traveled during the heat of the day, Abraham must have concluded that it was urgent for them to carry out their purpose. Therefore, he did not offer lodging to them but told them that they could be on their way after they had eaten the food he would provide. (8:1-5)

Abraham hastened to the tent of Sarah, requesting that she hurry to make cakes or loaves from “three seahs” (c. 20 dry quarts; c. 22 liters) of flour. Like her husband, Sarah would have been eager to extend hospitality and would have been pleased to carry out his request. Abraham hurried to his herd and selected a choice calf, which he gave to a servant who quickly followed through on the necessary preparations to have the meat ready to be served. After preparations for the meal were completed, Abraham took curds, milk, and the roasted meat and set it before the three men. While they ate, he stood by them under the tree, ready to serve them. (18:6-8) The Jewish historian Josephus appears not to have believed that angels could eat food, for he wrote (Antiquities, I, xi, 2) that “they made a show of eating.”

In response to the question where Sarah was, Abraham replied, “Look, in the tent.” Apparently YHWH’s angel then told him that, upon his return in the following year, Sarah would have a son. From her location at the tent entrance behind the angel, Sarah had listened to his words. According to Targum Jonathan, Ishmael stood behind her. That she would give birth to a son seemed impossible to Sarah. Both she and her husband were old, and she had ceased to have her periods. Therefore, Sarah laughed to herself and said, “After I have grown old, will I [enjoy] the pleasure [of having a son], and my lord [being] old [besides]?” Sarah’s referring to Abraham as her “lord” when speaking to herself indicates that it was customary for her to show the highest regard for him. (18:9-12; 1 Peter 3:6)

YHWH’s angel was fully aware that Sarah had laughed to herself and, therefore, asked why she had done so regarding the prospect of bearing a child in her old age. Focusing on developments that were beyond human possibility, the angel continued, “Is anything too hard for YHWH?” He then repeated the promise that Sarah would have a son at the time of his return. Out of fear, Sarah denied having laughed, but the angel again stated that she did so. (18:13-15) The Jerusalem Targum quotes the angel as saying, “Fear not; yet in truth you did laugh.”

The three angels departed, looking down in the direction of the city of Sodom, and Abraham accompanied them. At the time, he did not know the reason the angels were heading for Sodom. The angel of YHWH is represented as asking himself whether the matter should continue to be concealed from Abraham. Continuing to hide from Abraham what was about to happen did not harmonize with YHWH’s purpose regarding him. Abraham was to have many descendants that would become a great nation, and “in him all the nations of the earth” would “bless themselves.” He was entrusted with the responsibility to instruct his sons and his entire household to observe the “way of YHWH” or the course of life that was upright and just. By pursuing that “way,” the descendants of Abraham would experience the blessings inherit in the divine promise that had been made to him. (18:16-19)

At this point, YHWH (his representative angel) revealed that there had been a great outcry against the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on account of their very grave sin. In view of this outcry, YHWH determined to “go down” to investigate the basis for it. (18:20, 21)

Whereas two angels then headed for Sodom, YHWH (the third angel or YHWH’s direct representative) remained with Abraham. Believing in YHWH’s justice, Abraham asked, “Will you indeed destroy the righteous and the wicked?” He then questioned whether YHWH would destroy the city if there were fifty righteous inhabitants and expressed his confidence that it would be inconceivable for him, as the “judge of all the earth,” to slay the righteous along with the wicked. Abraham was assured that Sodom would be spared for the sake of fifty righteous persons. Humbly referring to himself as being but “dust and ashes” and therefore too lowly even to say more, Abraham asked whether Sodom would be spared if there were forty-five righteous ones or just forty righteous ones. He pleaded that God not be angry with him for continuing to speak. Abraham asked whether Sodom would be spared if there were thirty righteous ones or just twenty righteous ones. Again he pleaded for God not to be angry with him and asked whether the city would be spared if there were ten righteous ones. In each case, the answer was that Sodom would be spared for the sake of the righteous ones found in the city. Abraham stopped asking after he had limited the number to ten righteous persons. (18:22-32)

After YHWH (his representative angel) finished speaking with Abraham, he departed. Abraham then returned to his own place. (18:33)

Notes

According to Targum Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum, there were three angels because a ministering angel could only be sent for one purpose. One of the angels was to inform Abraham that he would have a son by Sarah, the other angel was to recue Lot, and the third angel was to destroy Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim.

Josephus wrote (Antiquities, I, xi, 2) that, after Sarah laughed, the three men identified themselves as angels and that one of them had been sent to inform Abraham and Sarah about the child and the other two regarding the overthrow of Sodom.

In his letter to the Galatians (3:18), the apostle Paul applied the words found in Genesis 12:3 and 18:18. For people of the nations to be blessed “in Abraham” would require that they come to be persons whom God views as approved, righteous, or upright. Being holy or pure, the Almighty could never bestow his favor on those who are unclean or defiled in his sight. On the basis of their faith in Abraham’s descendant Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins made possible through his sacrificial death, people of the nations are reckoned as righteous. As Paul wrote (Galatians 3:7), the real children of Abraham are such “out of faith” or on the basis of their faith. Therefore, besides being blessed “in” Abraham through his descendant Jesus Christ, people of the nations could also be said to be blessed “in” Abraham because of belonging to him. He is their spiritual forefather or ancestor. As his spiritual children, they share in his blessing.

In verse 19, the phrase “for I have known him” appears to indicate that YHWH had a relationship with Abraham as his friend. The Septuagint rendering conveys a different thought. It indicates that God knew that Abraham would instruct his sons and his household and that they would do what was right and just.

Chapter 19

When the two angels reached Sodom in the evening, Lot was sitting at the city gate. Anciently, the open area bordering the city gate was the place where city elders handled legal cases, individuals transacted business, and people gathered to hear the latest news. The biblical account provides no information about the reason Lot was then at the city gate. Perhaps he had attained a position of dignity because of what his uncle Abraham had done in rescuing the people of Sodom along with him from their military captors. If this was the case, the fact that Lot sat at the city gate may indicate that he did so as a man of some prominence. (19:1)

Respectfully, Lot stood up to meet the two strangers and, as was customary in that culture, dropped to his knees and bowed low, with his face touching the ground. He addressed the strangers as “my lords” and extended hospitality to them, offering to wash their feet and to have them stay in his house for the night. They initially declined his offer, telling him that they would spend the night on the street. Lot, however, strongly insisted that they come to his home. He arranged a meal for them, which included unleavened bread. The unleavened bread may have been the preferable choice because of requiring less time to prepare. (19:1-3)

Before the two angels could retire for the night, both young and old men of Sodom began to surround Lot’s house. According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, xi, 3), the men of Sodom had noticed that the two strangers had extraordinarily beautiful countenances and they resolved to have their way with them “by force and violence.” The men of Sodom demanded that Lot bring out the two strangers to them so that they might come to “know” them or to assault them sexually. Lot went out to them, shut the door of his house behind himself, and pleaded with them not to act wickedly. To the men of Sodom, he even offered his two daughters who had never had sexual intercourse with a man. Desperately, Lot wanted to do everything he possibly could to shield the strangers who had come under the shelter of his home. In the then-existing culture, the duty to protect strangers to whom hospitality had been extended took precedence over the obligation to preserve the honor of women. (19:4-8)

The men of Sodom responded angrily, telling him to stand back, accusing him of playing the judge although he was but an alien, and threatening to do worse to him than they intended to do to the two strangers. They pressed against Lot and were at the point of breaking down the door of his house. The two angels pulled Lot into the safety of the house, shut the door, and struck the men of Sodom, both young and old, with blindness and thus prevented them from finding the door in order to force themselves into the house. This blindness may have been a kind of mental blindness that totally disoriented the men, for nothing is said in the account to suggest that they were terrified about having lost their ability to see anything. (19:9-11)

The angels asked Lot whether he had anyone else in the city (sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone else) and told him to bring them out of the city. YHWH had taken note of the great outcry against Sodom and had sent the two angels to destroy the place. Lot left the house to inform his future sons-in-law who were to marry his daughters to leave the city because YHWH was about to destroy it. The future sons-in-law did not take Lot seriously but regarded him as if he were jesting. According to the Septuagint rendering, the sons-in-law had already married Lot’s daughters. (19:12-14)

At the break of dawn, the angels urged Lot to take his wife and his two daughters out of the city lest he perish, sharing in the fate of the people of Sodom. As he did not act promptly, the angels took hold of him, his wife, and the two daughters and, in expression of YHWH’s compassion for them, took them out of Sodom. The angels admonished them to flee for their “souls” or their lives. Lest they perish, they were not to look behind nor to stand still in any part of the region but to flee to the mountainous terrain. Lot feared that he would be unable to make it to the mountainous area. Perhaps he had become a fat man and was afraid that his heart would give out during the course of the flight. Therefore, he pleaded to be able to escape to a nearby little town. Lot was granted this favor, being assured that this small town would not be destroyed. Nevertheless, he was instructed to hurry, for nothing could be done until he had arrived safely in the little town. This town then came to be called “Zoar” (“littleness”). (19:15-22) Josephus (Antiquities, I, xi, 4) wrote that, in his day, the place was still called Zoar, “for that is the word which the Hebrews use for a small thing.”

When Lot arrived at Zoar, the risen sun was shining over the entire land. YHWH then caused fire and sulfur to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Josephus (Antiquities, I, xi, 4; Wars, IV, viii. 4) attributed the fire to a lightning strike. Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim and all their inhabitants were destroyed. (Deuteronomy 29:22[23]) The entire region became a desolate area without any greenery. Lot’s wife turned to look behind Lot, and she became a pillar of salt. (19:23-26) Commenting regarding this, Josephus (Antiquities, I, xi, 4) wrote that Lot’s wife continually turned back to view the city, being too inquisitive about what would happen to it. He also claimed that he had seen the pillar and then said, “It remains at this day.” The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen, thought to date from the late first century BCE or the early first century CE) identifies Lot’s wife as an Egyptian, but Targum Jonathan (thought to date probably from the second century CE) indicates that she was from Sodom. This Targum says that she looked after the angel to see what would be the end of her father’s house.

Early in the morning of the day that Lot and his daughters escaped from Sodom, Abraham went to the place where he had spoken to YHWH’s angel. From this vantage point, he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and saw smoke like that from a furnace rising from the entire area. At the time for the destruction of the cities, God remembered Abraham’s concern for upright persons living there and opened the way for Lot to escape. (19:27-29)

Although Lot had originally been told to flee to the mountainous region, he had pleaded to be able to make his escape to the little town that came to be called “Zoar.” This did not work out well for him, probably because the inhabitants looked upon him and his daughters superstitiously as cursed escapees from Sodom. Out of fear, he then left Zoar with his daughters and headed for the mountainous area. There Lot and his daughters made their home in a cave. (19:30)

The daughters feared that no one would marry them, leaving their father without any offspring to continue the family line. Therefore, the older daughter came up with a plan to which she apparently knew Lot would not willingly consent. She suggested to her younger sister that they give their father wine to drink and then to lie down with him so that they might become pregnant and bear his children. They got their father drunk, and the older sister lay down with him. In his intoxicated state, he did not know or have any recollection when she lay down with him and when she arose and left. The next day the older sister asked the younger sister also to lie down with their father. That night the daughters gave their father wine to drink, and the younger daughter lay down with him. As was the case with the older sister, Lot did not know when his younger daughter lay down with him and when she got up to leave. He apparently had no recollection about what had happened. Both daughters became pregnant. The older daughter named her son Moab who became the ancestor of the Moabites, and the younger daughter named her son Ben-ammi who became the ancestor of the Ammonites. In his Antiquities (I, xi, 5), Josephus wrote that the name Moab referred to one who was derived from the father and that the name Ammon denoted one derived from a kinsman. The Septuagint indicates that “Moab” means “from my father,” and Ammon means “son of my kindred.” (19:31-38)

Notes

In verse 20, Lot is quoted as referring to the nearby town as a “little one,” and this became the basis for its name “Zoar.”

What Lot’s daughters did must be considered as a desperate act to preserve the family line. The older daughter perceived this to be the only option available to them. It was not a desire for an incestuous relationship with the father. Nothing in the account suggests that the daughters ever again had sexual relations with their father.

Chapter 20

Abraham departed with his entire household from the area in the vicinity of Hebron (13:18; 18:1) and headed southward to the Negeb, a semi-arid region. There he tented between Kadesh (a city on the western extremity of the region that later became Edomite territory) and Shur (probably a location in the northwestern part of the Sinai Peninsula). Abraham then moved to the vicinity of Gerar (a site not far from Gaza [10:19]). As he had not resided in this region previously and did not know what he might expect from the people there, he, out of fear for his safety, identified his beautiful wife Sarah as his “sister.” Therefore, Abimelech sent for Sarah, intending to make her his wife. (20:2)

Years earlier, if it had not been for YHWH’s intervention, Pharaoh would have violated Sarah because Abraham had led him to believe that she was his sister. (12:12-19) This past experience, coupled with YHWH’s promise that Sarah would have a son (18:10), did not restrain him from dissembling out of fear. Although he was a man of outstanding faith, Abraham apparently still had weaknesses when it came to handling his personal affairs. Kindly and mercifully, YHWH dealt with him accordingly. Again God intervened, revealing to the king of Gerar (Abimelech) in a dream that Sarah was Abraham’s wife and warning him that he would be a dead man if he did not return Sarah. In response to the revelation, Abimelech asked whether God would slay an innocent people, for he had not violated Sarah and had only taken her because Abraham had told him that she was his sister and because she also had said that he was her brother. YHWH had intervened by not permitting Abimelech to have sexual relations with Sarah. Although Abimelech was upright in his actions based on what both Abraham and Sarah had said, he had unintentionally deprived a husband of his wife, and this was an unintentional wrong that needed to be rectified. Therefore, Abimelech’s failure to return Sarah to Abraham would have merited death, especially since Abraham was a “prophet” of YHWH. As a “prophet,” Abraham enjoyed a special relationship with YHWH as a man to whom his purpose and future developments regarding him and his “seed” or descendants had been made known. In his role as a prophet, Abraham had the responsibility to teach his children and his entire household, including many servants, to observe the “way of YHWH” or the course that was upright and just. (18:19) In view of his special relationship to YHWH, Abraham could also pray for Abimlelech that he would live and experience no punishment for his unintentional transgression. (20:3-7)

After Abimelech got up early in the morning, he assembled his servants and told them what God had made known to him, causing them to be filled with great fear. Abimelech then summoned Abraham, reproving him for what he had done to him and his subjects. “What have you done to us, and how have I sinned against you that you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin? Things that should not be done you have done to me.” In his Antiquities (I, xii, 1), Josephus omits any expressions of reproof but represents Abimelech as assuring Abraham that Sarah’s chastity had been preserved and that, by God’s providence, he had received his wife again. In response to Abimelech, Abraham told him that he thought he could have been killed on account of his wife if “no fear of God” existed in the place. The absence of any “fear of God” would have meant that the people did not consider themselves accountable to a supreme deity and were a law to themselves. Therefore, they could not be trusted to do what was right and just. Endeavoring to absolve himself of having lied, Abraham said of Sarah, “She is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother.” Ancient Jewish sources indicate that Sarah was the granddaughter of Abraham’s father Terah. Josephus (Antiquities, I, xii, 1) wrote, “Abraham told [Abimelech] that his pretense of kindred to his wife was no lie, because she was his brother’s daughter, and that he did not think himself safe in his travels abroad without this sort of dissimulation.” Targum Jonathan quotes Abraham as saying, “In truth she is my sister, the daughter of my father's brother, but not of the kindred of my mother; and she became my wife.” Abraham then explained that when he, at God’s direction, began to wander away from his father’s house or in other lands, he had requested that his wife, in every place, kindly identify him as her brother. (20:8-13)

Thereafter Abimelech returned Sarah to Abraham, gave him sheep, cattle, and male and female slaves, and extended to him the offer to dwell in his land wherever he pleased (more literally, in what was good in his eyes). To Sarah, Abimlelech said, “Look, I have given a thousand silver pieces to your brother. Look, it is a covering for your eyes to all who are with you and before everyone, and you are adjudged” innocent (or cleared of any blot on your chastity as Abraham’s wife). The Jerusalem Targum represents Abimelech as saying to Sarah that the “silver is given to you as a present, because you were hidden from the eyes of Abraham your husband one night.” According to the Septuagint, Abimelech said, “Look, I have given your brother a thousand didrachmas. These will be to you for the honor of your face [or your person] and all those with you [or all your female servants]; and [in] everything be truthful.” Abraham then prayed for Abimelech; and Abimelech’s wife and female servants were healed so as to be able to have children. On account of Sarah, YHWH had shut the wombs of all the women in Abimelech’s household. (20:14-18)

Notes

The designation “Abimelech,” meaning “my father [is] king,” may have been a personal name. More likely, however, it was an official title, for a number of rulers are so designated. (20:2)

The Hebrew word for “father” can designate a grandfather or even an earlier ancestor. Targum Jonathan identifies Iscah (11:29) as Sarai. This identification is only possible in the event that Terah was the grandfather of Sarai but the father of Abram. If Terah was her grandfather, she would have been Abraham’s niece. This is what Josephus (Antiquities, I, vi, 5) understood the relationship between Abram and Sarai to have been, for he wrote that Abram and his brother Nahor “married their nieces.”

In the Septuagint, the thousand silver pieces (20:16) are called a “thousand didrachmas.” In the first century CE, the Jews paid an annual temple tax of a didrachma or two drachmas. (Matthew 17:24) The Romans officially evaluated the silver drachma as three fourths of a denarius. The Septuagint also includes a reference to a “thousand didrachmas” in verse 14 and could there be understood to apply to the value of all the sheep, calves, and male and female slaves Abimelech gave to Abraham.

Chapter 21

YHWH’s “visiting” Sarah refers to his turning attention to her to fulfill his previously spoken word that she would give birth to a son. Sarah did conceive and bear a son to her aged husband, 100-year-old Abraham. The boy’s father called him Isaac, meaning “laughter.” As God had commanded, Abraham circumcised his son on the eighth day. (21:1-5)

Overjoyed about having given birth to a son, Sarah said, “God has prepared [literally, made] laughter for me. Everyone hearing [about it] will laugh with me” (“rejoice with me” LXX]). “Who could have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse sons?” (“Who will report to Abraam that Saara is nursing a child?” [LXX]) “Yet I have borne a son [to him] in his old age.” No one could have imagined that Sarah would be so blessed as to have a son when she was well past childbearing age. (21:6, 7)

When the time came for Isaac to be weaned, Abraham prepared a big feast to mark this joyous occasion. At that time, Sarah noticed Ishmael, the son whom the Egyptian Hagar had borne to Abraham, “playing” with or making sport of Isaac. In his letter to the Galatians (4:29), the apostle Paul referred to what Ishmael did with Isaac as “persecuting” him. Fearing for the future of Isaac, Sarah requested that Abraham dismiss Hagar and her son from the household, insisting that the son of the slave woman Hagar was not to be an heir with Isaac. (21:8-10) Referring to the previous feelings of Sarah toward Ishmael, Josephus (Antiquities, I, xii, 3) wrote, “She at first loved Ishmael … with an affection not inferior to that of her own son.” After Sarah had borne Isaac, however, she was unwilling for Ishmael to be brought up with him. She felt that Ishmael was too old for Isaac and feared that, after Abraham’s death, Ishmael would be able to inflict injuries on Isaac.

Sarah’s request to expel Hagar and Ishmael from the household proved to be most displeasing in the eyes of Abraham, apparently because he was very attached to his son Ishmael. According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, xii, 3), Abraham considered it to be the “greatest barbarity” to dismiss the youngster and a woman without any means of support. God’s purpose respecting Isaac, however, was better served without having Ishmael present in the household. Therefore, he directed that Abraham listen to Sarah and follow through on sending Hagar and Ishmael away. In view of Ishmael’s being Abraham’s “seed” or offspring, God promised that he would make Ishmael into a great nation. This promise assured that Ishmael would survive and become the forefather of many descendants. (21:12, 13)

Early in the next morning, Abraham dismissed Hagar and Ishmael, giving her bread and a leather bag filled with water. She wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba (a place at the edge of the desert south of the mountainous region of what later became a part of the territory of the tribe of Judah). Eventually the water supply was exhausted and Ishmael’s strength diminished to such an extent that Hagar had to support him as they walked. Apparently when her own strength gave out, she withdrew her support and dropped her teenage son (17:25) under the shade of a bush. Hagar then walked away, seated herself at a distance of bowshot from Ishmael, and began to weep. By positioning herself a bowshot away from her son (or what would have been the usual distance required for an arrow to reach its target), Hagar wanted to avoid seeing her son’s agonizing death throws. Her extreme distress appears to have led to beclouding her vision so that she was unable to see a nearby well, but an angel of God came to her aid. “From heaven” or the sky above her, Hagar heard the angel’s voice asking her as to what troubled her and telling her not to fear, for God had heard the voice of her son. The angel instructed her to raise up her son, taking fast hold of him with her hand, and assured her that he would be made into a “great nation” or come to have many descendants. (21:14-18)

Hagar’s confused state ended, and she saw a well from which she filled her leather bag with water and gave her son a drink. The opening of her eyes to see the well is attributed to God. According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, xii, 3), Hagar thereafter met some shepherds who came to her aid. From that time onward, God was with Ishmael as he matured and continued to live with his mother in the wilderness of Paran (probably in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula). He became an expert archer and so, as a skillful hunter, would have been able to procure sufficient food. In time, Hagar obtained an Egyptian wife for her son. (21:19-21) Targum Jonathan says that Ishmael initially married Adisha whom he later put away, and that the wife Hagar took for him from the land of Mizraim (Egypt) was named Phatima.

Meanwhile Abraham and his household continued to prosper. That household must have been impressively large, consisting of hundreds of servants. (Genesis 14:14) Apparently for this reason, Abimelech the king of Gerar (not far from the city of Gaza [Genesis 10:19]) considered it advisable to conclude a covenant with Abraham to assure his future security. With the commander of his army Phicol (Phikol or Phichol [LXX]), Abimelech came to where Abraham was tenting. Regarding Abraham, he acknowledged, “God is with you in everything you do.” He then requested that Abraham swear to him by God that he would “not deal falsely” with (“not wrong” or “injure” [LXX]) him nor his posterity (“nor [his] name” [LXX adds]) and that he would act toward him and his land as he had acted with “loyalty” (“righteousness” or “justice” [LXX]) toward him. Although Abraham agreed to swear to this, he raised the issue about the well that he had dug but which the servants of Abimelech had seized. After Abimelech responded that he did not know who was responsible for this deed and that this was the first time he had heard about it, Abraham took sheep and cattle and gave them to Abimelech, and the two men concluded a covenant. (21:22-27)

Additionally, Abraham set apart seven ewe lambs. When Abimelech asked why he had set them apart, Abraham replied that the animals were for him to take and would serve as a testimony that he had dug the well which the servants of Abimelech had seized. Abraham then gave the name Beer-sheba to the site where he and Abimelech had sworn an oath. This name means “well of an oath” or “well of seven,” recalling either the oath or the seven ewe lambs that were given to Abimelech. After the covenant had been concluded, Abimelech and Phicol returned to their land, the “land of the Philistines.” (21:28-32)

At Beer-sheba, Abraham planted a tamarisk tree. Unlike many other trees, the tamarisk thrives in areas with limited annual rainfall. Also at Beer-sheba, Abraham “called on the name of YHWH, the eternal God.” He doubtless erected an altar there, offered sacrifices, and prayed. For a considerable time (literally, “many days”), Abraham continued to reside in the “land of the Philistines.” (21:33, 34)

Notes

From the time of Isaac’s birth, the Jews (according to Josephus [Antiquities, I, xii, 2]) circumcise their sons on the eighth day. The Arabians, however, do so “after the thirteenth year,” for it was at that age that Ishmael, “the founder of their nation,” was circumcised.

The dismissal of Ishmael from the household of Abraham did not sever all family ties. At the burial of Abraham 75 years after Isaac’s birth, Ishmael was present, indicating that contact with the family of Abraham had continued. (Genesis 25:7-9)

In verse 15, the reference to Ishmael as a “child” is not to be understood to mean that he is being represented as a young child whom his mother had carried. The Hebrew word yéled can designate a “young man” (Genesis 4:23) and, therefore, could be used regarding the teenager Ishmael.

According to the Septuagint (21:22, 32), Ochozath and Phikol (Phicol) accompanied Abimelech. Ochozath was his nymphagogós (literally, “leader of the bride”) and may here designate a “trusted companion.”

For this early period in history, no extant archaeological evidence links the Philistines (21:32, 34) to the region in the proximity of Gaza. This has given rise to the view that the designation “Philistines” was appropriated for the earlier inhabitants whose ethnicity was either not known or not well-known at the time the Genesis account came to be in its final form.

Chapter 22

Sometime after having concluded a covenant with Abimelech, Abraham faced the greatest test of his faith. God asked him to take his dearly beloved son Isaac to the “land of Moriah” (the “high land” [LXX]) and there to offer him as a sacrifice on one of the mountains that would be pointed out to him. (22:1, 2) According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, xiii, 2), Isaac was twenty-five years old, but Targum Jonathan indicates that he was in the thirty-seventh year of his life.

Abraham rose early in the morning on the next day, departing with Isaac and two young men, apparently his servants. In preparation for the sacrifice, he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering and loaded it on his donkey, likely along with supplies of food and water for the trip. On the third day after setting out, Abraham, at a distance, saw the place about which God had told him. (22:3, 4) The actual location in the “land of Moriah” is not revealed in the account, but 2 Chronicles 3:1 indicates that it was the mountain in Jerusalem where the temple was built during the reign of King Solomon. It may have been some fifty miles (c. 80 kilometers) from a location in the “land of the Philistines” that Abraham, Isaac, and the two young men walked to reach the “land of Moriah.” This could have taken them two days, making it possible for Abraham, on the “third day” after setting out, to see the mountainous region of which a part later came to be included in the city of Jerusalem.

Abraham instructed the two young men to stay with the donkey while he and Isaac would be going to the designated site to worship God and then to return. Abraham had Isaac carry the wood for the burnt offering, whereas he carried the knife and the “fire.” It was not possible to start fires easily, and so it was preferable to be able to transfer fire from one source to another. Abraham must have carried the means to start a fire and to set the wood on fire for the burnt offering. When Isaac asked about the sheep for the burnt offering, Abraham replied, “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” (22:5-8)

At the location about which God had told him to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham erected an altar, arranged the wood thereon, and had his son positioned in a bound state on top of the wood. As Abraham was about the slay his son, the angel of YHWH called out to him, telling him not to lay his hand on him. The angel continued to speak as the representative of YHWH, “Now I know that you fear God as you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.” The reference to knowing that Abraham feared God is to be understood as meaning that his reverential regard for God had been undeniably demonstrated as existing through an act of unqualified obedience. Although Ishmael was a son of Abraham, Isaac was his only or unique son by his wife Sarah. (22:9-12)

Abraham then did see an acceptable sacrifice — a ram that was “caught in a thicket by its horns.” He placed this ram on the altar as a burnt offering. Abraham recognized YHWH as the one who had provided the suitable sacrifice and, therefore, named the place “YHWH-jireh,” meaning “YHWH will see [or provide].” “To this day,” or down to the time when the Genesis account came to be in its final written form, it continued to be said, “On the mountain, YHWH will see [or provide].” (22:13, 14)

For a second time, YHWH’s angel called out to Abraham and, with a solemn oath, spoke as the direct representative of YHWH, “Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only one, I indeed will bless you and will multiply your seed [or descendants] like the stars of the heavens and like the [grains of] sand on the seashore, and your seed will possess the gate [cities (LXX)] of his enemies.” To possess the gate signified to have control of the city, indicating that the descendants of Abraham would not become subservient to foreign powers. This proved to be the case as long as they were obedient to YHWH. “All the nations of the earth” were to bless themselves by the “seed” of Abraham because he had obeyed YHWH’s voice. In the fulfillment, the “seed” by whom people of the nations were to bless themselves is the Messiah or Christ, Jesus the unique Son of God. Persons who put faith in him and his sacrifice of himself for them are granted forgiveness of their sins and thus gain an approved relationship with God as his beloved children. (22:15-18)

Abraham, Isaac, and the two young men who had accompanied them returned to Beer-sheba and continued to reside there. (22:19) Josephus (Antiquities, I, xiii, 4) added that Abraham and Isaac “embraced one another.” They “returned to Sarah and lived happily together, God affording them his aid in everything they desired.” Targum Jonathan contradicts the comments of Josephus and contains words that do not find any support in the Genesis account. This Targum says that Satan told Sarah (when 127 years old) that Abraham had killed Isaac (in the thirty-seventh year of his life), and she then arose, cried out, was strangled, and died from agony.

It was after Abraham and Isaac returned to Beer-sheba that news reached Abraham about his relatives in Haran. Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, had borne eight sons — Uz the firstborn, Buz his brother, Kemuel the father of Aram (the “Syrians” [LXX]), Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel. Bethuel became the father of Rebekah, the future wife of Isaac. Nahor’s concubine Reumah had four sons — Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Maacah. (22:20-24)

Notes

Targum Jonathan contains added information that has no relationship to the words of the Genesis account. It represents Ishmael in an argument with Isaac. Ishmael claimed that he had the right to the inheritance of Abraham because of being his firstborn. Isaac countered with the words, “It is right that I should inherit what is [my] father’s because I am the son of his wife Sarah, and you are the son of Hagar the handmaid of my mother.” Ishmael then contended that he was “more righteous” than Isaac because he allowed himself to be circumcised (although he could have prevented it) at thirteen years of age, whereas Isaac had no such option when he was circumcised as a child of eight days. To this, Isaac responded, “Today I am thirty-six years old. And if the Holy One, blessed be he, were to require all my members, I would not delay.” It was this willingness on Isaac’s part to sacrifice everything that then occasioned Abraham’s being tested to offer his son.

After having been informed about the birth of a son to his wife Sarah, Abraham apparently thought about the impact this might have on his son Ishmael and was moved to appeal to YHWH with the words, “O that Ishmael might live before you!” (Genesis 17:17, 18) Upon having learned about the coming destruction of Sodom, Abraham, probably also out of deep concern for the welfare of his nephew Lot, had pleaded with YHWH regarding the people of the city. (Genesis 18:20-32) Faced with the greatest trial imaginable in connection with his beloved son Isaac, however, he appears to have remained silent, bearing the emotional strain that must have affected him without saying a word to anyone. Not until arriving at the divinely designated site did Abraham reveal to Isaac the nature of the sacrifice.

In his Antiquities, (I, xiii, 2), Josephus attributed Abraham’s not telling anyone what God had asked of him because of desiring to be obedient in everything. “Abraham thought it was not right to disobey God in anything, but that he was obliged to serve him in every circumstance of life, since all living creatures enjoy their life by his providence and the kindness he bestows on them. Accordingly, he concealed this command of God, and his own intentions about the slaughter of his son, from his wife, as also every one of his servants,” so as not to be “hindered from his obedience to God.”

It appears that Josephus felt that he needed to expand on what happened before Abraham was about to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac, thereby weakening the impact of the laconic nature of the Genesis account. Josephus (Antiquities, I, xiii, 3) quoted Abraham as telling Isaac: “O son, I poured out a vast number of prayers that I might have you for my son. When you came into the world, there was nothing that could contribute to your support for which I was not greatly solicitous, nor anything wherein I thought myself happier than to see you grown up to man’s estate, and that I might leave you at my death the successor of my dominion. But since it was by God’s will that I became your father, and it is now his will that I relinquish you, bear this consecration to God with a generous mind. I resign you up to God, who has thought fit now to require this testimony of honor to himself on account of the favors he has conferred on me in being to me a supporter and defender. Accordingly, you, my son, will now die, not in any common way of going out of the world, but sent to God, the Father of all men, beforehand, by your own father, in the nature of a sacrifice. I suppose he thinks you worthy to get clear of this world neither by disease, neither by war, not by any other severe way, by which death usually comes upon men.”

Contrasting with the comments of Josephus are the words of Hebrews 11:17-19, where the reference is to Abraham’s faith that God was able to resurrect Isaac from the dead. The basis for this faith is identified as trust in God’s promise that Abraham’s “seed” would be called “in Isaac.” It may also have been on account of this faith that Abraham indicated to the two servants that he and Isaac would return after having worshiped at the divinely designated site. (22:5) Another possibility is that his words concealed what he, in obedience to God’s command, was about to do to Isaac.

Josephus quoted Isaac as expressing himself to his father, saying to him “that he was not worthy to be born at first, if he were to reject the determination of God and of his father and were not to resign himself readily to both their pleasures. It would have been unjust if he had not obeyed, even if his father alone had so resolved.” “So he went immediately to the altar to be sacrificed.” (Antiquities, I, xiii, 4) The Jerusalem Targum also includes words of Isaac, but these have no parallel in the writings of Josephus. “My father, bind my hands rightly, lest in the hour of my affliction I tremble and confuse you, and your offering be found profane, and I be cast into the pit of destruction in the world to come.” Moreover, this Targum indicates that, as Isaac looked up, he saw angels, but his father did not. The angels are referred to as saying, “Come, behold two righteous ones alone in the midst of the world: the one slays, the other is slain. He who slays defers not, and he who is to be slain stretches out his neck.”

Besides proving to be a test of Abraham’s faith and obedience, the command regarding Isaac and the ultimate outcome of the related developments may have served as a precedent that human sacrifice was not what God wants. In view of the fact that Abraham was not permitted to sacrifice Isaac, his descendants should never offer their children as sacrifices to YHWH.

There is also a possibility that what Abraham and Isaac portrayed served to point to the future time when God would demonstrate his great love for the human family by giving his Son as the means to have their sins forgiven and to be reconciled to him and when his Son, Jesus Christ, would willingly lay down his life as a sacrifice for humankind.

Chapter 23

Abraham’s beloved wife Sarah died in Kiriath-arba (Hebron) at the age of 127. The original designation Kiriath-arba, meaning “city of Arba,” appears to preserve the name of its Anakim founder, Arba. (Joshua 14:15) Lying at an elevation of about 3,000 feet (c. 900 meters) above sea level, Kiriath-arba or Hebron is situated approximately 19 miles (c. 30 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. The people of the native population in the region were called “sons of Heth.” This expression is commonly rendered “Hittites” in modern translations. Based on Genesis 10:15, the “sons of Heth” were the descendants of Heth the son of Canaan, the son of Noah’s son Ham. (23:1, 2)

After mourning Sarah’s death, Abraham approached the “sons of Heth” (probably elders in the community) to request a burial site for her. As an alien resident in the region, he did not own any property and was dependent on the land owners to grant his request. They recognized Abraham as a “prince of God” or a mighty prince, probably on the basis of his large household, including many servants, and sizable flocks and herds. The land owners offered him the opportunity to select a choice burial site, assuring him that none among them would withhold from him any place of his choosing. (23:2-6)

Respectfully, Abraham bowed to the “people of the land,” the “sons of Heth” to whom he had made his request. Apparently Abraham did not desire to be given a site within a land owner’s property but wanted actual ownership of the burial site. Therefore, he asked the men to entreat Ephron the son of Zohar to make available the “cave of Machpelah,” which was located at the end of his field. Abraham wanted the men to witness the purchase of the cave for its full price. (23:7-9)

It so happened that Ephron was sitting among the “sons of Heth,” and he spoke up in the hearing of all of them, including all the people who passed through the city gate. For a burial place, Ephron offered to give Abraham the field that included the cave. Again Abraham bowed down before the “people of the land” and, in their hearing, directed his words to Ephron. Abraham made it clear to Ephron that he wanted ownership of the burial site, telling him that he would give him the price of the field. Ephron then set the purchase price at 400 silver shekels (didrachmas [LXX]), adding, “What is that between me and you?” The question has been variously interpreted in modern translations. “Why should we haggle over such a small amount?” (CEV) “I won’t argue with you over the price.” (NCV) “What is that between friends?” (NLT) (23:10-15)

The purchase price does appear to have been extremely high, and it is not evident from the context that Ephron had ruled out the option for negotiation. There is a possibility that the entire property was quite large, justifying a payment of 400 silver shekels. Whatever the situation may have been, Abraham agreed to Ephron’s terms, weighed out the 400 silver shekels according to the then-existing standard weight. For the purchase price, Abraham obtained the field in Machpelah in the vicinity of “Mamre, that is, Hebron.” The purchase included the cave and all the trees on the land, and the link of Mamre to Hebron could indicate that Mamre was in the region of Hebron. After obtaining full possession of the site in the presence of the people who witnessed the legal transaction, Abraham buried his wife in the cave. The name Machpelah is drawn from a root that means “double,” suggesting that there may have been a double entrance to the cave or that there were two recesses within the cave. In the Septuagint, the “cave of Machpelah” (23:9) is called “double cave.” (23:16-20)

Notes

In the Septuagint, the 400 silver shekels (23:16) are referred to as 400 “didrachmas.” In the first century CE, the Jews paid an annual temple tax of a didrachma or two drachmas. (Matthew 17:24) The Romans officially evaluated the silver drachma as three fourths of a denarius. On the basis of ancient shekel weights, a silver didrachma was worth considerably less than a silver shekel.

Two clay tablets with text in cuneiform script found at Hattusa (Bogazkoy), in modern-day Turkey, contain Hittite laws. If laws of this nature existed among the “sons of Heth” in the time of Abraham, they may provide some background for understanding why Abraham only wanted to buy the cave and not the entire property, whereas Ephron appears to have insisted on the sale of the field with the cave and all the trees on the land. The owner of the smaller part of a property was not responsible for rendering certain services, but the owner of the larger section would continue to be responsible for providing the required services. In the third edition of Ancient Near Eastern Texts (page 191), the following provisions are included in paragraphs 46 and 47: “If in a village anyone holds fields under socage as inheritance — if the fields have all been given to him, he shall render the services; if the fields have been given to him only to a small part, he shall not render the services, they shall render them from his father’s house ... If anyone buys all the fields of a craftsman, he shall render the services. If he buys a great (part of) the fields, he shall not render the services.”

According to paragraph 183 of the Hittite laws, the price for an acre of land was set at three silver shekels. On this basis, Ephron’s asking price for the field was exorbitant, unless it consisted of many acres of land.

Chapter 24

About three years after Sarah’s death, Abraham arranged to obtain a wife for his son Isaac. (See Genesis 17:17; 23:1; 25:20.) By then, Abraham had lived about 140 years, and YHWH had blessed him in everything. To procure a suitable wife for forty-year-old Isaac (25:20), Abraham entrusted this assignment to the oldest servant in his household, an exceptionally reliable steward whom he had placed in charge of all his property. Neither the Hebrew text nor the Septuagint identify this steward by name, but Targum Jonathan says that it was Eliezer. This was the trustworthy servant whom Abraham considered to be his heir before the births of Ishmael and Isaac. (15:2) Abraham asked the steward to swear by YHWH, the God of heaven and earth, that he would not take a wife for his son from among the Canaanites but would go to his relatives in the country where he had formerly lived and there obtain a wife. (24:1-4)

When swearing the oath, the servant was to place his hand under Abraham’s thigh or hip (yarék). This may have signified that he, in full submission to his master, would carry out everything to which he had sworn. The Hebrew word yarék is also used euphemistically to apply to the generative organ. (46:26) According to Targum Jonathan, the servant was to place his hand on the “section of [Abraham’s] circumcision.” The circumcision was a sign of the covenant that included the divine promise regarding the continuance of the family line of Abraham and, ultimately, concerning the coming of the Messiah through whom people of all nations could obtain the blessing of forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God. Viewed in this light, the servant would have sworn that he would faithfully do his part in sharing in the fulfillment of what the covenant of circumcision required. (24:2)

If the chosen woman was unwilling to leave her country, Abraham told the servant that he was not to take Isaac there. Abraham expressed his confidence that YHWH, the “God of heaven” (“and the God of the earth” [LXX adds]), would send his angel “before his face” or before him so that he might take a wife from there for his son. According to Targum Jonathan, Abraham said that “YHWH [Yy (Yeya)] whom I worship will appoint his angel to be with you, and will prosper your way.” Apparently the basis for Abraham’s confidence was YHWH’s past dealings with him. He had taken him from his father’s house and the land of his birth, promising to give his “seed” or descendants the land in which he was then residing. If the woman refused to accompany him, however, the oath would not be binding on the servant. By no means was he to take Isaac to her land. (24:5-8)

As requested, the servant put his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and swore the oath. He then departed with ten of Abraham’s camels, fellow servants (24:32), and a variety of choice gifts from Abraham, heading north to Aram-naharaim (Aram of the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates) or “Mesopotamia” (LXX) to the “city of Nahor” (either a designation for Haran or for a nearby place in northern Mesopotamia). (24:9, 10) In his Antiquities (I, xvi, 1), Josephus commented on the journey, indicating that it took considerable time under difficult conditions. In winter, the traveler had to contend with “the depth of the clay” and, in summer, the “lack of water.” The route also was one beset by robbers, requiring taking precautions beforehand.

Upon having safely arrived outside the “city of Nahor,” the servant had the camels kneel down by a well (apparently one fed by a spring) at evening time when, during the cooler part of the day, the women would be coming to draw water. He prayed that YHWH, the God of his master Abraham, would grant him success in finding a wife for Isaac and thereby show steadfast love or kindness (“mercy” [LXX]) to his master. To be sure about YHWH’s choice of the woman who was to become the wife of Isaac, the servant prayed that she might be manifest from the other women by her response to his request for a drink. She would offer him a drink and also volunteer to draw water for the ten camels. (24:11-14)

Before the servant had completed praying, a beautiful virgin, Rebekah the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Abraham’s brother Nahor by his wife Milcah, arrived, carrying a vessel on her shoulder with which to draw water. After seeing her filling her vessel with water, the servant ran to meet her and asked her to give him a little drink of water. Rebekah responded, “Drink, my lord.” Quickly, with one hand, she let down the vessel from her shoulder upon her other hand and gave him a drink. After giving him a drink, she offered to draw water for the camels until they were finished drinking. In the nearby trough, Rebekah quickly emptied the water she repeatedly drew from the well for all the camels. This required considerable effort on her part as she ran to the well again and again, for a thirsty camel may drink more than 30 gallons (c. 140 liters) of water. (24:15-20)

In silence, the servant gazed at Rebekah, wanting to know whether or not YHWH had prospered his journey. According to the Septuagint rendering, the servant observed Rebekah closely. Although she had responded in the manner that corresponded with his prayer, he did not know whether she was related to Abraham. (24:21)

After the camels had finished drinking, the servant presented Rebekah with a gold nose ring (24:47) weighing half a shekel and two gold bracelets weighing ten shekels. In response to his question whose daughter she was and whether there was room for lodging in her father’s house, she identified herself as the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Nahor and his wife Milcah, and added that there was ample straw and fodder for the animals and room for lodging. Her answer revealed that she was a relative of Abraham, the granddaughter of his brother Nahor. Recognizing YHWH’s guidance in having found a wife for Isaac, the servant bowed down in worship, saying, “Blessed [or praised] be YHWH, the God of my master who has not forsaken his steadfast love [righteousness or justice (LXX)] and his truth [faithfulness or trustworthiness] toward my master. YHWH has led me on the way to the house of my master’s kinsmen.” (24:22-27)

Rebekah ran to the “house of her mother.” In that culture, women had their own place of dwelling within the family property, and it would have been natural for Rebekah to tell her mother about what had happened at the well. When her brother Laban heard about the developments and saw the gold nose ring (24:47) and the gold bracelets on her arms, he ran out to meet Abraham’s servant. The reference to his seeing the precious gifts before taking action might be an indication that his motive in extending hospitality was not altogether pure. (24:28-30)

Laban greeted Abraham’s servant who was standing at the well by the camels, saying to him, “Come, O blessed one of YHWH. Why do you stand outside? I have prepared the house and a place for the camels.” The servant and the men who had accompanied him entered the house, and the camels were unloaded and given straw and fodder. (24:31, 32) According to Targum Jonathan, “Laban” was the one who cared for the animals and brought water to wash the feet of Abraham’s servant and the men who were with him. Josephus (Antiquities, I, xvi, 3), however, wrote that it was the “servants of Laban” who took care of the camels. The extant Hebrew text is somewhat ambiguous, for it does not identify the one or ones who attended to the animals.

Upon food being set before him, Abraham’s servant said that he would not eat until he had revealed the nature of his errand. After identifying himself as Abraham’s servant, he related that YHWH had greatly blessed his master Abraham, giving him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys. His wife Sarah had borne a son to him in his old age, and this son was the heir of everything. (24:33-36)

From this point onward, the servant basically repeated what his master Abraham had said to him about obtaining a wife for his son, the oath he had sworn, his own prayer at the well, how Rebekah had fulfilled the sign that pointed to her as the woman YHWH had chosen to be the wife of his master’s son, and his prayer of thanksgiving for having been led in the right way to obtain this wife. (24:37-48; compare 24:3-8, 12-20, 22-24, 26, 27.) The servant presented the ones who could consent to the marriage of Rebekah the choice to manifest “steadfast love” or kindness (“mercy” [LXX]) and “truth” or trustworthiness [“righteousness” or justice (LXX)] toward his master Abraham by granting consent or to refuse consent for the marriage. He then would be able to turn to the “right or to the left,” meaning that their decision would allow him to act accordingly. (24:49)

Based on what the servant had told them, Laban and Bethuel acknowledged that YHWH had so appointed matters that there really was nothing they could say. They could speak neither “good” (consenting to the marriage) nor “bad” (objecting to the marriage). Therefore, they told the servant to take Rebekah and to let her be the wife of his master’s son just as YHWH had appointed. Thereafter the servant prostrated himself before YHWH, apparently to render thanks. He then gave silver and gold ornaments and clothing to Rebekah and costly items to her brother and her mother. (24:50-53)

With the decision having been made about the marriage of Rebekah, the servant and the men with him ate and drank and retired for the night. Upon their rising in the morning, the servant asked to be sent back to Abraham with Rebekah. Laban and Rebekah’s mother, though, wanted her to remain with them for at least ten days. It appears that the servant recognized that any delay in his departure would not work out well, for it was more likely for this to lead to a period of sadness about Rebekah’s leaving and also to talk that could have been designed to sway her from being willing to depart. He, therefore, insisted on not being detained, for YHWH had prospered his way. Rebekah’s brother and mother then called her and asked her whether she was willing to depart with the servant, and she replied in the affirmative. They sent Rebekah and her nurse and maids away with him and his men, blessing her with the parting words, “May you become thousands of myriads, and may your seed possess the gate of those hating him” (or may your descendants become very numerous and gain control over the people in the cities of their enemies). Seated on the camels, Rebekah and her maids rode away with Abraham’s servant and the men who had accompanied him. (24:54-61)

It was in the evening that they completed the long journey (well over 500 miles [800 kilometers]) from upper Mesopotamia to the Negeb south of the mountainous region that many years later came to be included in the territory assigned to the tribe of Judah. At the time of their arrival, Isaac was walking in the field somewhere near Beer-la-hai-roi and meditating, and he saw the camels approaching. It appears that Abraham’s servant, out of respect for his master, got off his camel when he saw Isaac. This seems to have been an indication to Rebekah that she should also alight from the camel when she saw him, and she asked, “Who is the man walking in the field toward us?” Upon being informed that he was the servant’s master, Rebekah veiled herself. The servant related to Isaac everything that had taken place, and he took Rebekah into the tent of his mother Sarah. Rebekah became his wife, he fell in love with her, and found comfort after having lost his mother in death about three years previously. (24:62-67)

Notes

Josephus, in his Antiquities, (I, xvi, 2), has Rebekah telling the servant that her father Bethuel was “dead” and then adding, “Laban is my brother and, together with my mother, takes care of all our family affairs and is the guardian of my virginity.” The Genesis account represents Bethuel as still being alive (24:50), but in a manner suggesting that he may have been unable to function as family head. Laban is the one who figures prominently in the interactions with the servant. Although the servant gave gifts to him and to the mother, he did not give any presents to the father. Moreover, when Bethuel is mentioned as speaking, Laban is the one whose name appears first in the account. It may be, in view of the seeming incapacity of Bethuel, that he was already considered to be dead. Targum Jonathan says that Bethuel died in the morning after he had eaten tainted food in the evening when Abraham’s servant arrived. According to a Jewish view from a later time, Bethuel wanted to prevent the marriage and, therefore, an angel killed him. This is then presented as the reason Bethuel is not mentioned as receiving any gifts.

An old Jewish interpretation about why Laban, not Bethuel, is mentioned first in Genesis 24:50 is that Laban was not an upright man and, therefore, rushed in to speak first.

In verse 63, there is a measure of uncertainty about what Isaac was doing in the field. The word in the Septuagint is a form of adoleschéo and may be translated “meditate.” Targum Jonathan indicates that he went into the field to pray. Numerous modern translations refer to “walking,” not “meditating.” The Tanakh (JPS, 1985 edition) uses “walking” in the main text, and a footnote indicates that others say “to meditate” but that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

Chapter 25

The Genesis account does not reveal when Abraham took Keturah (Chettoura [LXX]) as a wife. Her position was that of a concubine (1 Chronicles 1:32) and differed from that of Sarah, the mistress of the household. In the culture of that time, concubinage was common. Josephus appears to have understood that Keturah came to be a concubine while Sarah was still alive. He wrote that “Isaac married [Rebekah], the inheritance having now come to him; for the children of Keturah had gone to their own remote habitations.” (Antiquities, I, xvi, 3) The marriage of Isaac to Rebekah occurred about three years after Sarah’s death and, according to Josephus, the sons of Keturah already lived in their own regions. If this was the case, Sarah did not object to Abraham’s having Keturah as a concubine, for the sons of Keturah would in no way have threatened the position of Isaac as Hagar’s son Ishmael had. Therefore, it appears that the miraculous revival of Abraham’s reproductive powers did not end with the birth of Isaac. By Keturah, Abraham had six sons — Zimran (Zemran or Zembran [LXX]), Jokshan (Iexan [LXX]), Medan (Madan [LXX]) , Midian (Madiam [LXX]), Ishbak (Iesbok [LXX]), and Shuah (Soye [LXX]). (25:1, 2)

One conjecture places the descendants of Zimran in a region on the eastern shore of the Red Sea. Tribes that descended from Joktan, his sons Sheba and Dedan, and Dedan’s progeny (the Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim) lived in various parts of Arabia. Medan may have been the forefather of an Arabian tribe that occupied an area to the south of Tema. The descendants of Midian, including those of his sons Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah, were nomadic tent dwellers who lived in the northwestern part of Arabia to the east of the Gulf of ‛Aqaba. According to one view, Ishbak’s descendants resided in the northern part of Syria. Shuah’s descendants may have lived along the right bank of the Euphrates River. (25:2-4)

Abraham constituted Isaac the heir of all his property but gave gifts to the sons of his concubines (apparently Hagar and Keturah) and sent them away to the east, to the “land of the East” (Arabia). He died at the age of 175, being “gathered to his people” or joining his ancestors in the realm of the dead at a “good old age.” His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah located in the field that Abraham had purchased for a burial site for his wife Sarah from Ephron the son of Zohar of the “sons of Heth.” The presence of Ishmael at the burial of Abraham indicates that contact with him had continued after he was dismissed from the household with his mother Hagar. (25:5-10)

After the death of his father Abraham, Isaac lived in the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi between Kadesh (a city on the western extremity of the region that later became Edomite territory) and Bered. (16:14) He continued to enjoy God’s blessing. (25:11)

Before the birth of Isaac, YHWH’s angel had revealed to Abraham that his son Ishmael by Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maid, would become the father of twelve princes or chieftains. (17:18-20) This was fulfilled, for Ishmael came to have twelve sons — the firstborn Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel (Nabdeel [LXX]), Mibsam (Massam [LXX]), Mishma (Masma [LXX]), Dumah (Idouma [LXX]), Massa (Masse [LXX]), Hadad (Choddad [LXX]), Tema (Thaiman [LXX]), Jetur (Ietour [LXX]), Naphish (Naphes [LXX]), and Kedemah (Kedma [LXX]). Their descendants appear to have lived a nomadic existence in the Sinai Peninsula, in northern Arabia, and in land as far north as the border of Assyria. Ishmael died at the age of 137 and “was gathered to his people,” joining his ancestors in the realm of the dead. (25:12-18)

Isaac the son of Abraham by his wife Sarah was 40 years old when he married Rebekah, the “daughter of Bethuel, the Aramean of Paddan-aram [Syrian from Mesopotamia (LXX)],” and the “sister of Laban the Aramean [Syrian (LXX)].” Paddan-aram was a region in northern Mesopotamia, where the city of Haran was located. Years passed, and Rebekah did not become pregnant. Therefore, Isaac prayed for his wife that she might be able to conceive. When she did become pregnant about nineteen years after the marriage, she perceived intense struggling in her womb. The extreme discomfort caused her to raise the question, “Why do I live?” Rebekah prayed to YHWH about the situation. How she received the answer to her prayer is not revealed in the account. The message was that the offspring of “two nations” were in her womb, two peoples would be separating, one of them would be stronger than the other one, and the older would serve the younger. (25:19-23)

Rebekah gave birth to fraternal twin boys. The first baby to be born had red hair, like a hairy garment, all over his body. This came to be the basis for his name Esau, meaning “hairy.” The brother was born while holding on to Esau’s heel. Therefore, he was named Jacob, meaning “heel grabber” or “supplanter.” At the time the twins were born, Isaac was 60 years old, and his father Abraham was about 160 years of age. (25:24-26)

After the twins grew up, Esau became an expert hunter, and Jacob pursued the more peaceful occupation of a tent-dwelling keeper of flocks and herds. Isaac loved Esau, for he brought him tasty game from his hunting. Rebekah, however, loved Jacob, preferring him over her older son. It appears that Esau was more like his energetic mother Rebekah, whereas Jacob was more like Isaac, the husband whom she dearly loved. (25:27, 28)

On one occasion, Esau appears to have returned from the field after an unsuccessful hunt. He was exhausted and hungry. At the time, Jacob was boiling a red lentil stew, which appeared very appealing to Esau. He said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of the red, the red here, for I am famished.” This incident came to be the basis for his name “Edom,” meaning “red.” Aware of his brother’s impulsive nature and flaws, Jacob opportunistically used the occasion to get from Esau what he wanted. He asked him to sell him his birthright in exchange for the stew. Esau replied, “Look, I am about to die, and of what use is a birthright to me?” Jacob was not satisfied with a mere statement from his brother. He wanted him to first swear to him that he was selling the birthright to him. Esau did swear to the transaction, and Jacob then gave him bread and lentil stew. After having satisfied himself with food and drink, Esau got up and went his way as a man who had disdain for his birthright. (25:29-34)

Notes

Targum Jonathan identifies Keturah as being Hagar, but this does not agree with Genesis 25:6, where the plural “concubines” is found. The apparent reference is to the concubines Hagar and Keturah. The name Keturah is thought to have been drawn from a root that is linked to incense, and this is the basis for the ancient Jewish view that “her deeds were as beautiful [or delightful] as incense.”

In verse 3, the names Asshurim (Assouriim [LXX]), Letushim (Latousiim [LXX]), and Leummim (Loomim [LXX]) are plural and probably designate specific peoples or tribes. The Septuagint indicates that Iexan (Jokshan) had three (not two) sons — Saba (Sheba), Thaiman, and Daidan (Dedan). Additionally, the Septuagint includes two other sons of Daidan (Dedan) — Ragouel and Nabdeel.

The Septuagint rendering of verse 4 identifies the sons to Madiam (Midian) to have been Gaipha or Gaiphar (Ephah), Apher (Epher), Enoch (Hanoch), Abira (Abida), and Elraga (Eldaah).

In his letter to the Romans (9:10-13), the apostle Paul mentioned the twins Jacob and Esau as an example establishing that God’s choosing of individuals is independent of works. In his foreknowledge, God selected the twin that would best serve his purpose. This choosing was revealed when God declared before the birth of the twins that the younger one would be the one whom the older one would serve. The later history confirmed that Esau and his descendants would not have been suitable to serve as the line of descent through which the promised “seed,” the Messiah, was to come. They chose not to have a relationship with God, and merited the divine judgment expressed centuries later in Malachi 1:2, 3, “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.”

Esau is an example of a profane man, one who lacked a spiritual focus. To satisfy his immediate hunger, he sold his birthright to his brother Jacob, manifesting no appreciation for the privileges and future blessings bound up with a firstborn’s birthright. Targum Jonathan represents Esau as denying any hope respecting future life. “Look, I am going to die, and in another world I shall have no life; and what then is the birthright to me, or the portion in the world of which you speak?”

Chapter 26

In earlier years, Abraham and Sarah had experienced a severe famine in the land of Canaan, leading to their taking up temporary residence in Egypt. Faced with another severe famine in the land, Isaac headed for Gerar (not far from Gaza), where the Philistine king Abimelech ruled. Apparently this Abimelech was not the same king with whom Abraham had dealings at a much earlier time, and likely the designation “Abimelech” (“my father [is] king”) was a royal title. Like his father Abraham, Isaac probably planned to travel southward to Mizraim (Egypt). (26:1) Targum Jonathan is specific in saying that it was in Isaac’s “heart to go down to Mizraim [Egypt].” Josephus (Antiquities, I, xviii, 2) wrote that “Isaac resolved to go into Egypt,” but then said that “he went to Gerar, as God commanded him.”

YHWH (apparently the representative angel of YHWH) appeared to Isaac, instructing him not to go to Egypt but to remain in the land that had been promised to Abraham as a future inheritance. The nature of this appearance is not disclosed in the Genesis account. YHWH assured Isaac that he would bless him in the land, for he would give to him and his “seed” or descendants the entire land (literally, “all these lands”; “all this land” [LXX]), fulfilling the oath-bound promise he had made to his father Abraham. YHWH would increase the “seed” or descendants of Isaac “like the stars of the heavens.” “All the nations of the earth” were to bless themselves by his “seed.” (26:2-4) In the fulfillment, the “seed” by whom people of the nations were to bless themselves is the Messiah or Christ, Jesus the unique Son of God. Persons who put faith in him and his sacrifice of himself for them are granted forgiveness of their sins and thus gain an approved relationship with God as his beloved children.

The promise YHWH made to Isaac repeated the very promise he had earlier made to Abraham. This confirmation of the promise to Isaac occurred because Abraham had heeded YHWH’s “voice” and observed his charge, commandments, statutes, and laws. (26:5)

After Isaac began residing in Gerar, the inhabitants asked him about his wife Rebekah. Fearing that the men might kill him and that one of them would take possession of his wife as his own on account of her exceptional beauty, he, like his father Abraham had done many years earlier, told them that she was his sister. On a later occasion, the Philistine king Abimelech, from a window of his residence, observed the interaction of Isaac with Rebekah. He recognized that Rebekah was the wife of Isaac, not his sister. Abimelech thereafter reproved him for the misrepresentation that could have brought guilt on his people if one of the men had lain with her. Subsequently, he warned his subjects not to lay a hand on Isaac or on his wife, decreeing the death penalty for anyone who were to do so. (26:6-11)

In the same year, Isaac experienced YHWH’s blessing on his agricultural labors. He harvested a hundredfold from the seed he had sown. During the time he lived in the region, Isaac became very wealthy, accumulating flocks and herds. His household expanded extensively, apparently through the addition of many male and female servants and their offspring. As a result, he became an object of envy among the Philistines. (26:12-14)

After the death of Abraham, the Philistines had stopped up all the wells he had dug in the region, filling them with soil. Isaac reopened these wells and called them by the names his father had given them. (26:15, 18)

Imagining Isaac and his large household to have become a potential threat, Abimelech demanded that he move away, asserting that Isaac had become much mightier than he and his people. There were repeated problems with the Philistines after Isaac took up tenting in the valley of Gerar. Subsequent to digging a well in the valley and obtaining a water supply for flocks and herds, the servants of Isaac were faced with hostile herders from Gerar. The herders insisted that the water was theirs. For this reason, Isaac named the well “Esek” (“Contention”; “Injustice” [LXX]), “for they [the Philistines] had contended with him” (for they wronged him [did him injustice] [LXX]). Again a quarrel erupted with herders from Gerar respecting the digging of another well. Isaac named that well “Sitnah” (“Accusation”; “Enmity” [LXX]). (26:16-21) Josephus attributed Isaac’s withdrawal from violent confrontation with the Philistine herders to “rational and prudent conduct” that gained security for him. (Antiquities, I, xviii, 2)

To avoid future conflict with the Philistines, Isaac moved away from the area. This time no disputing arose in connection with the digging of a well. Therefore, Isaac named this well “Rehoboth” (“Broad Places” or “Spaciousness”) because he perceived that YHWH had “made room” for his household and that they would become fruitful in the land. He departed from there, arriving at Beer-sheba, a site at the edge of the desert south of the mountainous region of what later became a part of the territory of the tribe of Judah. That night (likely in a vision), YHWH (his representative angel) appeared to Isaac, identifying himself as the God of his father Abraham and telling him not to be afraid as he would be with him, bless him, and make his “seed” or descendants numerous “for the sake of [his] servant Abraham.” Isaac then built an altar there, called upon the “name” or person of YHWH (doubtless by offering sacrifices and praying to him). Isaac also located his tent at Beer-sheba, and his servants dug a well. (26:22-25)

After Isaac had relocated his household to Beer-sheba, Abimelech, accompanied by his “companion” or trusted counselor Ahuzzath (Ochozath [LXX] and Phicol (Phikol or Phichol [LXX]) the commander of his army arrived from Gerar. Isaac asked why they had come, considering that they hated him and had sent him away from their region. They explained that they recognized that YHWH was with him, and they wanted to conclude an oath-bound covenant with him, assuring them that he would not harm them just as they had not touched him. Apparently they regarded the size of Isaac’s household as a potential threat to their security and wanted a binding agreement so that a peaceful relationship would continue with a man whom they acknowledged as the “blessed one of YHWH” and to whom they claimed they had only done good and sent away in peace. (26:26-29)

Isaac prepared a feast for Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol. Early in the morning of the next day, they concluded an oath-bound covenant with one another, and the men departed from Isaac in peace. On the same day, Isaac’s servants reported that they had obtained water from the well they had dug. Isaac named the well Shibah (Oath [LXX]) and called the city Beer-sheba (“Well of an oath” [LXX]), apparently recalling the oath that Isaac, Abimelech, Ahuzzath, and Phicol had taken with one another. At the same time, Isaac preserved the name that his father Abraham had earlier given to the site. Beer-sheba continued to be the name of the place in the time the Genesis account came to be in its final written form. (26:30-33)

Apparently without the consent or guidance of his father Isaac, Esau, at the age of 40, married “Judith [Ioudin (LXX) the daughter of Beeri [Beer (LXX)] the Hittite and Basemath [Basemmath (LXX)] the daughter of Elon [Ailon (LXX)] the Hittite.” Josephus (Antiquities, I, xviii, 4) referred to the fathers of the two women as “great lords among the Canaanites.” Josephus wrote that Esau did not ask his father Isaac for advice and that Isaac would not have given his approval, “for he was not pleased with contracting any alliance with the people of that country.” The two women proved to be a source of bitterness (literally, “bitterness of spirit”) for Isaac and Rebekah. According to the Septuagint, the two women quarreled with Esau’s parents. (26:34, 35) Targum Jonathan indicates that Judith and Basemath engaged in strange worship and, by their evil conduct, rebelled against Isaac and Rebekah.

Notes

It appears that Phicol and Ahuzzath (Possession), like Abimelech, were official titles. According to the Septuagint (26:26), Ochozath (Ahuzzath) was Abimelech’s nymphagogós (literally, “leader of the bride”) and may here designate a “trusted companion” or counselor.

Targum Jonathan says that, after Isaac, departed from Gerar, the wells dried up and the trees did not bear fruit. This was the reason Abimelech, accompanied by his companions, came to Isaac, asking him to pray for them. The Targum quotes them as saying, “For your righteousness’ sake all good has come to us. But when you departed from our land, the wells dried up, and our trees bore no fruit. Then we said, We will cause him to return to us. And now let there be an oath established between us, and kindness between us and you, and we will enter into a covenant with you, lest you do us evil.”

Chapter 27

When Isaac was advanced in age, he suffered from blindness. Based on the information in the Genesis account, he was about 137 years of age when he summoned his older son Esau. (See the Notes section.) At that time, Esau would have been about 77 years old. It is likely that the contact Isaac had with Esau was not as frequent as it had been in earlier years, particularly since Esau had been married for 37 years and had his own household. (26:34) Although not knowing the day of his death, Isaac may have believed it was near, for his half brother Ishmael had died at 137 years of age. (25:17) Therefore, Isaac wanted to make sure that he blessed Esau before his death and asked him to hunt for game and prepare a meal for him — a dish of which he was especially fond. (27:1-4)

After having heard what Isaac said to Esau, Rebekah decided to intervene, wanting Jacob to be the son to receive his father’s blessing. Josephus (Antiquities, I, xviii, 6) represented Rebekah as considering Jacob worthy of having supplication made for him to be the recipient of God’s favor and, therefore, acted contrary to Isaac’s intent to bless Esau. The Genesis account does not disclose whether Rebekah recalled the divine revelation that the older would serve the younger and whether she knew about Esau’s having sold his birthright to Jacob. She apparently felt justified in taking matters into her own hands. Instead of waiting on YHWH to fulfill his word, Rebekah devised a way to obtain the blessing for her favorite son. While Esau was away hunting for game, Rebekah planned to prepare a tasty dish for Isaac from the meat of two kids of the goats. When she told Jacob about what Isaac had said to Esau and what she purposed to do so that Esau would not be the one to receive the blessing, Jacob raised the objection that Isaac, by feeling him, might recognize him from his lack of bodily hair and then curse him. Rebekah replied, “Your curse [be] upon me, my son. Only obey my word and go fetch [the two kids of good goats] for me.” (27:5-13)

Jacob obeyed his mother and brought her the two kids of the goats, from which she prepared a tasty dish for Isaac. To deceive Isaac, Rebekah dressed Jacob in the best of Esau’s garments that were available to her and afixed the hairy goat skins on Jacob’s hands (probably including part of the arms [“arms,” not “hands” (LXX)]) and on his neck. With bread and the tasty dish that Rebekah had prepared, Jacob went to his father and identified himself as Esau his firstborn son. Asked how it happened that he had so quickly found game, Jacob replied, “Because YHWH your God had [it] meet up with me.” (27:14-20)

Based on Jacob’s voice and possibly also on how he expressed himself, Isaac appears to have been unsure about whether he was speaking to Esau. He asked Jacob to come near so that he might feel him to determine whether he truly was Esau his son. Upon feeling the hairy goat skins, Isaac concluded that the hands were those of Esau but that the voice was the voice of Jacob. The deception that Rebekah devised worked. Isaac did not recognize Jacob because he perceived the hands to be the hairy hands of Esau. Nevertheless, he again asked Jacob, “Are you really my son Esau?” Jacob answered, “I am.” (27:21-24)

In response to Isaac’s request for him to bring him the dish made from the game so that he might be blessed, Jacob brought it to him. Isaac ate and drank and then asked his son to come near and to kiss him. He smelled the garments that belonged to Esau and expressed the blessing in keeping with what his sense of smell had perceived. “See the smell of my son [is] as the smell of a field that YHWH has blessed. May God give you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness [or plenty] of the earth [or land] and abundance of grain and wine. Let peoples serve you and nations bow down to you. Be master over your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone cursing you, and blessed be everyone blessing you.” (27:25-29)

The blessing was a prayerful request for God to prosper the agricultural labor of Jacob’s descendants, providing the essential dew during the dry season to preserve the maturing crops and making it possible for Jacob’s descendants to enjoy good grain harvests and wine from the juice of productive grapevines. Instead of being subservient to other tribes and nations, the descendants of Jacob were to be a free people whom others would acknowledge as their superiors. Even their most closely related descendants, the “sons” of the same mother or ancestress, were to make the same acknowledgment. Targum Jonathan is more specific in the wording relating to the superior position of the descendants of Jacob. “Let peoples be subject to you, all the sons of Esau, and kingdoms bow before you, all the sons of Keturah. May you be a chief and a ruler over your brothers, and let the sons of your mother salute you.” The Jerusalem Targum includes a number of other interpretive elements. “Let peoples serve before you, all the sons of Esau. All kings be subject to you, all the sons of Ishmael. May you be a chief and a ruler over the sons of Keturah. And the sons of Laban the brother of your mother will come before you and salute you.”

After Isaac had blessed him and Jacob had barely left his father’s presence, Esau returned from the hunt. He prepared a tasty dish with meat from the game, brought it to Isaac, requested that his father sit up, partake of the food, and bestow his blessing on him. Esau identified himself as the firstborn son upon being asked, “Who are you?” Isaac then began to tremble violently and said, “Who was it then who hunted game and brought it to me? And I ate everything before you came, and I have blessed him, and indeed blessed he will be.” Esau gave way to loud and bitter weeping, pleading with his father to bless him also. Isaac responded that Esau’s brother had come with deceit and taken away his blessing. (27:30-35)

Esau recognized that the name Jacob (“supplanter”) had fittingly been given to his brother, for he had supplanted him twice. Jacob had taken away his birthright and his blessing. Esau asked whether his father had not reserved a blessing for him. Seemingly, Isaac recognized that the pronouncement of the blessing on Jacob was according to God’s will. Therefore, he could not nullify it. Isaac said to Esau that he had made Jacob master over him and given “all his brothers” (or all those closely related to him) as his servants. Moreover, he would be “sustained with grain and wine,” or be abundantly supplied with food and drink. In view of the blessing he had pronounced on Jacob, Isaac concluded with the words, “What then can I do for you, my son?” Esau pleaded with his father for just one blessing and wept aloud. (27:36-38)

Isaac spoke prophetically of what the future for Esau and his descendants would be. “[Away] from the fatness of the earth will be your dwelling and [away] from the dew of the heavens above. And by the sword you will live, and your brother you will serve.” This situation, however, would not continue, Esau (or his descendants) would break free from his brother’s yoke. (27:39, 40) The region that the descendants of Esau came to occupy contained limited fertile land. Its strategic position, however, made it necessary for caravans to travel on the roads traversing the territory. By exacting tolls from those passing through their land and probably also having them pay for food, water, and lodging, the descendants of Esau acquired great wealth. They appear to have been prepared to use the “sword” to enforce their demands. (Compare Numbers 20:14-21.)

During the course of history, the descendants of Jacob did exercise control over the descendants of Esau, but there were reversals. (1 Samuel 14:47, 48; 2 Samuel 8:13, 14; 1 Kings 11:15-17; 2 Kings 8:20-22; 2 Chronicles 28:16, 17) According to Targum Jonathan, Esau (his descendants) would break the yoke of servitude from his neck when the “sons” or descendants of Jacob would fail to observe the “commandments of the law.” The Jerusalem Targum adds that the “sons” or descendants of Jacob could impose the yoke of servitude only when they observed the commandments.

Josephus (Antiquities, I, xviii, 7) represents Isaac as expressing himself in a manner that differs from the wording of the Genesis account. “Being grieved at [Esau’s] weeping,” Isaac said that Esau “should excel in hunting and strength of body in arms and all such kinds of work,” acquiring “glory forever” by those means — “he and his posterity after him.”

Esau hated Jacob for what he had done in obtaining Isaac’s blessing for himself and determined to kill him after the death of his father. Upon hearing what Esau planned to do, Rebekah told Jacob to flee to her brother Laban in Haran and to remain there until Esau’s anger had passed and he would have forgotten about what Jacob had done to him. She then planned to send for Jacob. Her wish for Jacob to flee was so that she might not be bereft of both of her sons in “one day” or at the same time. To persuade Isaac to agree with her in sending Jacob to Laban, Rebekah mentioned the trouble Esau’s wives had brought into her life and added, “What good will my life be to me if Jacob marries [one of the] daughters of Heth such as these?” (27:41-46)

Notes

Josephus (Antiquities, I, xviii, 6) wrote that Jacob followed the instructions Rebekah gave to him and did not attribute the actions to Rebekah herself as does the extant Hebrew text. Jacob “took a goat’s skin,” placing it about his arm, that “its hairy roughness” would convince his father that he was indeed Esau.

Josephus (Antiquities, I, xviii, 6), in a way that significantly differed from the record in the Genesis account, worded Isaac’s prayerful appeal for Jacob, the son whom he believed to be Esau. “O Lord of all ages and Creator of all substance; for it was you who did set before my father an abundance of good things and considered me worthy of what I possess, and have promised to be the kind supporter of my posterity and to bestow on them still greater blessings. Do you, therefore, confirm these your promises and do not overlook me because of my present weak condition, on account of which I most earnestly pray to you. Be gracious to this my son, preserve him, and keep him from everything that is evil. Grant him a happy life and the possession of as many good things as your power is able to bestow. Make him a terror to his enemies and honorable and beloved among his friends.”

After having served Laban for fourteen years, Jacob became father to Joseph by his wife Rachel. (30:25) Thereafter he served Laban for six more years and obtained wages in the form of sheep and goats. (31:41) At the time Jacob arrived with his household to settle in Egypt, he was 130 years of age, and Joseph was 39 years old. (41:46, 47, 53, 54; 45:11; 47:9) This would make Jacob about 91 years of age at the time Joseph was born and after he had begun to serve Laban fourteen years earlier. Accordingly, he was about 77 years old when his service to Laban began. Isaac was 60 years of age at the time the twins Jacob and Esau were born (25:26) and, therefore, about 137 years of age at the time of Jacob’s departure.

Chapter 28

In view of what Rebekah had said about how she would be affected if Jacob were to marry a woman like the ones whom Esau had married, Isaac sent for Jacob and instructed him not to take a wife from among the Canaanite women. Instead, he was to go to Padda-arm (in northern Mespotamia) to the “house of Bethuel,” the father of Rebekah, and marry one of the daughters of her brother Laban. Isaac blessed Jacob with a blessing that was of greater significance than the one which Jacob, at the directive of Rebekah, had received through deception. Unlike the earlier blessing, the new blessing focused on God’s promise to Abraham. “May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you so that you may become a congregation of peoples. May he give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your seed [or descendants] with you, that you may possess the land of your alien residences, [the land] which God gave to Abraham.” This blessing made it clear that the descendants of Jacob, not of Esau, would receive the land that had been promised to Abraham decades earlier. (28:1-4)

Esau came to know that Isaac had sent Jacob to Paddan-arm (Mesopotamia [LXX]), to “Laban the son of Bethuel the Aramean [Syrian (LXX)], the brother of Rebekah.” His father Isaac had sent Jacob to take a wife from there, had blessed him, and instructed him not to marry one of the Canaanite women. Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and set out for Paddan-aram. Having come to realize that his Canaanite wives did not please his father Isaac, Esau decided to marry yet another woman. He went to the family of Ishmael (the son of Abraham by Hagar) and chose as his wife Mahalath the sister of Ishmael’s firstborn son Nebaioth. It appears that Mahalath was also known as Basemath. (25:13; 28:5-9; 36:3) In his Antiquities (I, xviii, 8), Josephus referred to her as Basemmath (Basemath) and wrote that Esau took her as his wife to please his father Isaac and had “great affection for her.”

From Beer-sheba (Well of an oath [LXX]; a place at the edge of the desert south of the mountainous region of what later became a part of the territory of the tribe of Judah), Jacob headed northward toward Haran in Paddan-aram. After he had traveled some distance and the sun had set, he decided to lie down to sleep, placing a stone under his head for support. (28:10, 11) Concerning the reason Jacob chose to sleep outside, Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 1) wrote, “Because he hated the people of that country, he would not lodge with any of them, but took up his lodging in the open air, and laid his head on a heap of stones that he had gathered together.” Targum Jonathan says that Jacob used “four stones” for his pillow.

Jacob had a dream in which he saw a “ladder,” stairway, or ramp positioned on the ground, and its top reached the sky (literally, “the heavens”). “Angels of God” ascended and descended on it, suggesting that communication from heaven above could reach the earth below. YHWH (likely his representative angel) occupied the place at the top and confirmed the blessing of Isaac and the earlier promise made to Abraham, saying: “I am YHWH, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you are lying I will give to you and to your seed [descendants]. And your seed will be like the dust [particles] of the earth [or ground], and you will spread out to the west [the sea (the Mediterranean)],” the east, the north, and the south (the Negeb). “By you and by your seed, all the families of the earth will bless themselves. Look, I am with you and will preserve you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land, for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you.” (28:12-15)

Well over three centuries later, the descendants of Jacob began to take possession of the land that had been promised to them. The “seed” by whom people of the nations were to bless themselves is the Messiah or Christ, Jesus the unique Son of God. Persons who put faith in him and his sacrifice of himself for them are granted forgiveness of their sins and thus gain an approved relationship with God as his beloved children. As had been promised to him, Jacob did return safely to the land that became the inheritance of his descendants, proving that YHWH did not leave him.

When awakening from his sleep, Jacob was moved to say, “Surely YHWH is in this place, and I did not know it.” It may be that the location already had a sacred status, for Abraham, over 100 years previously, had built an altar east of the site that Jacob afterward called Bethel (“House of God”). (12:8; 28:16)

Jacob apparently was filled with a reverential fear and referred to the site as giving rise to fear or reverence. In view of the dream that revealed God and a personal message to him, he considered the location to be the “house of God” and the “gate of the heavens.” Early in the morning, Jacob took the stone that had served as his pillow, set it up as a pillar, and poured oil (undoubtedly olive oil) on the top of the stone. Previously the name of the city in the proximity of which Jacob had his dream was called Luz, but he, based on what he had experienced, called it Bethel. He vowed that YHWH would be his God to whom he would give a tenth of everything that he would come to have. This would be in the event that God would be with him, preserve him on the way, provide him with “bread to eat and clothing to wear,” and make it possible for him to return to his father’s house “in peace” or in safety and without having to face conflict. Jacob referred to the stone he had set up as a pillar as “house of God,” apparently because it would serve as a tangible testimony to what had taken place at the site. (28:17-22)

Targum Neofiti quotes Jacob, upon awakening from his sleep, as saying that the place was set aside before God, and that the gate was the “gate of prayer.” A similar thought is expressed in Targum Jonathan. “This place is not common, but the sanctuary of the Name of the Lord, the proper spot for prayer, set forth before the gate of heaven, and founded beneath the throne of glory.” Regarding the stone he had set up as a pillar, Targum Onkelos indicates that there Jacob would worship before God.

Notes

Basemath is the name found in Targum Jonathan, but Targum Neofiti and Targum Onkelos, like the Hebrew text (28:9), read Mahalath.

According to Targum Jonathan, the day on which Jacob set out from Beer-sheba was miraculously shortened because God (literally, the “Word”) wanted to speak with him. The second miracle was that the “four stones” Jacob used for a pillow had become one stone when he got up in the morning.

Targum Neofiti adds interpretive elements to the account in Genesis regarding the ladder, stairway, or ramp. “The angels who had accompanied [Jacob] from the house of his father ascended to bear good tidings to the angels on high, saying: Come and see a just man whose image is engraved in the throne of the glory, whom you desired to see. And look, the angels from before the Lord were ascending and descending and observed him.”

Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 2, 3) quoted God as saying the following: “O Jacob, it is not fit for you, the son of a good father and grandson of one who had obtained a great reputation for his eminent virtue, to be dejected at your present circumstances, but to hope for better times. You shall have great abundance of all good things by my assistance. For I brought Abraham here, out of Mesopotamia, when he was driven away by his kinsmen, and I made your father a happy man; nor will I bestow a lesser degree of happiness on you. Be of good courage, therefore, and under my conduct proceed on this your journey, for the marriage you so zealously pursue shall be consummated. You will have children of good characters, but their multitude will be innumerable. They will leave what they have to a still more numerous posterity, to whom, and to whose posterity, I will give the dominion of all the land, and their posterity will fill the entire earth and sea, so far as the sun beholds them. But do not you fear any danger nor be afraid of the many labors you must undergo.” Jacob then “became very joyful at what he had seen and heard.”

It may be noted that the deception in which Rebekah and Jacob participated led to loss for both of them. Rebekah lost years of association with her dearly loved son, and Jacob faced hardships and deceptive dealings in his service to Laban for the wife he truly wanted. For Rebekah and Jacob, patient waiting on YHWH to fulfill his word would have spared them much distress.

Chapter 29

Apparently like a man infused with new life on account having received God’s blessing in a dream, Jacob “lifted up his feet” and proceeded on his journey, arriving in the land of the sons [or people] of the East (Mesopotamia). After “east,” the Septuagint adds, “to Laban the son of Bathouel [Bethuel] the Syrian, but brother of Rebekkas [Rebekah], mother of Jacob and Esau.” The wording of the Hebrew text suggests that the long journey seemingly appeared to Jacob as if it had been shortened so that he just lifted up his feet and then arrived at his destination. (29:1) In Targum Neofiti this is expressed literally as a miracle. “When our father [or forefather] raised his feet to go to Haran the earth shrank before him and he was found in Haran in a short hour.” Targum Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum basically convey the same thought.

In a field near Haran, Jacob saw three flocks of sheep lying beside a well that was covered with a large stone. Customarily, once all the flocks were gathered there, the stone would be rolled away and the animals would be watered. Afterward the stone would be rolled back over the top of the well. (29:2, 3)

Jacob addressed the shepherds with the three flocks as “my brothers” and asked them from where they came. They happened to be from Haran and, therefore, Jacob inquired whether they knew “Laban the son [grandson] of Nahor.” They did know him. In response to Jacob’s asking about the welfare (“shalom” or peace) of Laban, they said, “Shalom” (peace or all is well), and informed him that his daughter Rachel was coming with his sheep. (29:4-6) According to Targum Jonathan, a plague from God had reduced the number of Laban’s sheep, leading to his dismissing the shepherds in his service and entrusting the greatly diminished remaining part of the flock to the care of Rachel.

It was then still broad daylight (literally, “high day”) and, as Jacob observed, not a time for the flocks to be lying down around the well. Therefore, he recommended that the shepherds water the sheep and lead the animals to pasture. They told him that they could not do so until all the flocks were gathered and the stone was rolled away from the well opening. While Jacob was still speaking to them, Rachel arrived with her father’s sheep. Seeing Rachel, the daughter of his mother’s brother Laban, and the sheep of her father, Jacob rolled the stone away from the well opening and watered Laban’s flock. Possibly Jacob, as a man who was not a resident of the area, did not consider himself bound by the requirement to wait until all the flocks were gathered at the well. (29:7-10) Targum Jonathan represents this act as a miracle and says that Jacob rolled the stone away with “one of his arms.”

Jacob kissed Rachel and was so greatly moved emotionally that he began to weep. He told her that he was her father’s kinsman and the son of Rebekah. (29:11, 12) According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 5), Jacob identified Rebekah as the sister of Rachel’s father Laban and, therefore, himself and Rachel as cousin-germans. Josephus continued: “At the mention of Rebekah, as usually happens to young persons, [Rachel] wept out of the kindness she had for her father and embraced Jacob.” This was because she had learned about Rebekah from her father. All the family would mention Rebekah, “always thinking of her and her alone.” Rachel added, “This will make you equal in [my father’s] eyes to any advantageous circumstances whatsoever.” Targum Jonathan, however, represents Laban very unfavorably. Rachel is quoted as telling Jacob regarding her father, “You cannot dwell with him, for he is a man of cunning.” To this, Jacob replied, “I am more cunning and wiser than he; nor can he do me evil, because the Word of the Lord is my helper.”

Rachel ran to her father to tell him about Jacob’s arrival. Upon hearing the news about Jacob, Laban ran to meet him, embraced him, kissed him, and brought him into his house. Jacob related to Laban everything that had happened to him, and Laban responded, “You are indeed my bone and my flesh,” meaning that Jacob was closely related to Laban. (29:12-14)

After Jacob had remained with him a whole month (literally, a “month of days”) and apparently had worked for him during his stay, Laban acknowledged that, even though he was a relative, Jacob should not be serving him for nothing. He then asked him, “What shall your wages be?” (29:14, 15)

Jacob had fallen in love with Rachel who was more beautiful than her older sister Leah. The eyes of Leah are described as “weak.” This probably meant that her eyes lacked luster. According to the Jerusalem Targum, her eyes “were tender, for she had wept and prayed that she might not be brought up in the lot of Esau” (or be destined as his wife). Targum Neofiti indicates that the eyes of Leah “were raised in prayer, begging that she be married to the just Jacob.” It appears that Jacob was particularly attracted to Rachel because she was beautiful like his mother Rebekah. Therefore, he expressed his willingness to serve Laban for seven years so that he might have Rachel as his wife. Laban replied that it would be better for Jacob (rather than another man) to have her and asked him to continue staying with him. (29:16-19) Targum Jonathan adds that Laban spoke “deceitfully.”

In view of his great love for Rachel, Jacob’s seven years of service to Laban passed quickly. To him, the time seemed to be just a few days. At the end of the seven years, Jacob asked that Rachel be given to him so that he could be intimate with her. Laban assembled all the men of the place and made a feast. In the evening, Laban brought Leah to Jacob, and he consummated the marriage. To be a maid for his daughter, Laban gave her his maid Zilpah. (29:20-24) Targum Jonathan identifies Zilpah as the daughter of Laban’s concubine.

Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 7) indicates that Jacob was under the influence of drink and that it was dark when Leah was given to him. She doubtless was veiled and did not say much to Jacob. According to Targum Jonathan, Rachel had made available to Leah all the things that Jacob had given to her. This Targum indicates that Laban took the advice of the men who had been invited to the feast. He is quoted as telling them, “Look, seven years since Jacob came to us the wells have not failed and the watered places have increased. And now come, let us counsel against him cunning counsel, that he may remain with us.” The cunning counsel was that Laban should take Leah to Jacob instead of Rachel.

In the morning, Jacob came to know that he had been deceived, and he confronted Laban about it. Laban claimed that he had done this because it was not customary in the land to give the younger daughter in marriage before the firstborn. This was a very weak reason for having deceived Jacob, for he could have told him from the beginning that the older daughter had to be married first. As Jacob had deceived Isaac at the directive of his mother Rebekah to obtain his father’s blessing, he similarly had become the victim of deception. (29:25, 26)

Laban asked that Jacob complete the bridal week with Leah and then offered to give him Rachel as his wife for an additional seven years of service. Once the week with Leah ended, Laban gave Rachel to Jacob. To be her maid, he gave her Bilhah. In Targum Jonathan, Bilhah is identified as the daughter of his concubine. The marriage with Rachel was consummated, and Jacob loved her more than her sister Leah. He continued to render service for Laban seven more years. (29:27-30)

Often, in the Scriptures, even when no direct divine intervention is involved, developments are attributed to YHWH. This is because all things are considered as taking place according to his will or his permission. In the case of Leah’s four pregnancies, no divine intervention may have been involved. Likewise, the barrenness of Rachel does not have to be regarded as having resulted from direct divine action. Instead, in view of his letting Leah become pregnant, YHWH may be considered as opening her womb because of his seeing that Leah was “hated” or loved to a far lesser degree than Rachel. (29:31)

Although Jacob was more attached to the beautiful Rachel, Leah appears to have been the wife with greater devotion to YHWH. It was Rachel, not Leah, who stole the “teraphim” or family idols from her father Laban. (31:19, 30) Leah’s expressions in connection with the birth of three of her sons reflect appreciation for what YHWH had done for her. Upon the birth of her firstborn son whom she named Reuben (“See a son”), Leah said, “YHWH has seen my affliction, for now my husband will love me.” She named her second son Simeon (“Hearing”) and said regarding him, “YHWH has heard that I am hated, and he has given me this son also.” In connection with the birth of the third son whom she named Levi (“Joined”), Leah did not mention YHWH but said, “Now this time my husband will be joined to me, for I have borne him three sons.” She named her fourth son Judah (“Lauded” or “Praised”) in gratitude to YHWH, saying, “This time I will praise YHWH.” (29:32-35)

Notes

In Antiquities (I, xix, 7), Josephus represents the words of Laban to Jacob in a more favorable light than does Targum Jonathan. “Laban promised to treat him with great humanity” not just on account of his ancestors but “particularly for the sake of his mother” Rebekah. Laban stated his purpose to make Jacob the head shepherd of his flock and to entrust him with sufficient authority to function in this position. Laban, however, was unwilling to send Rachel to be among the Canaanites and regretted that he had agreed for his sister Rebekah to have been married there.

Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 8) wrote that Leah attributed the birth of her firstborn son Roubelos (Reuben) to the “mercy” of God. Regarding Seme or Symeon (Simeon), Josephus said that the name signified, “God had listened to her.” The name Leuis (Levi) meant “confirmer of fellowship.” Ioudas (Judah), the name of the fourth son, denoted “thanksgiving” (or “gratitude”).

The first part of the Hebrew name “Reuben” is linked to the verb ra’ah (“see”) in Leah’s quoted expression, “YHWH has seen my affliction.” The second part of the name is linked to ye’ehabani (“will love me” [“my husband will love me”]). In Leah’s words about Simeon, the verb shamá‘ (“hear” or “listen”) forms part of her acknowledgment of God, “YHWH has heard.” Her expression regarding Levi connects his name with the verb yillaweh (“will be joined” [“my husband will be joined to me”]) The name Judah is linked to ’odeh (“I will praise” [“I will praise YHWH”).

It should be noted that Jacob did not desire to enter a polygamous marriage, but he was tricked into doing so. Sadly, the rivalry between the two sisters proved to be a source of great distress and emotional pain. To prevent problems like those that Jacob, Leah, and Rachel experienced, the law given to their descendants prohibited a man from marrying the sister of his living wife. (Leviticus 18:18)

Chapter 30

Rachel remained barren, began to envy her sister for having given birth to four sons, and said to Jacob, “Give me sons [children (LXX)] or I shall die.” This angered Jacob, prompting him to say, “Am I in the place of God who has withheld fruit from your womb?” (30:1, 2) Targum Jonathan represents Jacob as indicating that, instead of asking him, Rachel should be making her request to God.

As a barren woman, Rachel resorted to the only option available to her to have children, and that was by having her maid Bilhah bear children for her. She gave Bilhah as a concubine to Jacob, and Bilhah became pregnant. Upon thus coming to have a son by her maid, Rachel said, “God has judged [or vindicated] me and has also heard my voice and has given me a son.” She called his name Dan, meaning “judge.” This name is linked to the verb dannani (“has judged” [“God has judged (or vindicated) me”]). (30:3-6) Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 8) wrote that Rachel gave Bilhah to Jakob because she feared that the “fruitfulness of her sister” would lead to her enjoying a “lesser share of Jacob’s affections.”

Bilhah gave birth to yet another son. This prompted Rachel to say that she had “wrestled with mighty wrestlings” [literally, “wrestlings of God”] with her sister and had prevailed. Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 8) appears to have understood this to mean that, by means of Bilhah, she conquered the “fruitfulness of her sister.” Rachel named the son Naphtali, meaning “wrestling,” “struggle,” or “contest.” This name is linked to the words naphtuley (“wrestlings”) and naphtalti (“I have wrestled”). The Septuagint rendering conveys a somewhat different meaning of the Hebrew text. “God has helped [or stood by] me. And I have had social contact [in the form of rivalry] with my sister, and I have prevailed.” (30:7, 8)

Once Leah did not become pregnant after the passage of more than the usual time between the birth of her sons, she imitated her sister and gave Jacob her maid Zilpah as a concubine. When Zilpah gave birth to a son, Leah was moved to say, “by [good] fortune” (or, according to another reading of the Hebrew text, “[good] fortune has come”), and she named the baby boy Gad (“Fortune” [good fortune]). (30:9-11)

Zilpah gave birth to another son by Jacob, and Leah was overjoyed at his birth. This prompted her to say, “In my happiness” or, according to the Septuagint, “Happy I [am].” Leah continued, “for daughters [women] will call me happy.” The name she gave to the baby boy was Asher, meaning “happy” or “fortunate.” According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 8), the name Asher could mean “bringer of happiness,” for the boy added esteem to Leah. This name is associated with the Hebrew expression be’oshri (“in my happiness”). (30:12, 13)

The wheat harvest takes place during the month of Sivan (mid-May to mid-June). At this time, mandrakes bear mature yellow or orange berries that are the size of a plumb. Leah’s firsborn son Reuben found these berries in the field and brought them to her. The Septuagint is specific in indicating that he brought the fruit of the mandrakes (“apples of mandrake [plant]”), not the entire plant or its root. It appears that Leah and Rachel believed that the berries helped a woman to become pregnant. When Rachel asked her for some mandrakes her son had brought to her, Leah objected with a question that indicated Rachel had taken away her husband (or deprived her of his love) and then also wanted to take away her son’s mandrakes. In exchange for the mandrakes, Rachel expressed her willingness for Leah to have sexual intimacy with Jacob during that night. (30:14, 15)

Upon Jacob’s arrival from his activity in the field that evening, Leah met him, telling him that he had to be with her because she had hired him with her son’s mandrakes. She shared the marriage bed with him and became pregnant. Her conception is attributed to God as the One who had listened to her. This may be regarded as indicating that God permitted Leah to conceive rather than as signifying that he intervened directly for her. Leah personally felt that she had received her “hire” from God, for she had previously given her maid Zilpah to Jacob. Although she considered the two sons that Zilpah bore as her own, Leah seemingly regarded the baby boy (her fifth son) as her very own hire or wages, for she had obtained the opportunity to have marital intimacy with Jacob in exchange for the mandrakes Reuben had brought to her. Leah named the baby Issachar, meaning “hire” or “wages.” The name Issachar is associated with the Hebrew expression sakor sekartika (“I have hired you”). (30:16-18) In his Antiquities, (I, xix, 8), Josephus identified Issachar as “one born by hire.”

Leah again became pregnant and gave birth to a sixth son to Jacob. She was moved with appreciation for what she perceived God had done for her, granting her a “good gift” in the form of a baby boy. Leah felt that, because she had borne six sons to Jacob, he would “honor” or “exalt” (but, according to another meaning of the Hebrew word, “tolerate”) her, suggesting that she would have a larger share in his kindly feelings for her. She named the baby boy Zebulun (“exalted dwelling” or “toleration”). The name of her sixth son is linked to the Hebrew expression yizbeleni (“will honor me” or “will tolerate me”). (30:19, 20) Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 8) understood the name Zebulun to signifiy “pledged by benevolence toward her.” Leah later also gave birth to a daughter whom she named Dinah, meaning “judged” or “vindicated.” (30:21)

Rachel’s pregnancy is represented as having resulted because God remembered her, listened to her appeals to him, and opened her womb. Although direct divine intervention may not have been involved but occurred by God’s permissive will, Rachel attributed the birth of her son to God, saying, “God has taken away my reproach” (the reproach of having been barren). She named the baby boy Joseph (“May YHWH add” [or increase] or “YHWH has added” [or increased]). The name Joseph may be linked to the verb yasáph (“add”) and possibly also ’asáph (“remove” or “take away”). (30:22-24)

After the birth of Joseph, Jacob wanted to return to the land of Canaan with his family. Based on his agreement with Laban, he had served him for fourteen years, fulfilling his obligation to him for his daughters Leah and Rachel. Therefore, he wanted Laban to release him from his service and to depart with his wives and children. It appears that Laban did not want to let Jacob depart. By means of divination, he had come to recognize that YHWH had blessed or prospered him on account of Jacob. So he wanted to keep him in his service and promised to give Jacob whatever wages he might stipulate for himself. (30:25-28)

Laban did not have much when Jacob began serving him. After reminding Laban that the flock of sheep and goats had greatly increased under his care and the blessing of YHWH, Jacob agreed to continue in the service of Laban for a portion of the flock. For this purpose, Jacob wanted to remove from the flock all speckled and spotted goats and all dark-colored sheep and thereafter to shepherd the solid-colored animals, which would have been the black goats and the white sheep. In the future, his chosen wages would be all the abnormally marked sheep and goats that the solid-colored flock produced. Laban agreed to this arrangement for wages. (30:29-34)

Based on what Jacob had said, Laban chose to remove all the streaked and spotted he-goats and all the spotted and speckled she-goats (every animal that had white markings on it) and every dark-colored sheep. To make sure that there would be no interbreeding with the abnormally marked animals that he had removed, Laban entrusted them to his sons and had them tend this flock a distance of three days’ journey away from the animals Jacob would be shepherding. Laban probably reasoned that he would enjoy the greater gain, for he likely did not think that the solid-colored animals would produce a large number of abnormally colored sheep and goats. (30:35, 36)

Like peoples in past centuries, Jacob appears to have believed in prenatal influence. For this purpose, he took saplings from a variety of trees and peeled their bark in a way that made them look striped and spotted. Jacob placed the specially peeled saplings in the troughs from which the robust goats, not the feebler ones, came to drink and then mated. This selective breeding of the stronger animals and the use of the peeled saplings seemed to work for Jacob, for the she-goats came to have streaked, speckled, and spotted young. It was, however, not the actual reason for what happened. In a dream, YHWH’s angel revealed to Jacob that the he-goats were not the solid-colored animals they appeared to be but were streaked, speckled, and spotted when it came to producing young. The selective breeding of the stronger animals meant that Jacob came to possess the more robust animals and Laban the weaker ones. Apparently Jacob sold part of his ever-increasing flocks and, with the proceeds, acquired male and female servants, camels, and donkeys. (30:37-43; 31:10-13)

In the case of the sheep, Jacob followed a different procedure but one that relied on the belief in prenatal influence. He had them face toward the streaked and dark-colored animals in Laban’s flock (apparently the animals that were produced from the original flock entrusted to him) and kept the offspring that became his wages distinctly apart from the flocks of Laban. (30:40)

Notes

In verse 3, the expression about Bilhah bearing on the knees of Rachel appears to indicate that Rachel would place the newborn baby on her lap and, by this act, adopt it as her own.

The Septuagint does not make a distinction between the animals that make up the flock (sheep and goats), and the rendering of verse 40 differs from that of the extant Hebrew text. Verse 40 says that, in front of the sheep, Jacob set a white-speckled ram and every mixed-colored (or spotted) one among the lambs.

Chapter 31

Jacob came to know that Laban’s sons complained that he had taken everything from their father and thus had become wealthy. He also saw that Laban’s face or countenance had ceased to be what it had been toward him formerly. Jacob apparently perceived Laban’s growing hostility. The Genesis account does not reveal how Jacob later received a message from YHWH, telling him to return to the land of his “fathers” (Abraham and Isaac) and to his relatives and assuring him that he would be with him. From the field where he (doubtless with his servants and possibly also his older sons) shepherded his animals, Jacob sent a message to Rachel and Leah, requesting that they meet him there. The message may have been conveyed by one of Jacob’s servants. (31:1-4) According to Targum Jonathan, Jacob sent Naphtali, the son of Rachel’s maid Bilhah, because he was a “swift messenger” or an excellent runner. This is questionable, for Naphtali may not have been more than eight years old. According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 9), Jacob decided to make his departure secretly when Laban would not permit him to leave, but he first wanted to know what his wives thought about it.

Jacob explained to his wives that their father’s face or countenance had changed toward him in an unfavorable way and that, nevertheless, the God of his “father” (Isaac) had been with him. He reminded them that they knew of his serving their father with all his strength. Yet Laban had not dealt honestly with him. He had changed Jacob’s wages “ten times,” apparently with the intent of profiting much more than Jacob would have from his labors. The reference to “ten times” may not necessarily designate ten actual times the wages were changed but may denote repeated changes in the wages. A number of modern translations make this explicit in their renderings. “Your father has cheated me, changing my wages time and again.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “He keeps cheating me by changing my wages time after time.” (CEV) To God, Jacob attributed the failure of Laban’s efforts to take advantage of him. Whenever Laban changed which animals should become Jacob’s wages, the flock produced such offspring. Based on what had happened, Jacob said to his wives that God took away from their father the animals that he gave to him. (31:5-9; regarding verse 7, see the Notes section.)

Jacob told his wives about a divinely sent dream he had in the mating season of the flock. An angel of God appeared to him, informing him that the he-goats were streaked, spotted, and mottled (not a solid color as they appeared to be). The Septuagint refers to he-goats and rams as being white-speckled and mixed-colored and ashen-colored speckled. Speaking as the direct representative of God, the angel said to Jacob, “I have seen everything Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, depart from this land, and return to the land of your birth.” The Septuagint adds, “and I will be with you.” (31:10-13)

Rachel and Leah were in full agreement with Jacob’s decision to leave. In the Genesis account, both wives are represented as replying to what Jacob said, but Rachel is named first. This may explain why Targum Jonathan indicates that Rachel did the actual speaking with the consent of Leah. The quoted reply of the women reveals that, in their estimation, nothing existed for them in the household of their father. He regarded them as strangers and had used up the “silver” for which he had sold them. The “silver” or money for which he had “sold” his daughters was what he had accumulated from the fourteen years of service that Jacob had performed to have them as his wives. As far as Rachel and Leah were concerned, everything that God had taken away from their father belonged to them and to their children. (31:14-16)

With the complete support of his wives, Jacob set out for the land of Canaan to go to his father Isaac. He had his wives and his children ride on camels and, in front of him, he drove all the domestic animals he had acquired in Paddan-aram (northern Mesopotamia). At the time of the departure, Laban was away to shear his sheep. Taking advantage of his absence, Rachel stole the teraphim (“the idols” or the images of the deities [LXX]) that belonged to her father. (31:17-19) Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 9) wrote that Jacob had taught her to despise the worship of such deities but that her reason for stealing them was that, if her father pursued the household and seized everyone, “she might have recourse to these images in order to obtain his pardon.” A comparatively modern conjecture regarding Rachel’s theft is based on archaeological findings at Nuzi in northern Mesopotamia, indicating that owning the household idols or gods served as a legal title to the family inheritance. It could be that Rachel reasoned that, by being in possession of the idols, Jacob could claim that he had a right to a share in the inheritance of her father’s property or that he could prevent Laban from claiming that he had a right to the property Jacob had acquired for his services.

By not telling Laban what he intended to do and seizing the opportunity to depart while Laban was away, Jacob “stole the heart” of his father-in-law the “Aramean” or “Syrian” (LXX) or outwitted him (robbing him of the mental capacity to act). He made his escape with his entire household and all his property, crossed the Euphrates (literally, “the river”), and headed for the mountainous region or hill country of Gilead (literally, “the mountain of Gilead”). (31:20, 21)

On the third day after Jacob had fled, Laban came to know about it. He, accompanied by his kinsmen, went in pursuit of Jacob. For “seven” days, they pursued Jacob and caught up with him in the hill country of Gilead. Before the actual encounter with Jacob, Laban received a warning from God in a dream, telling him to be on guard not to say a “word to Jacob, either good or bad.” This warning indicated that he was to restrain himself from doing anything to Jacob. (31:22-24; see the Notes section on verse 23 regarding “seven” days.)

When he faced Jacob in the hill country of Gilead, Laban chided him for having blindsided him (literally, “stolen [his] heart” [robbed him of the mental capacity to act]) and taken away his daughters like captives of war (literally, “captives of the sword”). He claimed that, if Jacob had told him that he planned to leave, he could have arranged for a joyous celebration, sending him away with singing accompanied by tambourine and harp or lyre. Laban raised the question as to why Jacob had not permitted him to kiss his sons (grandchildren) and daughters. He maintained that Jacob had acted foolishly by departing secretly. Laban made Jacob aware that he was in a position to do him harm but was restrained from doing so because of the dream in which God warned him not to do anything to Jacob. Though acknowledging that Jacob may have been justified in wanting to leave because of longing for his “father’s house,” Laban challengingly asked, “Why did you steal my gods?” (31:23-30; see the Notes section regarding verses 28 and 29.)

Jacob replied that he feared Laban would take away his daughters (and everything belonging to him [LXX adds]) from him by force. Confident that no one had taken the household gods, Jacob said that anyone with whom Laban happened to find them should not live. Additionally, Laban should take anything that belonged to him. At the time, Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen the gods. Laban began his search, going to Jacob’s tent, Leah’s tent, the tent of the two maidservants, but he did not find the idols. Finally, he entered Rachel’s tent. In the meantime, she had hidden the household gods in the camel’s saddle bag and seated herself on the bag. Laban searched everywhere in the tent but found nothing. Rachel asked her father’s pardon for not standing up because she was experiencing her period. (31:31-35)

After Laban had completed his search of everything, Jacob, in indignation, expressed his complaint against him. “What is my offense? What is my sin that you have chased after me?” Respecting anything Laban may have found that belonged to him, Jacob said, “Before my kinsmen and your kinsmen, set it here before them that they may decide between us two.” Continuing, Jacob defended his record of service to Laban and reproached him for having dealt deceptively with him. “These twenty years I have been with you. Your ewes and your female goats did not miscarry, and I have not eaten the rams of your flock. I did not bring to you whatever had been torn by wild beasts. I bore the loss myself. Whether [an animal] was stolen by day or by night, you required it from my hand. … By day, the heat consumed me and the cold by night. My sleep fled from my eyes.” Fourteen years Jacob had served Laban for his two daughters and six years for his flock. While serving for the flock, Laban changed his wages “ten times” or repeatedly. Jacob concluded with the words, “If the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac [the God whom Isaac feared] had not been on my side, you indeed would have sent me away empty-handed. God saw my distress and the labor of my hands, and he rebuked you last night.” (31:36-42; regarding verse 41, see the Notes section.)

Josephus (Antiquities, I, xix, 10) worded Jacob’s grievance in even stronger terms. “Although I was your sister’s son and you had given your daughters in marriage to me, you have worn me out with your harsh commands and detained me twenty years under them. That, indeed, which was required in order to marry your daughters, hard as it was, I acknowledge to have been tolerable. But as to those [commands] that were imposed on me after these marriages, they were worse.”

Laban was unable to counter Jacob’s complaint and acknowledged his personal relationship to his daughters, their children, the flocks, and everything that Jacob had. Then he said, “What can I do this day to my daughters or to their children whom they have borne?” Laban recognized that he would have been acting against his very own if he were to harm them. Therefore, Laban wanted to conclude a covenant or make an agreement with Jacob that neither party would harm the other. (31:43, 44)

Apparently to serve as a tangible sign of the covenant they would conclude, Jacob set up a stone as a pillar and asked his kinsmen to collect stones to form a mound. This mound may have been somewhat in the form of a table that Jacob and Laban later used to eat the ceremonial meal associated with the covenant. Eating the meal signified that there would be peace between both parties. Laban called the mound or heap of stones Jegar-sahadutha (“witness mound” or “witness heap”), and Jacob named it Galeed (“witness mound” or “witness heap”). The two designations indicate that regional differences existed in the language the descendants of Abraham’s father spoke. (31:45-47)

Laban expressed himself to the effect that the mound or heap served as a witness between him and Jacob. It may be that Laban used the name Mizpah (meaning “watchtower”) for the stone Jacob had set up as a pillar. Mizpah is linked to the verb yitseph in the words attributed to Laban. “May YHWH watch (yitseph) between you and me when we are hidden from one another.” Were Jacob to mistreat Laban’s daughters or to take wives besides them (although no man was there to see it), Laban reminded him that God would be a witness between both of them. Laban then set forth the covenant obligations by which he and Jacob were to abide. “This mound [or heap] is a witness and the pillar is a witness that I will not pass over by this mound to you [to harm you], and you will not pass over by this mound and this pillar to me [to harm me]. May the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor judge between us, the gods of their father.” In the Hebrew text, the verb for “judge” is plural. This indicates that Laban differentiated between the God whom Abraham worshiped and the god whom his own grandfather Nahor worshiped. Jacob, however, swore by the “Fear of his father Isaac” (or the God whom his father Isaac revered), for Isaac had always worshiped YHWH exclusively. (31:48-53)

Jacob offered a sacrifice there on the elevated location were the stone had been erected as a pillar and the mound had been formed with collected stones. He invited his kinsmen to eat “bread” or to partake of the ceremonial meal associated with the covenant he and Laban had concluded. The meal doubtless included meat from the sacrifice. After the ceremonial meal, everyone remained at the location for the night. (31:54)

Notes

For the phrase that includes the expression “ten times,” the Septuagint conveys a meaning that may be variously understood and differs from the wording of the extant Hebrew text. In verse 7, the meaning could be that Laban changed Jacob’s wages “for ten lambs,” “by ten lambs,” or “of ten lambs.” Verse 41 could be understood as indicating that Laban falsified Jacob’s wages by ten lambs or that Laban had falsely set the wages respecting ten lambs.

The distance from the region in the vicinity of Haran to Gilead is too great for Jacob with his household and domestic animals to have completed it in ten days (three days’ head start on Laban and seven days for Laban to reach Jacob’s encampment). It would only have been possible for Jacob to have reached Gilead if Laban did not immediately leave after he learned about Jacob’s departure. If Laban and the men accompanying him rode on camels, they would have been able to catch up with Jacob in seven days. Without camels, however, it would not have been possible for them to do so at the rate of an average day’s journey of about 20 miles (c. 32 kilometers). Therefore, the literal Hebrew expression a “way of seven days” (in verse 23) possibly may be understood to be representative of a long journey (not necessarily one that can be completed in seven 24-hour days).

According to the Septuagint rendering of verse 28, Laban complained that Jacob did not consider him worthy of kissing his children (grandchildren) and his daughters.

The Septuagint (in verse 29) represents Laban as saying to Jacob, “And now my hand is strong [enough] to harm you.”

Chapter 32

Early the next morning after having concluded a covenant with Jacob, Laban kissed his “sons” (or grandchildren) and his daughters and blessed them. He then departed with the men who had accompanied him and returned to his own place. (31:55[32:1])

With his household and domestic animals, Jacob continued on his journey, and “angels of God met him.” Upon seeing the angels, Jacob referred to them as the “camp of God” and called the location Mahanaim (“two camps”), possibly meaning the camp of angels and his own camp. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew name Mahanaim is rendered “Camps.” (32:1, 2[2, 3]) Targum Jonathan quotes Jacob as saying, “These are not the host of Esau who are coming to meet me, nor the host of Laban who have returned from pursuing me. But they are the host of holy angels.”

To prepare for a meeting with his brother Esau who was then residing in the land of Seir (a region between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of ‛Aqaba), Jacob sent messengers to inform him about his arrival. The messengers were to tell Esau that his “servant Jacob” had lived with Laban in the time that had passed but was returning with cattle, donkeys, flocks, and male and female servants. Jacob’s reason for having this message conveyed was to be expressed as follows: “I have sent to tell my lord [Esau] that I may find favor in your eyes” (or be kindly received). After meeting Esau and then returning to Jacob, the messengers reported that Esau was coming to meet him with 400 men. This frightened Jacob, as he feared that Esau was coming with so many men in order to harm him. To prepare for a violent assault, Jacob decided to divide the people and the domestic animals with him into two camps, believing that, if Esau and his men annihilated one camp, the remaining camp could escape. (32:3-8[4-9]; see the Notes section.)

Jacob turned to God, petitioning him for his help and expressing his gratitude for all that he had done for him. “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O YHWH you did say to me, Return to your country and to your kindred, and I will do you good. I am not deserving of all your kindness [gracious favor or steadfast love (righteousness [LXX])] and truth [faithfulness] that you have shown to your servant, for I crossed this Jordan with only my staff and now have become two camps. Deliver me please from the hand [or power] of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear that he will come and slay me, [together] with mother and children. And you did say, I will do you good and make your seed [descendants] like the sand [particles] of the sea [seashore] that cannot be numbered for multitude.” (32:9-12[10-13])

After remaining overnight at the site where news from his brother Esau reached him, Jacob selected a gift for him from among his domestic animals — 200 female goats, 20 male goats, 200 ewes, 20 rams, 30 milk camels and their young, 40 cows, 10 bulls, 20 female donkeys, and 10 male donkeys. Seemingly, to make the gift appear more impressive, Jacob divided the animals into separate droves, directed that each drove be at an interval from the one that followed, and placed a servant in charge of each drove. He instructed the servants to tell Esau, upon his making inquiry about the drove, that the animals belonged to Jacob and that they were a “present to my lord Esau,” and that Jacob was behind them. It appears that Jacob did not initially consider giving a present to Esau but chose to do so when he thought that his brother was coming to harm him. This seems apparent from the desired intent of the gift — “that I may appease him with the present that precedes me [literally, is going before my face], and afterward I shall see his face. Perhaps he will accept me [literally, my face]” or forgive me for what I did to get the birthright and the blessing of our father Isaac. (32:13-20[14-21])

While the servants went on their way with the present for Esau, Jacob spent the night at the location. During the night he rose, took his two wives Rachel and Leah, the two maids Bilhah and Zilpah, and his eleven sons and his daughter Dinah, and had them ford the Jabbok. He also sent everything he possessed across the stream. While he was alone, a “man” began to wrestle with him until just before daybreak. Targum Jonathan identifies the “man” as an angel “in the likeness of a man.” The angel did not prevail over Jacob in the struggle and, therefore, touched or struck his hip (literally, the “flat [or hollow] of his hip” [LXX]) and dislocated its socket. Doubtless Jacob must have felt intense pain, but he held on to the angel. (32:21-25[22-26]) According to Hosea 12:4(5), he wept and pleaded for a blessing, suggesting that he shed tears on account of his great pain.

When the angel asked Jacob to let him go because daybreak was approaching, he replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” “What is your name?” the angel asked, and he replied, “Jacob.” The angel told him that he would be called, not “Jacob,” but “Israel” (“Contender with God”), for he had “contended with God and with men” and had prevailed (“prevailed with God and been powerful with men” [LXX]). The angel did not answer Jacob’s question, “What is your name?” He simply countered with the question, “Why do you ask for my name?” The angel did, however, bless Jacob. (32:26-29[27-30])

In view of what had happened at the location, Jacob called the place Peniel or Penuel (“Face of God” [“Form of God” (LXX)]), for (in his view) he had “seen God face to face” and yet his “soul” or life had been preserved. Jacob departed from the location (Peniel or Penuel) as the sun was rising, limping because of what the angel had done to his hip. In remembrance of what their forefather had experienced, his descendants (the Israelites) did not eat the sinew of the hip of any animal (or the thigh muscle on the hip’s socket). (32:30-32[31-33])

Notes

Josephus (Antiquities, I, xx, 1) has the messengers convey Jacob’s message to Esau in a way that differed significantly from the extant Hebrew text. “Jacob had thought it wrong to live together with him while he was angered against him, and so he had left the country; and that he now, thinking the length of time of his absence must have made up the differences, was returning; that he brought with him his wives and his children, with what possessions he had obtained; and delivered himself, with what was most dear to him, into his hands; and should think it his greatest happiness to partake together with his brother what God had bestowed upon him.” Targum Jonathan has the messengers telling Esau that there was nothing in his hand or possession that included anything respecting which their father Isaac had blessed him, but that he was returning with a few cattle, donkeys, sheep, and male and female servants. The message continued, “I have sent to tell my lord [Esau] that [our father’s] blessing has not profited me so that I might find mercy in your eyes” and that you may not remain at enmity toward me on account of that blessing.

According to Targum Jonathan, the angel who wrestled with Jacob was Michael. This does not agree with the Hebrew text of verse 30, which indicates that the angel did not reveal his name to Jacob.

Jacob’s encounter with an angel may have served to show him that he was not in a fit condition to enter the land that had been promised to Abraham, Isaac, and their descendants. Through his previous maneuvering, he had purchased the birthright from his brother Esau and deceived their father to obtain the blessing that Isaac had intended for Esau. In this way, he had gained the advantage over his brother. His having to wrestle with an angel must have made him aware that God was resisting his course and must have humbled Jacob. As a result, he would not be meeting his brother as the proud Jacob who had lived up to the meaning of his name (“supplanter” or “heel grabber”) but would meet him as a humbled man who limped. The contrast would be great. Esau would be coming as a chieftain in command of 400 men, but Jacob would make his way to his brother in what would appear to be a weak physical condition.

Chapter 33

Esau may have chosen to meet Jacob with 400 men to indicate that he had attained a position of great influence and power as a chieftain. Upon seeing his brother accompanied by 400 men, Jacob feared that he had come with hostile intent. Therefore, he divided up his children with their respective mothers, placing the two concubines with their children first or in the most vulnerable position. Leah and her children followed. Rachel and Joseph were last or in the safest location in relation to all the other members of Jacob’s family. (33:1, 2)

Jacob went ahead of his family and respectfully bowed to the ground to his older twin brother Esau, doing so seven times until he came near to him. Jacob was still limping because of his encounter with an angel, and Esau did not wait for him to make his approach but ran to meet him, embraced him, flung himself on Jacob’s neck, and kissed him. Both brothers then began to weep. (33:3, 4)

In response to Esau’s question upon seeing the women and the children, Jacob identified the children with the words, “The children whom God has graciously given to your servant.” Jacob’s concubines and their children approached and bowed down. Leah and her children likewise bowed down when they drew near. According to the Hebrew text, Joseph, who was then about six years old, is mentioned before his mother Rachel when approaching Esau and bowing down. Perhaps this is because Joseph came to have the most prominent role in the family in subsequent years. Another possibility is that he ran ahead of his mother to meet his uncle. Targum Jonathan indicates that Joseph came near and protectively stood in front of his mother. The Septuagint does not mention Joseph first but says that Rachel and Joseph drew near and bowed down. (33:5-7)

Although Jacob’s servants had informed Esau that the droves of domestic animals constituted a gift for him, he asked Jacob, “What do you mean by all this company that I met?” Jacob replied, “To find favor in the eyes of my lord.” Esau inclined not to accept the gift, saying, “I have much, my brother. Keep what you have for yourself.” Jacob, in respectful and deferential terms, urged Esau to accept the gift and persuaded him to do so. In the existing culture, refusal to accept a gift meant that a requested favor would not be granted. This explains why Jacob did not want to comply with Esau’s refusal of the gift but urged him to accept it. He, however, did not accept his brother’s offer to accompany him with his men on their journey, presenting as his reason the need for traveling at a slow pace because of the limitations of his young children and those of the domestic animals that were nursing or, according to the Septuagint, about to give birth. After Esau offered to leave some of the men with him, Jacob respectfully declined the offer. (33:8-15)

The interaction between Jacob and Esau suggests that the reconciliation was only partial. Jacob did what he could to assure that his brother would not be at enmity with him and his household. Esau appears to have made no effort to counter Jacob’s nonacceptance of any help from him and his men. After declining Esau’s offer, Jacob said that he would be traveling at the pace of his domestic animals and his children until he came to Esau, his “lord in Seir.” (33:14) There is no indication in the Genesis account that Jacob ever went to Seir or actually planned to do so. Nevertheless, the two brothers parted amicably.

Esau and the 400 men with him headed back to Seir, and Jacob came to a site that he afterward named Succoth (“booths” [“Tents” (LXX)]) because of the booths or stalls he built for his animals. At that location, he also built a home for his household. According to Targum Jonathan, Jacob stayed in Succoth for twelve months. Later he moved with his household to the vicinity of the “city of Shechem [a site about 30 miles (less than 50 kilometers) north of Jerusalem] in the land of Canaan,” possibly indicating that Succoth was not located within the actual boundaries of Canaan. Jacob purchased a piece of land for 100 silver pieces (100 lambs [LXX]) from the “sons of Hamor,” probably meaning from the descendants of Hamor. Shechem, one of the descendants of this Hamor, also had a father who was named Hamor. The Septuagint does not use the expression “sons of Hamor” but says that Jacob bought the land from Emmor (Hamor), the father of Sychem (Shechem). On the purchased land, Jacob pitched his tent and erected an altar that he called El-elohe-yisrael (“God, the God of Israel”). (33:16-20) Targum Jonathan says that Jacob gave tithes, probably meaning that he sacrificed a tenth of his sheep, goats, and cattle on the altar.

Chapter 34

Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, went to visit the “daughters of the land,” probably meaning the young Hivite women of the city of Shechem. While she was spending time with them, Shechem, the son of the Hivite (Chorrite [LXX] or Horrite) chieftain Hamor, saw her, became infatuated with her, succeeded in getting her to be alone with him, and raped her. He became so passionately attached to Dinah that he wanted to have her as his wife. The Genesis account says that he “loved” her and “spoke to her heart” or spoke tenderly to her in a manner designed to appeal to her. Thereafter Shechem asked his father to get Dinah for him. (34:1-4)

At the time Jacob learned that Shechem had raped Dinah, his sons were away in the field with the domestic animals, and he remained silent until they arrived. (34:5) Josephus (Antiquities, I, xxi, 1) seems to have understood this to mean that Jacob did not say anything to Hamor about whether his son Shechem could marry Dinah. He wrote that Jacob did not know just “how he might deny the desire of one of such great dignity [the chieftain Hamor], and yet not thinking it lawful to give his daughter in marriage to a foreigner, entreated him to give him leave to have a consultation about what he desired him to do.”

Upon returning from their duties in the field and learning about what Shechem had done to Dinah, the sons of Jacob, especially her brothers Simeon and Levi, became very angry. They apparently concealed their wrath from Hamor when he requested that they give Dinah to his son Shechem in marriage and proposed intermarriage and a good relationship with the household of Jacob. Shechem, who was present with his father, offered to give whatever might be requested of him so that he could have Dinah as his wife. (34:6-12)

In their response, Simeon and Levi perverted the purpose of circumcision (the sign of the covenant between YHWH and the descendants of Abraham) to facilitate mass murder. The “sons of Jacob” (“Symeon [Simeon] and Livas [Levi], the brothers of Dinas [Dinah], the sons of Leias [Leah]” [LXX]) deceitfully claimed that they could not give their sister in marriage to an uncircumcised man and that, in the future, they would only give their daughters to the men of the city and intermarry if all the men got circumcised. As a young man who was passionately attached to Dinah and the most honored one in the household of Hamor, Shechem did not delay to get circumcised. (34:13-19)

In the open area at the city gate, Hamor and Shechem spoke to the men of the city, telling them that intermarriage with members of the household of Jacob would greatly contribute to their prosperity, for they could thereby come to possess all the property of Jacob’s family. The words of Hamor and Shechem persuaded the men to accept circumcision as the condition for intermarriage. Disabled by the pain of adult circumcision, the men were defenseless when, on the third day, Simeon and Levi entered the city and killed all the males with their swords. After slaying Hamor and Shechem, they took their sister Dinah out of Shechem’s house. (34:20-26)

Likely to avoid offending his non-Jewish readers, Josephus chose not to mention anything about circumcision in relation to this event. In his Antiquities, (I, xxi, 1), he stated that, while the Shechemites were in a relaxed state and feasting at the time of a festival, Simeon and Levi “fell upon the guards” of the city when they were asleep and then “slew all the males.”

While the Genesis account identifies Simeon and Levi as the sons of Jacob who murdered the males of the city, it does not specify which sons participated in the plundering of the city and its surroundings and taking the women and children captive. Jacob’s reproof was directed to Simeon and Levi. “You have brought trouble on me by making me a stench to the inhabitants of the land — the Canaanites and the Perizzites.” He feared that the native population would assemble against him and annihilate him and his household, for the members of his household were few when compared to those who could launch an attack. Simeon and Levi did not take their father’s words seriously but justified what they had done, saying, “Should one treat our sister like a prostitute?” (34:27-31)

At the time Simeon and Levi slew the men in the city of Shechem, they must have been only teenagers. When Jacob returned to the land of Canaan with his household, the oldest son Reuben would have been about twelve, Simeon about eleven, and Levi about ten, and the youngest son Joseph about six. (29:18-34; 30:22-25; 31:41) Joseph’s half brothers sold him into slavery when he was seventeen years old, and Levi would have been about twenty-one years of age. A significant amount of time passed between the time Simeon and Levi killed the men of Shechem and the sale of Joseph. This is evident from the fact that Joseph’s half brothers had no concern about tending flocks in the vicinity of Shechem. (37:2, 12, 25-28)

Chapter 35

The Genesis account does not mention how Jacob received a message from God, telling him to go to Bethel and to reside at that location. He was also instructed to erect an altar at Bethel, there where God had appeared to him when he was fleeing from his brother Esau. Before undertaking the journey to Bethel, Jacob directed everyone in his household to remove the foreign deities or idols in their possession, to purify themselves (probably by washing or bathing), and to clothe themselves with clean garments. Regarding the altar he would be erecting, Jacob said that it would be to the God who had answered him in the day of his distress and had been with him wherever he had gone. The Septuagint quotes Jacob as saying, “Let us erect an altar there to the God who heard me in a day of distress [and] who was with me and preserved [my life] on the way that I traveled.” (35:1-3)

The members of Jacob’s household, which included male and female servants, gave him all their foreign gods or idols and their earrings. According to Josephus (Antiquities, I, xxi, 2), Jacob then discovered Laban’s “gods” that Rachel, unbeknownst to him, had stolen. Targum Jonathan indicates that the idols and the rings were part of the spoils that Jacob’s sons had taken from the city of Shechem and that the ornaments portrayed the likeness of images. It is not unlikely that the servants of Jacob brought idols with them when leaving Haran and that many more items associated with idolatry came into Jacob’s household through his sons’ plundering. Jacob buried all the idols and the rings under a tree (a terebinth [LXX]) near Shechem. The Septuagint adds that “he destroyed [the items] to the present day.” (35:4)

On their way from the vicinity of Shechem to Bethel, none of the native inhabitants of the region initiated an attack against the household of Jacob on account of the murderous action his sons Simeon and Levi had undertaken against the men of Shechem. The reason for their safe passage through the land is attributed to the “terror of God” that had fallen upon the residents of the surrounding cities. Without anyone pursuing them, Jacob and his household arrived at Luz (Luza [LXX], the fomer name of Bethel [Baithel, LXX]), a place about 11 miles (c. 17 kilometers) from ancient Salem or Jerusalem. As he had been divinely commanded, Jacob erected an altar and called it El-bethel (the “God of Bethel”), for it had been there that God revealed himself to him when he was fleeing from his brother Esau. (35:5-7)

The context does not make it possible to determine when Deborah (meaning “bee”) became part of Jacob’s household. Initially, she was Rebekah’s nurse, probably acting as a substitute for Rebekah’s mother in breastfeeding her as an infant. In later years, Deborah doubtless assisted her in caring for the twins Esau and Jacob. Josephus wrote that Jacob went to Hebron, where he saw his father Isaac and thereafter stayed with him a short time. His mother Rebekah was no longer alive. (Antiquities, I, xxii, 1) If this was the case, Deborah then may have become a member of Jacob’s household. She would have been of great assistance to Jacob’s wife Leah who, after the death of her sister Rachel, likely looked after Benjamin and his brother Joseph, besides her own young sons Issachar and Zebulun and her daughter Dinah. Subsequent to the death of Rachel, Leah appears to have been regarded as the mother of her sister’s children. This seems to be evident from Jacob’s apparent reference to Leah as the mother of Joseph. (37:9, 10) The comments in Targum Jonathan indicate that Deborah was in the household of Jacob prior to the death of his mother and could indicate that Rebekah herself had sent Deborah to share in caring for Jacob’s young children. “Deborah, the nurse of Rivekah [Rebekah], died, and was buried below Bethel, in the field of the plain. And there it was told Jakob [Jacob] concerning the death of Rivekah [Rebekah] his mother; and he called the name of it, The other weeping.” The Hebrew text and the Septuagint, however, are in agreement that the reference is only to the death of Deborah. The tree underneath of which she was buried was called Allon-bacuth (“oak of mourning” or weeping [LXX]). (35:8)

When Jacob was fleeing from his brother Esau and arrived near the site that was later designated as Bethel (“House of God”), he had a dream by means of which he received God’s reassuring message. Again, at the same location, God appeared to him, restating his purpose respecting him and his descendants. After reconfirming the name change from Jacob to Israel, God said to Jacob, “I am God Almighty [I am your God (LXX)]. Be fruitful and increase. A nation, even a company of nations, will come from you, and kings will issue from your loins. To you and your seed after you, I will give the land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac.” In the centuries that passed, the offspring of the sons of Jacob became distinct tribes, and this may be how the reference to a “company of nations” is to be understood. It is also possible that the reference is to the two separate kingdoms that came into being (the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah). The land of Canaan had been given to Abraham and Isaac in the sense that their descendants were certain to inherit it. (35:9-12)

In the place where he had spoken with Jacob, God is represented as going up from him. This could denote that YHWH’s representative angel appeared to Jacob and then ascended, disappearing from his sight. To memorialize the noteworthy event, Jacob set up a pillar and poured out a libation and poured out oil (olive oil) upon it. According to Targum Jonathan, he poured out a libation of wine and a libation of water. As at the time of his fleeing from his brother Esau, Jacob again called the place Bethel (“House of God”), for God had communicated with him there. (28:11-19; 35:13-15)

On the way from Bethel to Ephrath (Bethlehem), Rachel died giving birth to a baby boy. As she was dying (literally, “her soul” or life was departing), Rachel called the name of her son Ben-oni (“son of my sorrow” or “my mourning”), but Jacob named the boy Benjamin (“son of the right hand” or “son of the south”). The designation “son of the right hand” could be an indication that Benjamin would be a supporter and helper of his father. At the place where Rachel died, Jacob set up a pillar over the plot where he had buried her. To the very day or time that the Genesis account came to be in its final written form, this pillar marked Rachel’s grave. (35:16-20)

With his household, Israel (Jacob) continued the journey and then pitched his tent at a site beyond Migdal-eder (tower of Eder), somewhere between Bethlehem and Hebron. While he and his household resided in the area, Reuben violated his father’s concubine Bilhah who had been Rachel’s maid and was the mother of his half brothers Dan and Naphtali. At the time, Reuben may have been in his late teens or around 20 years of age. He rashly may have engaged in this incestuous act to prevent Bilhah from replacing deceased Rachel in his father’s affection. Israel (Jacob) heard what had happened but appears not to have taken any punitive action. He, however, did not forget Reuben’s serious sin, recalling it shortly before his death and expressing the resultant judgment. Regarding what Reuben did, the Septuagint does add the following comment about Jacob, “it appeared evil before him [or in his sight].” (35:21, 22; 49:3, 4)

Leah gave birth to six sons (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun) and one daughter (Dinah) in seven years. (29:32-35, 30:18-21) It is known that breastfeeding women can become pregnant in six weeks after the birth of a baby. So it would have been possible for Leah to have had four sons in 41 months. Through her maid Bilhah, Rachel had two sons (Dan and Naphtali), perhaps in nineteen months and two weeks. While Bilhah was pregnant with her second son and a significant amount of time before his birth, Leah’s maid Zilpah may have been pregnant with Gad and about ten and a half months after he was born may have given birth to Asher. Leah herself, after about a year following the birth of her fourth son Judah, could have become pregnant before the birth of Asher and become the mother of Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah in 30 months. The last baby boy to be born in Paddan-aram was Joseph, the son of Rachel. Although Benjamin was born in the land of Canaan, he is numbered among the sons born in Paddan-aram. This may be because Benjamin was simply grouped with the other sons of Jacob, all of whom were born in upper Mesopotamia. (35:23-26)

Sometime after the entire household had departed from Bethel, Jacob and his family came to his father Isaac, who was then living at Mamre or Kiriath-arba (Hebron). At that location both Abraham and Isaac had lived, and it was in that vicinity where Abraham and Sarah were buried. Isaac lived about 23 years after Jacob returned with his household to the land of Canaan and died when he was 180 years old. Although not mentioned in the Genesis account, Jacob may have visited his father at other times prior to his arrival from Bethel, for it does not seem reasonable that he let years pass before arranging to see his father. When Isaac “was gathered to his people” or joined his relatives in the realm of the dead, Jacob and Esau were present and buried their father. This indicates that communication between the two brothers continued after Jacob’s departure from Paddan-aram and his return to the land of Canaan. (35:27-29)

Chapter 36

This chapter apparently reflects what was known about Esau and his descendants at the time the Genesis account came to be in its final written form. The account includes material from before the time the Israelites were settled in the land of Canaan and had kings as their rulers.

Esau was called Edom, meaning “red,” because of his having sold his birthright to his brother Jacob for “red” lentil stew. (36:1) This happened when Esau returned hungry and exausted from hunting and saw Jacob boiling the stew that he keenly desired to satisfy his hunger. (25:29, 30) In his Antiquities (II, ii, 1), Josephus wrote that Jacob exploited his brother’s hunger and forced him to give up his right as firstborn for the stew, doing so “under oaths.”

After he was forty years old, Esau took two wives from among the Canaanites — Adah (Ada [LXX]; Adasa [Josephus]) the daughter of Elon (Ailon [LXX]) and Oholibamah (Elibema or Olibema [LXX]; Alibame [Josephus]) the daughter of Anah (Ana [LXX]), the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite. The extant Hebrew text could be understood to mean that Oholibamah was the granddaughter of Zibeon. The Septuagint reading identifies Anah (Ana) as the son of Sebegon (Zibeon) the Heuite (Hivite), making it unnecessary to conclude that “daughter of Zibeon” means the “granddaughter of Zibeon.” When Esau recognized that his two Canaanite wives were a source of trouble to his parents (26:34, 35; 28:8), he married Basemath (Basemmath [LXX]; Basamathe [Josephus]), his uncle Ishmael’s daughter and the brother of Ishmael’s firsborn son Nebaioth. (25:13; 36:2, 3, 14; see the Notes section.)

By Adah, Esau had a son named Eliphaz (Eliphas [LXX]; Aliphazes [Josephus]), and his wife Basemath (Basemmath [LXX]; Basamathe [Josephus]) bore Reuel (Ragouel [LXX]; Raouelos [Josephus]). Oholibamah (Elibema or Olibema [LXX]; Alibame [Josephus]) had three sons — Jeush (Ieous [LXX]; Iaous [Josephus]), Jalam (Ieglom [LXX]; Iolamos [Josephus]), and Korah (Kore [LXX]; Koreos [Josephus]). All these sons by Esau’s three wives were born in the land of Canaan. (36:4, 5, 14)

Before Jacob’s return from Paddan-aram (upper Mesopotamia), Esau had established himself in Seir but seems to have continued to pasture his flocks and herds in the land of Canaan. He decided to make a permanent move to Seir after it became evident that his flocks and herds were too numerous to share the same region with Jacob’s large flocks and herds. (32:4, 7; 33:14; 36:6-8)

The offspring of Esau that made their home in Seir were Eliphaz (Eliphas [LXX]; Aliphazes [Josephus]) by his wife Adah (Ada [LXX]; Adasa [Josephus]) and Reuel (Ragouel [LXX]; Raouelos [Josephus]) by his wife Basemath (Basemmath [LXX]; Basamathe [Josephus]). His son Eliphaz (Eliphas [LXX]; Aliphazes [Josephus]) became father to Teman (Thaiman [LXX]; Themanos [Josephus]), Omar (Omeros [Josephus]), Zepho (Sophar [LXX]; Sophous [Josephus]), Gatan (Gothom [LXX]; Iothamos [Josephus]), and Kenaz (Kenez [LXX]; Kanazas [Josephus]). By his concubine Timna (Thamna [LXX]; Thamnaes [Josephus]), Eliphaz (Eliphas [LXX]; Aliphazes [Josephus]) had one son — Amalek (Amelkos [Josephus]). Reuel had four sons — Nahath (Nachoth [LXX]), Zerah (Zare [LXX]), Shammah (Some [LXX]), and Mizzah (Moze [LXX]). Esau’s wife Oholibamah (Elibema or Olibema [LXX]; Alibame [Josephus]) gave birth to three sons — Jeush (Ieous [LXX]; Iaous [Josephus]), Jalam (Ieglom [LXX]; Iolamos [Josephus]), and Korah (Kore [LXX]; Koreos [Josephus]). (36:9-14)

In verses 15 through 19, the previously mentioned sons of Esau’s firstborn son Eliphaz and of Esau’s son Reuel are identified as chieftains or heads of tribes. The offspring of Esau’s wife Oholibamah (Jeush, Jalam, and Korah) are also thus identified. Although there is no mention of Korah as a son of Eliphaz in verse 11, the name is found in verse 16 among the chieftains descended from Esau through Eliphaz. The Septuagint also includes the name Korah (Kore [LXX]) in verse 16, as do Targum Neofiti, Targum Onkelos, and Targum Jonathan. An exception is the Samaritan Pentateuch, which omits the name Korah. There is agreement, however, in listing Korah (verse 14) as a son of Oholibamah.

According to verses 12 and 22 of Deutoronomy chapter 2, the descendants of Esau dispossessed the Horites from Seir. Therefore, the inclusion of Horites in a listing of the descendants of Esau suggests that they initially intermarried and formed alliances with them. The sons of Seir the Horite (Chorrite [LXX]) were Lotan, Shobal (Sobal [LXX]), Zibeon (Sebegon [LXX]), Anah (Ana [LXX]), Dishon (Deson [LXX], Ezer (Asar [LXX]), and Dishan (Rison [LXX]). Lotan’s sons were Hori (Chorri [LXX]) and Hemam (Haiman [LXX]; Homam [1 Chronicles 1:39]), and his sister’s name was Timna (Thamna [LXX]). Shobal’s sons were Alvan (Golon but Golam in 1 Chronicles 1:40 [LXX]; Alian [1 Chronicles 1:40]), Manahath (Manachath [LXX]), Ebal (Gaibel [LXX]), Shepho (Soph but Sob in 1 Chronicles 1:40 [LXX]; Shephi [1 Chronicles 1:40]), and Onam. Zibeon’s sons were Aiah (Aie but Aia in 1 Chronicles 1:40 [LXX]) and Anah (Onan or Onas but Ana in 1 Chroinciles 1:40 [LXX]). The noteworthy incident in the life of Anah (Onan or Onas [LXX]) was the discovery he made while pasturing the donkeys of his father Zibeon. Anah (Ana [LXX]), the fourth-listed son of Seir the Horite, had a son named Dishon (Deson [LXX]) and a daughter named Oholibamah (Olibema [LXX]). Dishon’s sons were Hemdan (Hamada but Hemeron in 1 Chronicles 1:41 [LXX]; Hamran [1 Chronicles 1:41]), Eshban (Asban but Eseban in 1 Chronicles 1:41 [LXX]), Ithran (Iethran [LXX]), and Cheran (Charran [LXX]). The sons of Ezer the son of Seir the Horite were Bilhan (Balaan [LXX]), Zaavan (Zoukam [LXX]), and Akan (Oukan [LXX]; Jaakan [1 Chronicles 1:42]). Dishan, another son of Seir the Horite, had two sons — Uz (Os [LXX]) and Aran (Aram but Arran in 1 Chronicles 1:42 [LXX]). The sons of Seir the Horite (Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan) appear to have been chieftains over their respective tribes. (36:20-30; see the Notes section.)

The Israelites did not have monarchs until centuries after the members of Jacob’s household became a nation during their residence in Egypt and subsequent to their return to and conquest of the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua. Descendants of Esau, however, had numerous kings before then — Bela (Bala [LXX]), Jobab (Iobab [LXX]), Husham (Hasom [LXX]), Hadad, Samlah (Samala [LXX]), Shaul (Saoul [LXX]), Baal-hanan (Balaennon [LXX]), Hadar (Hadad [LXX]). Reference to their rule from a number of different cities (Dinhabah [Dennaba (LXX)], Avith (Geththaim [LXX]), Pau (Phogor [LXX])) and their coming from a number of cities or places (Bozrah [Bosorra (LXX)], the land of the Temanites [Thaimanites (LXX)], Masrekah [Masekka (LXX)], Rehoboth [Rooboth] (LXX]-on-the-river) appears to indicate that there was no royal line of descent and that the extent of the domain over which the kings ruled may have varied. Hadar (Hadad [LXX]) is the only king whose wife is mentioned by name (Mehetabel daughter of Matred daughter of Mezahab [Metebeel daughter of Matraith son of Maizoob (LXX)]). The sole noteworthy event mentioned as having taken place during the rule of the Edomite kings was the victory of Hadad over the “Midianites in the land of Moab.” (36:31-39)

The listing of names concludes with chieftains “according to their families and their dwelling places” or locations — Timna (Thamna [LXX]), Alvah (Gola [LXX]), Jetheth (Iether [LXX]), Oholibamah (Olibemas or Elibemas [LXX]), Elah (Elas [LXX]), Pinon (Phinon [LXX]), Kenan (Kenez [LXX]), Teman (Thaiman [LXX]), Mibzar (Mazar [LXX]), Magiel (Megediel [LXX]), Iram (Zaphoim or Zaphoin [LXX]). Tribes descended from these chieftains came to be known by their respective names. (36:40-43)

Notes

In Genesis 26:34, Oholibamah seems to be called “Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite (Ioudin the daughter of Beer the Chettite [LXX]). It does seem unusual, however, that Oholibamah’s father was Anah, whereas Judith is identified as the daughter of Beeri.

Basemath (verse 3) appears also to have been known as Mahalath (Maeleth [LXX]). (28:9)

In verse 21, the Hebrew text contains the name Dishan, but the Septuagint says Rison. This difference can to be attributed to the very similar appearance of the Hebrew letters daleth (D) and resh (R). In 1 Chronicles 1:38, the Septuagint spelling of the name is Daison.

The Septuagint rendering of 1 Chronicles 1:39 makes no mention of Lotan’s sister. It lists four sons for Lotan (Chorri, Haiman, Ailath, and Namna).

In the listing of Horites, Anah is mentioned as discovering hot springs while pasturing the donkeys of his father Zibeon. (36:24) In verse 2, Zibeon is identified as a Hivite. One way to reconcile this is to consider Horite (“cave dweller”) to describe him as a cave dweller who lived in Seir. This, however, is problematic, for all the other men mentioned in the context are identified as “sons of Seir the Horite.”

In the Septuagint, the second-listed son of Zibeon (Sebegon [LXX]) in verse 24 is Onan (also Onas), not Ana (as it is in verses 2 and 14).

There is no mention about Anah’s discovery in 1 Chronicles chapter 1. Regarding Anah the son of Seir, the text of 1 Chronicles 1:41 is apparently incomplete, for it reads, “Sons of Anah: Dishan” (“Sons of Ana: Daison”). In Genesis 36:25, the children of Anah are identified as the son Dishon and the daughter Oholibamah.

For Ezer (Asar [LXX]), the Septuagint in verse 27 lists an additional son (Ioykam). In 1 Chronicles 1:42, the Septuagint lists only three sons for him, but the spelling for Asar is Osar. The listed three sons are Balaan, Zoukan, and Iokan. In Genesis chapter 36, the names were spelled Zoukam and Oukan.

According to the Septuagint rendering of verse 39, Matred was a son, not a daughter (as in the extant Hebrew text).

Chapter 37

After his return from upper Mesopotamia, Jacob lived in the land of Canaan, where his grandfather Abraham and his father Isaac had resided before his birth. (37:1)

At this point, the Genesis account shifts attention away from Jacob and focuses primarily on Joseph, the son of Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel. At the age of 17, Joseph shared in shepherding the flock. He did this with his younger half brothers Dan and Naphtali (the children of Bilhah, Rachel’s maid) and Gad and Asher (the children of Zilpah, Leah’s maid). Based on what he saw his half brothers doing, he brought back a bad report about them to his father. (37:2) According to Targum Jonathan, their bad deed was to eat the flesh of domestic animals that wild beasts had torn, and this included eating the ears and tails of the killed creatures.

Israel (Jacob [LXX]) loved Joseph more than his other sons because he was a son of his old age. Probably a major factor was that Joseph was the son of Rachel, his favorite wife. (37:3) Josephus attributed Jacob’s love for Joseph because this son was very handsome, virtuous, and excelled the other sons in sagacity. (Antiquities, II, ii, 1) Targum Jonathan says that Jacob loved Joseph because his appearance resembled his own.

Jacob made a special garment for Joseph, a garment of distinction that set his son apart as the one who was the object of his unique love. There is a measure of uncertainty about the Hebrew expression that describes this garment. The Septuagint refers to it as a multi-colored garment. (37:3)

Jacob’s favoring Joseph gave rise to resentment among his other sons. They began to hate their half brother and ceased to speak to him in a friendly or civil manner (literally, they could not “speak peace”). Joseph’s full brother Benjamin is not included as sharing any resentment, for he was still very young. (37:4)

Joseph must have discerned his half brothers’ hostile attitude toward him. Yet he did not keep to himself the dream he had, a dream that pointed to his coming to have a position of superiority in relation to his brothers. He told them he had dreamed that they were binding sheaves in the field and that his sheaf assumed an upright position and remained thus, whereas the other sheaves assembled around the upright sheaf and bowed down to it. Hearing this, the half brothers came to hate Joseph even more and said to him, “Are you to reign over us or are you indeed to exercise dominion over us?” Their hostile response did not restrain Joseph from relating to them yet another dream. In that dream, the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowed down to him. When his father Jacob heard this, he rebuked his son. “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Are we indeed to come, I and your mother and your brothers, to bow down to the ground before you?” Apparently because Leah was then the principal wife in the household, Jacob referred to her as the mother of Joseph. The words of Joseph caused his half brothers to harbor intense jealousy of him. His father, however, kept what Joseph said in mind. (37:5-11; see the Notes section regarding verse 9.)

Josephus, in his Antiquities (II, ii, 3), represents Jacob as thinking very differently about what Joseph said. “Now Jacob was pleased with the dream, for, considering the prediction in his mind, and shrewdly and wisely guessing at its meaning, he rejoiced at the great things thereby signified, because it declared the future happiness of his son.”

Later, while Joseph’s half brothers were pasturing the flock in the vicinity of Shechem, Jacob became concerned about them and sent Joseph to find out how they and the flock were faring. According to Targum Jonathan, Jacob’s concern was prompted by fear that his sons might come under attack because of the much earlier slaughter Simeon and Levi had undertaken against the men of Shechem on account of the rape of their sister Dinah. As an obedient son, Joseph expressed his willingness to fulfill his father’s request. (37:12-14)

Upon arriving at Shechem, Joseph met a man who told him that he had overheard his brothers saying that they planned to go to Dothan. It was at Dothan that Joseph did find them. Upon seeing him from afar, they plotted to kill him, throw him into a pit, and thereafter claim that a wild beast had killed him. Their thinking was that this would terminate the possibility that Joseph’s dreams would be fulfilled. Targum Jonathan indicates that Simeon and Levi were the ones who initiated the plan to commit murder. This is likely, for they had been guilty of murderous action against the men of Shechem. It also would explain why, years later, Joseph chose to bind and imprison Simeon to assure that his half brothers would return to Egypt with his full brother Benjamin to purchase food during the time of severe famine in Canaan. (37:15-20; 42:23-34)

Reuben, upon hearing the plotting of his brothers, tried to prevent them from killing Joseph, urging them not to shed blood. He told them to toss Joseph into a pit, and his intent was to rescue him and to return him safely to his father. (37:21, 22; 42:22; see the Notes section regarding the comments of Josephus.)

When Joseph arrived, Simeon may well have been the one who stripped him of his garment and may also have been the one to toss him into the pit. The Genesis account does not contain any specifics about who was involved in the action. Josephus, however, wrote what Reuben (Reubel) did. He “took the lad and tied him to a cord, and let him down gently into the pit, for it had no water at all in it.” After Reuben “had done this,” he “went his way to seek for such pasturage as was fit for feeding his flocks.” (Antiquities, II, iii, 2) Targum Jonathan adds that there were “serpents and scorpions in the pit.” While Reuben was not with them, the other brothers seated themselves and callously proceeded to eat a meal. When they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead (a region east of the Jordan River), Judah persuaded his brothers not to kill Joseph but to sell him to the traders. They heeded his recommendation and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelite traders for twenty pieces of silver (gold [LXX]). The caravan of traders were on their way to Egypt to exchance precious aromatic substances for other goods. In the account, these traders are identified as Midianites and as Ishmaelites. Both peoples were descendants of Abraham and, therefore, the designations may either be used interchangeably or the caravan included both Ishamelites and Midianites. (37:23-28) Josephus (Antiquities,), II, iii, 3) wrote that the traders were Arabians, the offspring of Ishmael.

When Reuben returned to the pit for the purpose of saving Joseph, he found it empty. In dismay, he tore his garments. Recognizing the bad position in which this had placed him with his father, he said to his brothers, “The lad is gone, and I, where shall I go?” Reuben was beside himself as to what he was going to do. (37:29, 30) Josephus wrote that Reuben feared that his brothers had killed Joseph but that he stopped his mourning when they related to him what they had done. (Antiquities, II, iii, 3)

To conceal their sinful act against Joseph, the brothers killed a male goat and dipped the garment they had stripped from him into the blood of the slaughtered animal. They then lyingly told their father that they had found the garment and asked him to examine it to determine whether it was Joseph’s. Jacob recognized the garment and concluded that a wild beast had killed his son. In expression of his intense grief, he tore his garments, put on sackcloth over the bare skin of his loins, and continued in mourning for his son for “many days.” Efforts of his sons and daughters to comfort Jacob proved to be useless. There was really nothing that any of the sons could say that could have provided genuine comfort, for they were personally responsible for their father’s unconsolable grief. All that Jacob could say as he wept was that he would go to his son in a state of mourning to Sheol or to the realm of the dead. (37:31-35; see the Notes section.)

After taking Joseph to Egypt, the Midianite traders sold him as a slave to Potiphar (Petephres [LXX]), a man in the service of Pharaoh. The Hebrew expression that designates Potiphar’s position is “eunuch of Pharaoh.” As a married man, however, Potiphar would not have been a literal eunuch. Therefore, the word “eunuch” here means a royal officer, official, or courier. Additionally, Potiphar was called “captain of the guard.” The Hebrew word for “guard” can also mean “cook” or “butcher” and, by extension, an “executioner.” This explains why the Greek designation in the Septuagint has been translated “chief cook” or “chief butcher.” (37:36)

Notes

Verse 9 of the Hebrew text says that Joseph related the particulars of his second dream to his brothers. Josephus, however, wrote that “he told the vision to his father” while his brothers were with him, for he expected no ill-will from them. (Antiquities, II, ii, 3) The Septuagint also states that Joseph related the dream to his father and his brothers. Verse 10 in the Hebrew text and also in the Septuagint says that Joseph told the dream to his father and his brothers.

The Genesis account does not contain any extensive quotations about what Reuben said to his brothers, but Josephus included considerable additional material in his Antiquities (II, iii, 1, 2). Reuben (Reubel) “tried to restrain [his brothers], showing them the heinous enterprise they were going about, and the horrid nature of it. … So he entreated them to have a regard to their own consciences, and wisely to consider what mischief would betide them upon the death of so good a child, and their youngest brother; that they should also fear God, who was already both a spectator and a witness of the designs they had against their brother; that he would love them if they abstained from this act, and yielded to repentance and amendment; but in case they proceeded to do the act, all sorts of punishments would overtake them from God for this murder of their brother, since they polluted his providence, which was everywhere present, and which did not overlook what was done, either in deserts or in cities; for wheresoever a man is, there ought he to suppose that God is also.”

Reuben (Reubel) “said these and many other things,” entreating his brothers and endeavoring “to divert them from the murder of their brother. But when he saw that his discourse had not mollified them at all, and that they made haste to do the act, he advised them to alleviate the wickedness they were going about.”

Targum Jonathan indicates that the older brothers sent the blood-stained garment “with the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah” to their father Jacob.

Targum Jonathan says that Isaac also mourned the death of Joseph. Based on the Genesis account, Isaac was still alive at the time Joseph was sold. This can be determined on the basis of the following information: After having served Laban for fourteen years, Jacob became father to Joseph by his wife Rachel. (30:25) Thereafter he served Laban for six more years and obtained wages in the form of sheep and goats. (31:41) At the time Jacob arrived with his household to settle in Egypt, he was 130 years of age, and Joseph was 39 years old. (41:46, 47, 53, 54; 45:11; 47:9) This would make Jacob about 91 years of age at the time Joseph was born and after he had begun to serve Laban fourteen years earlier. Accordingly, he was about 77 years old when his service to Laban began. Isaac was 60 years of age at the time the twins Jacob and Esau were born (25:26) and, therefore, about 137 years of age at the time of Jacob’s departure. Upon Jacob’s return to the land of Canaan 20 years later, Joseph would have been about six years old and his grandfather Isaac would have been about 157 years of age. Isaac lived another 23 years and died at the age of 180. (35:28, 29)

Chapter 38

At the time 17-year-old Joseph was sold into slavery, Judah was about 20 years old. Approximately 22 years later Judah, along with the entire household of Jacob, left Canaan to live in Egypt. This means that the events narrated in chapter 38 occurred within a span of less than 20 years. Therefore, it appears that Judah separated from his brothers soon after the sale of Joseph and formed a close relationship with Hirah (Iras [LXX]) the Adullamite (Odollamite [LXX]). (38:1, 12)

In the region where Judah then resided, he became attracted to a Canaanite woman, the daughter of Shua (Saua [LXX]), and married her. Likely in the first year of their marriage, she gave birth to a son whom Judah named Er. Probably within a year after the birth of Er, Judah’s wife had another baby boy and named him Onan (Aunan [LXX]). Later, she gave birth to another son and called him Shelah (Selom [LXX]). At the time, Judah was living in Chezib (Achzib [Chasbi, LXX]). The Septuagint says that his wife was living there when she gave birth. (38:2-5; see the Notes section.)

It appears that while Er was still a teenager Judah chose Tamar (Thamar [LXX]) as a wife for him. Er lived a corrupt life that came to an untimely end. According to the then-existing custom, Er’s brother Onan had the filial duty to have offspring for his brother by Tamar. Knowing that the offspring would not be his, Onan resorted to coitus interruptus to prevent Tamar from getting pregnant. Like his brother, Onan died a premature death. In keeping with what believers in YHWH as the true God thought, the account refers to what Er and Onan did as displeasing to YHWH and represents their dying prematurely as an expression of YHWH’s judgment. (38:6-10)

Custom of that time required that the childless widow Tamar not marry but wait until she could have offspring by a brother of her deceased husband. Judah’s son Shelah was too young to father a child. Therefore, Judah directed Tamar to return to her father’s house and remain in childless widowhood until Shelah grew up. She did this, but Judah feared that Shelah might die just like his brothers had and, therefore, failed to give Shelah to Tamar when he could have done so. (38:11)

“Days multiplied” or considerable time passed, and Judah’s wife died. After the period of mourning for his wife ended, Judah and his companion Hirah the Adullamite went to Timnah, the place where his sheepshearers were. Upon learning that her father-in-law Judah was heading for Timnah to sheer his sheep, Tamar removed the attire of her widowhood and seated herself at the entrance of a town that was called Enaim (“toward [or near] the gates of Ainan” [LXX]), taking on the appearance of a prostitute. According to the Septuagint, she made herself attractive. The location of Enaim was on the road leading to Timnah. Tamar’s intent was to induce Judah to have relations with her because he had not given his son Shelah to be with her. Her plan was successful. Judah did not recognize her because she had veiled her face, and he assumed that she was a prostitute. For her services, he promised to give her a kid of the goats. To protect herself from a charge of having violated her status as a childless widow, Tamar requested a pledge for the future payment of a kid. She asked for his personal seal, the cord to which it was attached, and his staff. When Judah later sent Hirah the Adullamite to take the kid of the goats to the woman whom he had thought to be a prostitute, his companion could not find her, and the men of Enaim told him that they did not know about any prostitute as ever having been in the vicinity. Judah then gave up any attempt to find the woman, not wanting to become an object of ridicule in the region. (38:12-23; see the Notes section.)

About three months later, the report reached Judah that Tamar had prostituted herself and was pregnant. Acting according to the existing cultural view of that time, Judah pronounced the judgment of death on Tamar, saying that she should be “burned.” This could indicate that, after being stoned to death, her body would be committed to the flames. At this point, Tamar identified the father of the unborn child as the one to whom the seal, the cord, and the staff belonged, and asked Judah to examine them. He then acknowledged that Tamar was more upright than he had been, for he had failed to fulfill his duty toward her by not giving his son Shelah to her so that she might have offspring for her deceased husband. Thereafter Judah never had any sexual relations with Tamar. (38:24-26)

She gave birth to twins. When the midwife saw the hand of one of the twins come forth first, she tied a scarlet thread around it, probably around the wrist. The hand, however, was withdrawn, and the other twin was the first baby boy to be born. The “breach” or perineal rupture that this twin produced came to be the basis for his name Perez (“breach” or perineal rupture [Phares, LXX]). His brother was named Zerah (Zara [LXX]). The name Zerah may be linked to a Hebrew word designating the shining forth of light or brightness, and the bright scarlet thread tied around the baby’s wrist may have been the basis for his name. (38:27-30)

Notes

According to verse 3 in the Septuagint, Judah’s wife called the firstborn son Er.

The Septuagint (in verse 5) indicates that Judah’s wife was in Chasbi (Chezib [Achzib]) at the time she gave birth to all three baby boys.

In verses 12 and 20, the Septuagint identifies Judah’s companion Hiras (Hirah) as “his shepherd.”

Chapter 39

Potiphar (Petephres [LXX]), an Egyptian in the service of Pharaoh, bought Joseph from the Ishmaelite traders who had come to Egypt. The Hebrew expression that designates Potiphar’s position is “eunuch of Pharaoh.” As a married man, however, Potiphar would not have been a literal eunuch. Therefore, the word “eunuch” here means a royal officer, official, or courtier. Additionally, Potiphar was called “captain of the guard.” The Hebrew word for “guard” can also mean “cook” or “butcher” and, by extension, an “executioner.” This explains why the Septuagint rendering may be translated “chief cook” or “chief butcher.” (39:1; see the Notes section.) Josephus likewise referred to Potiphar as “chief cook” and indicated that he provided Joseph with the kind of learning that befitted a free man and a diet that was superior to one that was commonly allotted to slaves. (Antiquities, II, iv, 1)

In the service of Potiphar, Joseph performed his tasks in an exemplary manner and contributed significantly to the prosperity of Potiphar’s household. It appears that Joseph made known his faith in the one true God, YHWH. Seemingly because of having come to know about YHWH and on the basis of what he observed, Potiphar came to recognize that YHWH was with Joseph and caused everything to prosper “in his hands” or everything he did to succeed. Joseph “found favor in [Potiphar’s] eyes” or came to be liked by him, leading to his being put in charge of his entire household. As the overseer in the house of Potiphar, with responsibility for all his master’s possessions, Joseph conscientiously fulfilled his responsibilities. The Genesis account attributes all the benefits from Joseph’s service to the blessing of YHWH and that it was bestowed for Joseph’s sake or, according to Targum Jonathan, on account of Joseph’s “righteousness” or uprightness. Everything that Potiphar possessed in his house and in his field prospered on account of YHWH’s blessing. Potiphar did not have to concern himself about anything, with the exception of partaking of the food available to him. (39:2-6)

Joseph came to be an exceptionally handsome man. In time, the wife of Potiphar became infatuated with him on account of his good looks and the way he handled himself and began to proposition him. He refused her advances, making it clear to her that yielding to her would be a betrayal of his master who had entrusted him with his entire household and elevated him to the highest position in his house. Potiphar had not given her to him, for she was his wife. Therefore, Joseph said, “How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” His words did not persuade her to stop propositioning him “day after day,” but he remained firm in his determination not to sin. (39:6-10)

One day Potiphar’s wife seized the opportunity to take hold of Joseph when he entered the house to care for his duties and while no one was then present inside where she was. (39:11) According to Josephus (Antiquities, II, iv, 3), it was the day of a public festival which the women customarily attended, but Potiphar’s wife pretended to be sick so that she could maneuver Joseph into having sexual intimacy with her. Among other things, Josephus quoted her as telling him that, “if he complied with her affections, he might expect the enjoyment of the advantages he already had; and if he were submissive to her, he should have still greater advantages; but that he must look for revenge and hatred from her in case he rejected her desires,” preferring the reputation to being chaste instead of his mistress. She added that “he would gain nothing by such procedure, for she would then become his accuser,” informing her husband that he had attempted to defile her chastity.

Nothing dissuaded Potiphar’s wife from her passionate desire. She grabbed hold of Joseph’s garment, seeking to force him to have sexual relations with her. He freed himself, leaving his garment in her hand and fled out of the house. She then cried out so as to get the attention of the “men of her house” or her servants. Regarding her husband and Joseph, she said to them, “See, he has brought among us a Hebrew servant to mock us. He came in to me to lie with me and I screamed.” She claimed that, when Joseph heard her scream, he left his garment with her and fled out of the house. Thereafter she kept Joseph’s garment beside her, waiting until Joseph’s master, her husband, came home, and she then repeated her false accusation that Joseph had intended to rape her. (39:12-18)

After hearing his wife’s lies, Potiphar became furious at Joseph and had him imprisoned. Joseph then found himself in confinement with prisoners who had incurred the wrath of Pharaoh, the Egyptian ruler. YHWH did not abandon Joseph but continued to allow him to enjoy his providential care (his kindness, enduring love, or “mercy” [LXX]). The chief jailer came to be favorably inclined toward Joseph and placed him in charge of everything in the prison so that he personally did not have to care for anything. Just as had been the case in the house of Potiphar, YHWH was with Joseph and prospered everything he did in carrying out the duties entrusted to him. (39:19-23; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In Genesis 37:1, the ones who sold Joseph are called Midianites, but in verse 1 of chapter 39, they are referred to as Ishmaelites. Both peoples were descendants of Abraham and, therefore, the designations may either be used interchangeably or the caravan included both Ishmaelites and Midianites, with the Ishmaelites representing the entire group.

Targum Jonathan says that Potiphar first took counsel with the priests before having Joseph imprisoned.

Josephus (Antiquities, II, v, 1) wrote that Joseph did not try to make a defense against the false charge that had been leveled against him and did not give an account of the exact circumstances. He silently submitted to the bonds and distress in which he found himself, “believing that God, who knew the cause of his affliction and the truth of the matter, would be more powerful than those who inflicted the punishments upon him.” Joseph soon received a proof of God’s providence, “for the keeper of the prison” noticed Joseph’s care and trustworthiness in the affairs he entrusted to him and also the “dignity of his countenance.” Therefore, the jailer relaxed Joseph’s bonds, making it easier for him to bear his distress. He also allowed Joseph to have a better diet than the other prisoners.

Chapter 40

Some time after Joseph’s imprisonment, the cupbearer and baker of Pharaoh, the ruler of Egypt, gave offense to their sovereign. Targum Jonathan indicates that both men came to be implicated in a plot to poison Pharaoh. The wrath of Pharaoh was aroused against them, and he had them put in custody in the prison where Joseph was confined. It appears that the imprisonment of the cupbearer and the baker was temporary until determination was made of their guilt and their merited punishment. The chief jailer assigned Joseph to attend to both men. (40:1-4)

One night the cupbearer and the baker, each one of them, had a distinct dream that conveyed a personal message to them. When Joseph came the next morning to attend to them, he noticed that they were troubled and, therefore, asked them why they were downcast. They explained that they each had a dream but that no one was available to provide the interpretation. Joseph responded with the words, “Do not interpretations belong to God?” He then requested that they tell him their respective dreams. The cupbearer related his dream, one that related to his position as cupbearer. Joseph interpreted the three branches of the vine the cupbearer saw in his dream to mean three days, and the other features of the dream to indicate that he would again be in the service of Pharaoh in three days as he had been formerly. Joseph then asked that, after everything went well for the cupbearer, he do him the kindness of mentioning him to Pharaoh so that he might be released from unjust confinement. In referring to his lot, Joseph did not cast any dispersion on his half brothers or make any direct accusations against anyone else but said, “I was indeed kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews, nor have I done anything here [in Egypt] that they should have put me into the dungeon.” (40:5-15)

The favorable interpretation of the cupbearer’s dream encouraged the baker to relate his dream. This particular dream also pertained to his occupation. Joseph interpreted the “three baskets” the baker saw in his dream to mean three days. From the topmost one of the three baskets, birds were feeding on the baked goods for Pharaoh. Joseph interpreted the dream to mean an unfavorable outcome for the baker. In three days, he would be executed, his corpse would be suspended from a pole, and birds would feed on his flesh. (40:16-19)

On the third day thereafter, Pharaoh observed his birthday. He restored the cupbearer to his position and he had the baker hanged, just as Joseph had said when interpreting their respective dreams. Targum Jonathan indicates that the cupbearer had been found guiltless of involvement in the plot to poison Pharaoh, whereas the guilt of the baker had been established. Though everything went well for the cupbearer, he forgot all about Joseph. (40:20-23)

Chapter 41

Two years after the cupbearer had been restored to his former position, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing on the bank of the Nile and saw seven beautiful cows ascending from the river and begin feeding on the reed grass that flourished along the river banks. Thereafter he saw seven ugly and skinny cows ascend from the Nile, and these cows consumed the beautiful, well-nourished cows. After Pharaoh woke up and then again fell asleep, he had another dream. In this dream, he saw seven solid and full ears of grain growing on one stalk. Then he saw seven thin ears sprouting, and these ears were blighted by the hot wind from the east, the arid region east of Egypt. The seven thin ears swallowed up the seven full ears. (41:1-7)

Upon waking up in the morning, Pharaoh was greatly troubled about what he had dreamed and called on the magicians and all the available Egyptian wise men to provide him with an interpretation of the two dreams. None of them were able to do so. (41:7, 8)

During the two years since his release from confinement, the cupbearer had forgotten all about Joseph, making no mention about him to Pharaoh. God, however, had not forgotten Joseph and made known to Pharaoh future developments that would lead to Joseph’s release from unjust imprisonment. Upon witnessing that the magicians and wise men were unable to interpret the dreams, the cupbearer realized how wrong he had been to forget about Joseph and was prompted to say to Pharaoh, “My offenses [sin (LXX)] I remember today.” He then related how Joseph had interpreted his dream and that of the baker at the time of their imprisonment and that three days later everything happened exactly as Joseph had revealed would occur according to the meaning of the dreams. (41:9-13)

Pharaoh immediately sent for Joseph, and he was taken from his place of confinement. Before he appeared before Pharaoh, Joseph shaved, took off his clothing, and dressed himself in suitable attire. The Septuagint rendering suggests that someone among those who were sent shaved Joseph and clothed him with an acceptable outer garment. Josephus likewise indicates that the ones whom Pharaoh had sent directed them to change Joseph’s attire so that he would be presentably dressed when appearing before him. (Antiquities, II, v, 4) Pharaoh informed Joseph that he had “dreamed a dream” and that no one had been able to interpret it. Then he continued, “I have heard it said of you that, upon hearing a dream, you can interpret it.” Joseph did not give any credit to himself but gave all glory to God, saying, “He will answer peace to Pharaoh” (give a favorable response or see to the well-being of Pharaoh). (41:14-16)

After Pharaoh related the two dreams that he had seen, Joseph explained that both were just one dream or both had the same significance and that God had revealed to Pharaoh what he was about to do. In this case, the action God would be taking may be understood to refer to the developments he would permit to occur and which would affect the land of Egypt. Joseph interpreted the seven well-nourished cows and the seven full ears of grain to represent seven years of plenty, and the seven skinny cows and the seven empty ears of grain that were blighted by the east wind to signify seven years of famine. Joseph went on to say that, in all the land of Egypt, there would come to be seven years of great abundance. This would be followed by seven years of famine of such intensity that the former abundance would completely fade from memory. The fact that there were two dreams with the same message meant that the matter had been firmly determined by God and that he would soon bring it to pass. With these words, Joseph made it clear that what God had revealed in the two dreams was certain of fulfillment. (41:17-32; see the Notes section.)

In his Antiquities (II, v, 6), Josephus has Joseph telling Pharaoh that God reveals to people what is to happen in the future, “not to grieve them,” but to enable them wisely to prepare in advance to make the future unfavorable developments more tolerable. Joseph is then quoted as advising Pharaoh, “If you, therefore, carefully dispose of the plentiful crops that will come in the [first seven] years, you will secure that the future calamity will not be felt by the Egyptians.”

Joseph recommended that Pharaoh choose a wise man to oversee arrangements for storing produce during the period of abundance. This wise man should have the authority to appoint overseers who would be responsible for taking a fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt during the seven years of bountiful harvests and then storing it. The stored grain under the authority of Pharaoh would then be available during the future years of famine. Pharaoh and his servants recognized that Joseph’s proposal was good, and he concluded that Joseph was the right man to oversee the important task, for the “spirit of God” was in him and God had revealed everything to him. (41:33-39)

Pharaoh appointed Joseph over all his “house” and directed that all his “people” or subjects should heed what Joseph said (literally, “[his] mouth”). Only with reference to the throne would Pharaoh be greater. Otherwise, he would be “over all the land of Egypt.” For Joseph, the investiture procedure included receiving Pharaoh’s signet ring (which he could use for sealing official documents), being clothed in garments of fine linen, and having a gold chain placed around his neck. Pharaoh had Joseph ride in his “second chariot, and the people cried out before him, “Avrek.” Renderings such as “kneel” or “make way” are conjectures, for it is unknown what the Egyptian word “avrek” or “abrek” means. (41:40-43; see the Notes section.)

Pharaoh is quoted as telling Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, and apart from you [without your consent] no man shall lift up his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt.” This could signify that no one would be able to initiate anything significant without Joseph’s permission. (41:44) Targum Jonathan interprets the words to mean that no man would be allowed to lift up his hand to gird on arms and to lift up his foot to mount a horse.

Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-paneah (Psonthomphanech [LXX]; Psonthonphanechos [Josephus]), which Egyptian designation is thought to mean “god speaks; he will live.” Josephus (Antiquities, II, vi, 1) understood the name to mean “revealer of hidden things.” This is also the basic meaning conveyed in the targums. Pharaoh arranged for Joseph to be married to the virgin Asenath (Asenneth [LXX]; Asennethis [Josephus]; “belonging to Neith” [the Egyptian goddess]), the daughter of Potiphera (Petephre [LXX]; Pentephres [Josephus]; “he whom Ra [the Egyptian deity] gave”). Her father was a priest at On (Heliopolis), the major center of sun worship. It appears that the marriage to Asenath would have been regarded as befitting Joseph’s high office in Egypt. He likely had no choice in the matter, as Pharaoh was the one who selected Asenath as the wife for him. (41:45)

Joseph entered royal service at the age of 30. During the seven years of abundant crops in Egypt, he traveled throughout the land, arranging to store the produce from the fields in the cities that the cultivated areas surrounded. The amount of grain which came to be stored increased to the point that no effort was made to measure it. (41:46-49)

Before the time of famine came, Asenath bore two sons to Joseph. He named the firstborn son Manasseh (linked to the verb nashshani [made me forget]), because he credited God with making him forget all his hardship and all his father’s “house,” household, or paternal home. Joseph gave the name Ephraim (connected to the verb hiphrani [made me fruitful]), ascribing to God his having become fruitful [or having fathered offspring] in the “land of [his] affliction.” (41:50-52)

Just as Joseph had foretold when interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams, the seven years of abundance ended and severe famine set in. While surrounding lands were impacted by the famine conditions, Egypt was spared because of the storage arrangements Joseph had instituted. The Egyptians appealed to Pharaoh for grain, and he directed them to go to Joseph who then, apparently through officials he had appointed, apportioned out and sold grain to the people from the storage facilities. The Genesis account says that “all the lands” or “all the earth” suffered from famine. This is to be understood in a relative sense as denoting all the lands surrounding Egypt. From all these lands, people came to Egypt to buy grain. (41:53-57)

Notes

It should be noted that Pharaoh did not doubt that Joseph had interpreted the dreams aright. He had confirmation from his cupbearer that Joseph could interpret dreams correctly. Moreover, he would have known that good harvests were dependent on the flooding of the Nile, as the flood waters provided the needed water for irrigation. Without the flooding of the Nile, the lack of water would lead to crop failures and the resulting famine would bring an end to the previous times of plenty. The interpretation of the dreams harmonized with the facts. This illustrates that any exposition of the scriptures should be reasonable and not stray from what would make good sense to anyone hearing the exposition for the first time.

In verse 43, the Septuagint does not use any equivalent for the designation “avrek” or “abrek.” It says that a “herald cried out” before Joseph.

Chapter 42

After Jacob learned that grain was available in Egypt, he sent ten of his sons there to buy it for the household. Fearing that harm might befall his youngest son Benjamin, the full brother of Joseph, he did not permit him to accompany them. Along with other foreigners, the “sons of Israel” (Jacob) arrived in Egypt to purchase grain, for the famine was severe in the land of Canaan. (42:1-5)

Joseph was in charge of the sale of grain to those affected by the famine. When his half brothers arrived, they prostrated themselves before him, with their faces touching the ground. Although he recognized them, they did not recognize him. Through an interpreter (42:23), Joseph spoke harshly to them, asking them from where they had come and accusing them of being spies. At this time, he remembered the prophetic dreams about the eleven sheaves of grain bowing down to him and the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down to him. His half brothers denied that they were spies, saying that they were upright men from Canaan and the sons of one father. There had been twelve of them, but one was no more and the youngest was with his father. Joseph still insisted that they were spies and proposed to put them to the test, doing so solemnly “by the life of Pharaoh.” His initial proposed test was that all except one of them be confined in Egypt and that one of them should then return to Canaan to bring back their youngest brother. Only if the youngest brother would be brought to Egypt would they be cleared of the charge that they were spies. (42:6-16; see the Notes section.)

A factor that would have concealed the identify of Joseph was his use of an interpreter in speaking to his half brothers. Moreover, he was now about 39 years of age and no longer did he have the youthful appearance of a 17-year-old. In his Antiquities, (II, vi, 2), Josephus indicated that Joseph’s facial features had changed and that the “greatness of the dignity” in which his half brothers saw him did not make it possible for them to suspect that he was the person whom they had sold.

For parts of three days, Joseph kept all of his half brothers in prison. On the third day, he said to them, “Do this, and you will live. I fear God. If you are upright men, let one of your brothers remain confined in your prison [the place where they had been imprisoned] and let the rest go to take grain to your famished households. And your youngest brother [you must] bring to me to verify your words, and you will not die.” Upon hearing Joseph’s words, his half brothers concluded that this turn of events had occurred because of their guilt respecting Joseph. They saw his distress and heard his plea, but they had failed to listen. Therefore, they continued saying to one another, “Therefore, this distress has come upon us.” Reuben then spoke up, reminding his brothers that they had failed to listen when he told them not to sin against the lad. He then added, “And now comes an accounting for his blood.” Apparently this was the first time that Joseph came to know that Reuben had wanted to save his life. He understood every word that his half brothers said among themselves, but they were unaware of this, for he had spoken to them through an interpreter. (42:17-23; see the Notes section.)

After hearing what his half brothers said among themselves, Joseph was deeply moved emotionally. He left their presence and wept. Upon returning, he spoke to them and then selected Simeon “and bound him before their eyes.” (42:24) Likely Simeon was the one chosen to be left behind in confinement because he had been the most insistent on wanting to kill his half brother Joseph. This is the view expressed in the apocryphal Testament of Simeon (thought to have come into existence in its final form in the second century CE). Therein Simeon is quoted as saying, “I was jealous of Joseph because our father loved him; and I set my mind against him to destroy him, because the prince of deceit [the devil] sent forth the spirit of jealousy and blinded my mind, so that I regarded him not as a brother, and spared not Jacob my father. For when I went into Shechem to bring ointment for the flocks, and Reuben to Dotham [Dothan], where were our necessities and all our stores, Judah our brother sold him to the Ishmaelites. And when Reuben came he was grieved, for he wished to have restored him safe to his father. But I was angry against Judah in that he let him go away alive, and for five months I continued wrathful against him.”

Joseph directed those responsible for filling the bags of his half brothers to return the silver with which they had paid for the grain and to supply them with provisions for their journey back to Canaan. His brothers loaded their bags of grain on their donkeys and departed. On the way at a place where they decided to stop for the night, one of the brothers opened his bag to scoop out grain for his donkey and discovered his bundle or pouch of silver “in the mouth” of his bag. According to Targum Jonathan, this one was Levi who no longer had his brother Simeon as his companion. After he told his brothers about the return of the silver, “their hearts failed them” and they began to tremble. Apparently within themselves they felt a sickening dread and became terrified, prompting them to say, “What is this that God has done to us?” (42:25-28, 35)

Upon arriving at their destination in the land of Canaan, the brothers told their father Jacob about their having endured harsh words from the man in charge of the land of Egypt and his accusing them of being spies. They related how they had defended themselves as upright men, telling him that they were of a family of twelve brothers of whom one was no more and the youngest among them was with his father in the land of Canaan. To prove that they were upright men and to have Simeon released, they would have to return to Egypt with their youngest brother. (42:29-34)

When the brothers emptied their bags of grain, they also found their returned bundles of silver. They and their father became fearful, apparently because this could be interpreted to mean that they had not paid for the grain and that their claim to be upright or honest men was false. Jacob became deeply distressed and said to his sons, “You have bereaved me. Joseph is no more, and Simeon is no more, and now you would take Benjamin. All this has come upon me.” (42:35, 36)

Reuben promised to bring Benjamin back, offering to do so at the sacrifice of those who were most dear to him, his own two sons, and telling his father that he could slay them if Benjamin did not come back from Egypt. It is, of course, inconceivable that Jacob would have put his grandsons to death, and Reuben must have known this. Apparently, in expression of rash emotion, Reuben wanted to assure his father that he would make himself fully responsible for the return of Benjamin. There may have been hesitancy on Jacob’s part to trust his firstborn son fully, for he had years earlier violated Bilhah, his father’s concubine and the mother of his two half brothers Dan and Naphtali. Jacob insisted that Benjamin would not accompany his sons back to Egypt, telling them, “My son will not go down with you [to Egypt], for his brother is dead and he alone [of his offspring by his beloved wife Rachel] is left. If harm should befall him on the journey on which you are to go, you would bring my gray hairs down to Sbeol [Hades (LXX), the realm of the dead] with sorrow.” Evidently he felt that his grief would be so great that it would lead to his death. (42:37, 38)

Notes

Targum Jonathan indicates how Joseph knew that his half brothers had come to purchase grain. At the city gates, he had appointed officials who daily registered the names of all who came to buy grain and also the names of their fathers.

Targum Jonathan, the Jerusalem Targum, and Targum Neofiti say that Joseph’s firstborn son Manasseh was the interpreter. At this time, Manasseh would have been only about 8 years old, and so it does not seem likely that he was the interpreter.

According to the apocryphal Testament of Zebulun (which is also from the same time as the Testament of Simeon), Simeon and Gad were the ones who wanted to kill Joseph. It is more likely, however, that Simeon and Levi would have been the most intent on seeking the death of Joseph, especially because they appear to have been very close. This is evident from their unified act to murder all the men of Shechem because a prominent young man of the city had raped their sister Dinah.

Chapter 43

The land of Canaan continued to be in the grip of severe famine, and the supply of grain that the sons of Jacob had brought from Egypt had been used up. Therefore, Jacob requested that his sons return to Egypt to buy grain. Judah responded that the only condition on which they could return to Egypt was for Benjamin to accompany them, as the one in charge in Egypt had strongly warned (literally, “to warn, warn”) that they could not see his face unless their brother (“younger brother” [LXX]) was with them. (43:1-5)

Israel (Jacob) felt that his sons had done him an injustice by telling the man that they had another brother and asked them why they had treated him so badly by revealing this. They explained that the man asked them specifically whether they had another brother and that they had no way of knowing that he would demand that they bring their brother down to Egypt. (43:6, 7)

In view of the serious situation in which the entire household of Jacob found itself on account of the famine, Judah requested that Jacob send Benjamin with him so that all in the family could live and not die or starve from lack of food. He promised to be surety for Benjamin, telling his father that he could require from his hand whatever he determined if he did not bring his brother back and that, if he failed, he would be sinning against his father for all time to come (literally, “all the days”). Judah then said, “If we had not delayed, we could have returned twice” (or made two trips to buy grain in Egypt). (43:8-10)

Israel (Jacob) finally resigned himself to having Benjamin accompany his sons. He told them to take some of the choice products of Canaan (some balm [resin (LXX)] and some honey, gum [incense (LXX)], myrrh [resin, ladanum, or some kind of aromatic substance], pistachios [terebinth or terebinth fruits (LXX)], and almonds [nuts (LXX]) as a gift for the man in Egypt. To buy the grain, Jacob asked his sons to take double the amount of silver they had paid the first time and to return the silver they had then paid but which, possibly in error, had been placed in their bags. He concluded with the words, “May God Almighty grant you mercy before the face of the man that he may send back your other brother [Simeon] and Benjamin. And if I am to be bereaved [of my sons], I will be bereaved.” Jacob recognized that he had no choice in the matter. Without having his sons obtain grain from Egypt, the household would starve. (43:11-14)

All ten of Jacob’s sons headed back to Egypt. When Joseph saw his brother Benjamin among them, he directed the man in charge of his house to bring them into his house and to prepare a feast, for he planned to have all of them dine with him at noon. As the man conducted Jacob’s sons to Joseph’s house, they became fearful. Apparently their consciences troubled them regarding what they had years earlier done to Joseph and feared divine retribution for their serious sin. They thought that they were being led to the house because of the payment in silver that had been returned in their bags and that they would be (denounced and [LXX]) seized along with their donkeys and made slaves. Therefore, at the door (in the entryway [LXX]) of the house, they told the man that they had come down to Egypt to purchase food and later discovered that the full weight of each one’s silver had been returned in their respective bags. This time they had come with the silver that had been returned and with additional silver to purchase food. They added, “We do not know who put our silver in our bags.” (43:15-22)

The man in charge of Joseph’s house or his steward must have recognized that fear had prompted the men to speak. Therefore, he reassured them with the words, “Peace to you; do not be afraid. Your God and the God of your father must have put treasure in your bags. Your silver came to me [or I received your payment].” The steward then brought Simeon out to them. According to Josephus, the steward had dressed Simeon in presentable attire. (Antiquities, II, vi, 6) He gave water to Jacob’s sons for washing their feet and provided feed for their donkeys. Having been informed that the steward’s master who was then unknown to them as being Joseph would be dining with them at noon, they laid out the gift they had brought for him and waited for him to come. Upon Joseph’s arrival, they presented him with the gift and prostrated themselves before him. In response to his question about the well-being of their father, they answered that he was alive and well and again prostrated themselves. According to the Septuagint, Joseph said regarding Jacob, “Blessed be that man to God.” Recognizing his brother Benjamin, he asked, “Is this your youngest brother of whom you spoke to me?” Directing his words to Benjamin, he then said, “May God be gracious to you, my son.” (43:23-29)

Joseph was deeply moved with tender feelings toward his full brother Benjamin and was at the point of giving way to weeping. Therefore, he quickly left so that he brothers would not see his tears and entered his own private room to weep. He then washed his face, gained control of himself, entered the room where his brothers were, and requested that the food be served. Joseph was served by himself (probably because of his high rank in Egypt), and the Egyptians who were with him ate the meal separate from Joseph’s brothers. The explanation in the Genesis account for this arrangement was because it happened to be abhorrent for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews. (43:30-32) Targum Jonathan indicates that the reason for the abhorrence was that the Egyptians revered the animals that the Hebrews ate.

At the table, Joseph’s brothers had been seated according to birth order, from the firstborn (Reuben) to the youngest (Benjamin). Joseph apparently had directed the seating arrangement. This caused the brothers to look at one another in amazement. All except Benjamin had been born within a period of roughly six years, and it would have been extremely difficult for a stranger to be sure about the exact birth order. (43:33) Josephus wrote that the brothers were seated “in the same order as they used to sit at their father’s table.” (Antiquities, II, vi, 6) According to Targum Jonathan, Joseph had taken his silver cup and pretended as if he were divining. He then seated the sons of Leah on one side, the sons of Leah’s maid Zilpah on the other side, and on still another side he seated the sons of Bilhah, the maid of Rachel. Benjamin’s place was closest to the side of Joseph.

The meal was apparently in front of Joseph. From there, the servants would take portions to Joseph’s brothers. Doubtless to determine any tendency on their part to envy Benjamin, Joseph had the servants greatly increase his full brother’s portion. The account says this was done by “five times.” This may not necessarily mean five literal times but may simply be an idiomatic way to indicate that Benjamin’s portion was much larger than that of the others. Josephus wrote that Benjamin’s portion “was double to what the rest of the guests had for their shares.” (Antiquities, II, vi, 6) The brothers also drank with Joseph and came to be in a good mood from the wine. According to the Septuagint, they became intoxicated. (43:34)

Chapter 44

Joseph instructed his steward to fill the bags of his brothers with grain and to return the silver they had given in payment. In the case of the youngest among them, he directed that his silver cup be included along with the silver. At sunrise, the brothers were on their way back to the land of Canaan. Josephus wrote that they had a twofold reason to be joyful, for they had received Simeon back again and they were able to return with Benjamin just as they had promised to their father. Soon everything changed for the sons of Jacob. They had not gone far away from the city when Joseph’s steward arrived and, as Joseph had directed him, accused them of having taken his master’s cup from which he drank and which he used for divination. Josephus indicated that the steward did not come alone but was in the company of a “troop of horsemen.” Explaining the reason for Joseph’s action, Josephus wrote that he wanted to determine whether his brothers “would stand by Benjamin when he would be accused of having stolen the cup and should appear to be in danger; or whether they would leave him and, relying on their own innocence, return to their father without him.” (Antiquities, II, vi, 7) As a worshiper of the true God, Joseph would not have been a practicer of divination but apparently represented himself as an Egyptian official who had no relationship to his brothers. Josephus made no mention regarding the use of the cup for divination. (44:1-6)

Faced with the false accusations of the steward, the brothers insisted on being guiltless, maintaining that they could not possibly have stolen the cup. In addition to payment for the grain, they had brought back the silver that had previously been returned in their bags. So certain were they of their innocence that they declared that the one in whose bag the cup would be found should die and that they themselves should become slaves to the steward’s master. The steward responded that only the one in whose bag the cup should be found would become a slave and the rest would go free. (44:7-10)

The brothers quickly lowered their bags to the ground and opened them. After the steward searched the bags, starting with the oldest and ending with the youngest, he located the cup in Benjamin’s bag. At that, according to Josephus, “all was changed into mourning and lamentation.” (Antiquities, II, vi, 7) They tore their garments in expression of their grief, reloaded their donkeys, and returned to the city. Upon entering Joseph’s house, they cast themselves down before him. When he questioned them why they had taken the cup and whether they did not know that a man in his position used it for divination, they, apparently out of regard for his great authority, offered no words in their defense. Judah replied, “What shall we say to my lord? What shall we plead? And how can we prove our innocence? God has found out the guilt of your servants. Look, we are slaves to my lord, both we and also the one in whose hand the cup has been found.” (44:11-16) It appears that the guilt to which Judah referred related to the way they had treated their brother Joseph. This also seems to be how Josephus understood what had happened to them. They “called to mind what a wicked enterprise they had been guilty of against Joseph. They also pronounced him happier than themselves.” If dead, he was “freed from the miseries of this life”; and, if alive, he would have the satisfaction “of seeing God’s vengeance upon them.” (Antiquities, II, vi, 8)

Joseph said to his brothers that only the one in whose hand the cup was found would be a slave to him and that all of the rest could return in peace to their father. Judah then pleaded for Benjamin, reminding Joseph why he and his brothers had been obligated to bring their youngest brother with them and telling him about what their father had said if his youngest son did not return from Egypt. To assure their father that the youngest son would return, Judah had pledged himself for him. He explained that, if his youngest brother remained in Egypt, he would be guilty before his father as long as he lived, and his father would die. Therefore, Judah petitioned Joseph that he be the one to remain in Egypt as a slave and that his youngest brother be able to return to his father. (44:17-34; see the Note section.)

Note

In verse 28, the Hebrew text represents Jacob as indicating that Joseph was “torn to pieces” by a beast of prey. The Septuagint, however, quotes Jacob as saying to his sons, “You said that wild beasts had devoured him.”

Chapter 45

Subsequent to the appeal Judah made for Benjamin, Joseph could no longer control his emotions and had everyone besides his brothers leave his presence. He then gave way to such loud weeping that the Egyptians and members of Pharaoh’s household could hear it. Joseph identified himself to his brothers, speaking to them in their native tongue. Targum Jonathan says that he spoke to them “in the language of the house of holiness.” After telling them, “I am Joseph,” he asked, “Is my father still alive?” In an apparent state of shock, they were unable to reply. Joseph asked them to come near to him and repeated, “I am Joseph your brother whom you sold into Egypt.” He spoke reassuringly to them, telling them not to be distressed or angry with themselves because of having sold him. Joseph recognized God’s providential care and so continued, “For to preserve life, God has sent me before your faces” or ahead of you. (45:1-5)

Based on the prophetic dreams he had interpreted for Pharaoh, Joseph knew that only two of the seven years of famine had passed and that, in the remaining five years, there would be neither plowing nor harvest. Therefore, he explained that God had sent him in advance of them to assure that they would remain alive. So, as Joseph continued to tell his brothers, “It was not you who sent me here [to Egypt], but God; and he made me a father [possibly meaning principal adviser] to Pharaoh and master of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt.” With these words, Joseph indicated that, aside from Pharaoh, he occupied the highest official position in the land, attributing everything that had happened to him to God. Joseph requested that his brothers inform his father about everything that God had done for him and not to delay in making the move to Egypt. There they could then reside in “the land of Goshen [Gesem of Arabia (LXX)]” (possibly a region in the eastern part of the Nile Delta). This would make it possible for Jacob, his sons, and his grandchildren to be near Joseph and to receive essential sustenance for the remaining five years of famine so as not to experience any want. Ample provision would also be made for all his flocks and herds, including everything that belonged to his household. (45:6-11)

Joseph reminded his half brothers that their own eyes had seen and the eyes of his own brother Benjamin had seen him and his splendor and that they had heard him speak to them. Accordingly, they were in position to honor Joseph’s request that they tell his father about the high position he occupied in Egypt and everything they had personally seen. Joseph embraced his brother Benjamin (literally, “fell upon the neck of his brother Benjamin”), and he wept and so did Benjamin. After he kissed all his half brothers and wept upon them, they were able to speak to him. Apparently they recognized that he had forgiven them, and this lifted a great burden of guilt from them. (45:12-15) Josephus, in his Antiquities, (II, vi, 10), wrote, “The generous kindness of their brother seemed to leave among them no room for fear” that he would punish them for having years earlier acted against him.

When report about Joseph’s brothers reached his household, Pharaoh and his servants or officials were pleased with the news. Pharaoh requested that Joseph have his brothers load their donkeys and return to Canaan to bring their father and their entire households to Egypt. He promised to give them the best of the land of Egypt so that they might eat of the “fat of the land” or enjoy the abundance that the choice productive land would produce. Additionally, Joseph’s brothers were to receive wagons for transporting their wives and children and their father to Egypt. They were not to think about anything they might leave behind in Canaan, for they would receive the best of the land in their new home. In keeping with Pharaoh’s command, Joseph gave wagons to his brothers and supplied them with provisions for the journey. To all his half brothers, Joseph gave a change of attire, but to his brother Benjamin his gave “five” (possibly meaning “several”) changes of attire and 300 pieces of silver. For his father, Joseph sent ten male donkeys loaded with choice items and ten female donkeys loaded with grain, bread, and other provisions that would be needed for the journey to Egypt. (45:16-23)

Joseph’s parting words to his brothers were, “Do not quarrel on the way.” Targum Jonathan expanded on what he said to his brothers. “Do not contend about my having been sold, lest you quarrel in passing along the way.” When they arrived in Canaan and informed their father Jacob that Joseph was still alive and occupied a high official position in Egypt, “his heart went numb” or could not in his inmost self accept the news. He was completely stunned and could not bring himself to believe what his sons said to him. This changed as they continued to relate what Joseph had said to them and Jacob saw the wagons that Joseph had sent to transport him to Egypt. His “spirit” revived or he was enlivened anew, prompting him to say, “My son Joseph is still alive. I will go and see him before I die.” (45:24-28)

Chapter 46

Arriving with his entire household at Beer-sheba (“well of the oath” [LXX], a site at the edge of the desert south of the mountainous region of what later became a part of the territory of the tribe of Judah), Israel (Jacob) “offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac.” Apparently he desired divine direction about the move to Egypt, likely recalling that his father Isaac was commanded not to enter that land during a time of famine in Canaan. (26:2; 46:1) In his Antiquities (II, vii, 2), Josephus is more specific than the Genesis account regarding the concerns of Jacob. He feared that the happiness his descendants would experience in Egypt could tempt them to remain there and not return to Canaan and not take possession of it as God had promised them. Moreover, he feared that, if his household entered Egypt contrary to the will of God, the family would be destroyed there. Jacob also was afraid that he might die before ever having the opportunity to see his beloved son Joseph.

“In visions of the night,” God revealed to Jacob that he should not be fearful about going down to Egypt, for there he would make him, through his descendants, a “great nation.” God promised that he would be with Jacob and would bring him (through his descendants) up from that land into Canaan. He assured Jacob that he would see Joseph, for Joseph would “put his hand” upon Jacob’s eyes. This indicated that Joseph would be at his side when he died and would close his eyes. As the firstborn son in the family usually closed the eyes of his deceased father, the words about Joseph may serve to indicate that he should have the right as firstborn among Jacob’s sons. (46:2-4)

According to Josephus (Antiquities, II, vii, 4), Jacob was encouraged by the dream and continued with his sons “more cheerfully” on the way to Egypt. The entire household with all their domestic animals and possessions set out from Beer-sheba and used the wagons that Pharaoh had provided for transport. (46:5-7)

Initially, Josephus gave consideration not to include the names of Jacob’s household. He appears to have recognized the difficulty of conveying the Hebrew names to Greek readers. (Antiquities, II, vii, 4). It was not until he had leisure time in Rome that Josephus had the assistance of certain individuals who helped him to learn Greek (Against Apion, I, 9), but he acknowledged that he was not a fluent speaker of the language. (Antiquities, XX, xi, 2) This may explain why he first thought it best not to include the names. He, however, changed his mind, considering it necessary to show that the ancestors of the Jews came from Mesopotamia and were not Egyptians. The Greek spelling of the names in the work of Josephus usually differs from that found in the text of the Septuagint.

Reuben (Rouben [LXX]; Roubelos [Josephus]) the firstborn son of Jacob (Iakob [LXX]; Iakobus [Josephus]) had four sons — Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi (Enoch, Phallous, Asron, and Charmi [LXX]; Anoches, Phalous, Essaron, Charmisos [Josephus]). The six sons of Simeon (Symeon [LXX]; Semeonos [Josephus]) were: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Cannanite woman (Iemouel, Iamin, Aod, Iachin, Saar, and Saoul [LXX]; Ioumelos, Iameinos, Pouthodos, Iachinos, Soaros, and Saaras [Josephus]). Levi (Leui [LXX and Josephus]) had three sons — Gershon, Kohath, and Merari (Gerson, Kaath, and Merari [LXX]; Golgomes, Kaathos, and Marairos [Josephus]). Er and Onan (Er and Aunan [LXX]; Josephus omits), two of the five sons of Judah (Ioudas [LXX and Josephus]), died prematurely in the land of Canaan. The other three sons were: Shelah, Perez, and Zerah (Selom, Phares, Zara [LXX]; Salas, Pharesos, Ezeloos [Josephus]). Perez is listed as having two sons, Hezron and Hamul (Asron and Iemouel [LXX]; Esron and Amouros [Josephus]). Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah were Jacob’s sons by his wife Leah and his first offspring. (46:8-12; see the Notes section.)

After Leah (Leia [LXX and Josephus]) did not become pregnant during an interval comparable to that between her other pregnancies, she had two sons by her maid Zilpah and later had two more sons of her own. Her son Issachar (Issachar [LXX]; Isakchares [Josephus]) had four sons — Tola, Puvah, Iob, and Shimron (Thola, Phoua, Iasoub, and Zambram [LXX]; Thoulas, Phrouras, Iobos, and Samaron [Josephus]) Leah’s sixth son, Zebulon (Zaboulon [LXX and Josephus]) fathered three sons — Sered, Elon, and Jahleel (Sered, Allon, and Aloel [LXX]; Sarados, Elon, Ianelos [Josephus]). (46:13, 14)

All six sons of Leah were born in Paddan-aram (Mesopotamia of Syria [LXX]), as also was her daughter Dinah. Grandchildren were born in the land of Canaan, and the two great-grandchildren were doubtless born in Egypt. The total of 33 “souls” or persons, sons and “daughters,” may be understood to include one unnamed daughter or granddaughter. Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint contain the plural “daughters.” (46:15)

Zilpah (Zelpha [LXX and Josephus]), the maid Laban gave to his daughter Leah, bore two sons to Jacob, Gad and Asher (Gad and Aser [LXX]; Gades and Aseros [Josephus]). Gad fathered seven sons — Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, and Areli (Saphon, Aggis, Saunis, Thasoban, Aedis, Aroedis, and Aroelis [LXX]; Zophonias, Ougis, Sounis, Zabron, Eirenes, Eroides, and Arieles [Josephus]). The four sons of Asher were: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, and Beriah (Iemna, Iesoua, Ieoul, and Baria [LXX]; Iomnes, Isousios, Eioubes, and Bares [Josephus]). He also had a daughter named Serah (Sara [LXX]). Asher’s son Beriah had two sons — Heber and Malchiel (Chobor and Melchiel [LXX]; Abaros and Melchielos [Josephus]). Josephus identifies these two grandsons as two of the six sons of Asher. If Heber and Malchiel were born in Canaan, they must have been very young, especially since their father is listed as the last one of Asher’s sons. The other possibility is that they were born in Egypt before the death of their great-grandfather Jacob. All the “souls” or persons who traced their descent from Jacob through Zilpah were sixteen (two sons, eleven grandsons, one granddaughter, and two great-grandsons). (46:16-18)

By his wife Rachel (Rachela [Josephus]), Jacob had two sons, Joseph and Benjamin (Ioseph and Beniamin [LXX]; Iosepos and Beniamein [Josephus]). In Egypt, Joseph became father to his sons Manasseh and Ephraim (Manasse and Ephraim [LXX]; Manasses and Ephranes [Josephus]) by his wife Asenath (Asseneth [LXX]; Asennethis [Josephus]) the daughter of Potiphera (Petephre [LXX]; Pentephres [Josephus]) the priest of On (City of the Sun; Heliopolis [LXX]). Joseph’s brother Benjamin became the father of ten “sons” — Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard (Bolos, Bakcharis, Asabelos, Gelas, Neemanes, Ies, Aros, Nomphthes, Oppais, and Arodos [Josephus]). According to the Septuagint, only three of these are sons of Benjamin (Bala, Chobor, and Asbel). Six others are identified as sons of Bala (Bela) — Gera, Noeman, Anchis, Ros, Mamphin, and Ophimin. Ard (Arad [LXX]), the last-named son mentioned in the Hebrew text, is identified as the son of Gera or as a great-grandson of Benjamin. In view of Benjamin’s age, he would not have been able to have ten sons in Canaan, let alone sons, grandsons, and a great-grandson. His brother Joseph was only about 39 years old at the time Jacob’s household moved to Egypt and would have been Benjamin’s senior by more than six years. The fourteen “souls” or persons who could trace their descent through Rachel were Joseph, Benjamin, and their offspring (twelve in number). (46:19-22; see the Notes section.)

Bilhah (Balla [LXX and Josephus], the maid whom Laban gave to his daughter Rachel, had two sons, Dan and Naphtali (Dan and Nephthali [LXX]; Danos and Nephthalis [Josephus]). When referring to the “sons” of Dan, both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint list only one son — Hushim (Asom or Hasom [LXX]; Ousis [identified by Josephus as an only or only-begotten son]). Naphtali had four sons — Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, and Shillem (Asiel, Goyni, Issaar, and Syllem [LXX]; Elielos, Gounis, Sares, and Sellimos [Josephus]). All the “souls” or persons who traced their descent from Bilhah were seven. (46:23-25)

Not including the wives of Jacob, all the “souls” or persons belonging to him who came into Egypt were 66. (46:26) When the recorded numbers (33 + 16 +14 + 7) are added, the total is 70. The recorded numbers in the Septuagint bring the total to 74 (33 +16 + 18 +7). If only the actual names of persons are counted, the number of offspring through Leah would be 32, not 33. Based on the reference to the sons of Joseph being born in Egypt (46:27) and that Joseph did not come to the land with his father Jacob, he and his sons should not be counted. Then by not counting one of the unlisted persons tracing their decent through Leah, the number 66 is correct. According to the Septuagint, nine “souls” or persons descended from Joseph. Even when only these nine persons are not counted, the sum is 65 and not 66. The 70 souls or persons of Jacob’s household who came into Egypt correspond to the total of the recorded numbers and include Joseph, his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim, and one unnamed person. According to the Septuagint rendering, the number was 75 souls or persons, and this is also the number in Acts 7:14. (46:26, 27; see the Notes section.)

Jacob sent Judah to meet Joseph to make arrangements for him to meet his father in Goshen (possibly a region in the eastern part of the Nile Delta). The Septuagint indicates that the meeting place was to be the city of Heroon (Heroonpolis) in the land of Ramesses. Josephus (Antiquities, II, vii, 5) also wrote that this location was the meeting place. In response to the news Judah conveyed to him, Joseph headed in his chariot to meet his father. Joseph fell upon his father’s neck or embraced him and gave way to much weeping. Jacob’s being reunited with his beloved son and seeing him alive proved to be so significant to him that he felt he could die in peace. (46:28-30)

Joseph told his brothers and the rest of his father’s household that he would inform Pharaoh that they had arrived from the land of Canaan and that they had brought their flocks and herds, for the occupation of the men had been that of shepherds and herders. He also requested that this is what they should tell Pharaoh when asked about their occupation. This would make it possible for them to live separately from the Egyptians as an entire household, safeguarding them against losing their identity as a distinct people. If they had been scattered throughout Egypt, they could easily, through intermarriage with the native population, ceased to be the people for whom the land of Canaan had been reserved as their inheritance. Wisely, therefore, Joseph chose to have the men of the household of Jacob mention their occupation as one the Egyptians regarded as abhorrent. The Genesis account does not reveal the basis for the Egyptian prejudice. Targum Jonathan indicates that the Egyptians did not eat with the Hebrews because what was abominable to them was that the Hebrews ate animals which the Egyptians revered. (46:31-34; see also Exodus 8:22, 23.) Josephus wrote (Antiquities, II, vii, 5) that the “Egyptians are prohibited to meddle with feeding sheep.”

Notes

At the time Judah arrived in Egypt with the household of Jacob, he may have been about 42 years old. The twin boys Perez and Zerah were offspring by Tamar after the death of Er and Onan who were old enough to father children. Therefore, it is questionable that the grandsons of Judah, Hezron and Hamul, were born in Canaan. (46:12) They may be considered as coming to Egypt with Jacob because of having been born before he died about 17 years later. (47:28)

In verse 20, the Septuagint adds the offspring of Manasse (Manasseh) and Ephraim. By his Syrian concubine, Manasseh had a son named Machir who became the father of Galaad (Gilead). (See Numbers 26:29(33); 1 Chronicles 7:14.) His brother Ephraim’s sons were Soutalaam (Southalaam), Soutala, or Sothala (Shuthelah) and Taam or Thaath (Tahan or Tahath), and Soutalaam had a son named Edem (Eran). (See Numbers 26:35(39), 36(40); 1 Chronicles 7:20, where the Greek spellings of the names differ from those found in Genesis 46:20.)

In verse 21, the first three names are Bela, Becher, and Ashbel (Bala, Chobor, and Asbel [LXX]), and neither Numbers 26:38(42) or Chronicles 8:1 list Becher or Chobor (LXX) as the second one of Benjamin’s sons. The Septuagint reading of verse 21 contains some of the names found at Numbers 26:38(42) and 1 Chronicles 8:1-3, but there is no corroboration that only three were sons of Benjamin. According to verses 1 and 2 of 1 Chronicles chapter 8, five (not three) were the sons of Benjamin — Bela, Ashbel, Aharah, Nohah, and Rapha (Bale, Asbel, Aara, Noa, and Raphe [LXX]). Verses 3 through 5 then identify Addar, Gera, Abihud, Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, Gera, Shephuphan, and Huram (Ader, Gera, Abioud, Abisoue, Nooma, Achia, Gera, Sopharphak, and Hoim [LXX]) as sons of Bela (Bale [LXX]). Numbers 26:38-40 (26:42-44, LXX) lists five sons for Benjamin (Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shephupham, and Hupham (Bale, Asyber, Achiran, and Sophan [LXX (four, not five)]) and two sons for Bela (Bale [LXX]) — Ard and Naaman (Adar and Noeman [LXX]) The different spellings of the names, different names, and omissions of names in the books of Numbers and 1 Chronicles make it difficult to determine how the reference in Genesis 46:21 to the “sons” of Benjamin is to be understood.

The Septuagint (in verse 22) indicates that the number of descendants of Jacob by Rachel were 18 (not 14 as in the Hebrew text). This higher number may be explained by the addition of four names from verse 20 (Machir, the son of Manasse [Manasseh], Machir’s son Galaad [Gilead], and Ephraim’s sons Soutalaam [Shuthelah] and Taam [Tahan or Tahath]). This would mean that Edem (Eran) was not counted.

In verse 27, the number 75 in the Septuagint may be based on the addition of others from Joseph’s family to the 66 members of Jacob’s household or the 70 members. The extant Septuagint text of Genesis 46:27, says that “nine souls” (not “two” as in the Hebrew text) were born to Joseph in Egypt. Adding these “nine souls” to 66 would make 75 members of the household. On the other hand, the extant Septuagint text of Genesis 46:20 includes the names of Machir, the son of Manasseh; Machir’s son Galaad (Gilead); Ephraim’s sons Soutalaam (Shuthelah) and Taam (Tahan or Tahath), and Soutalaam’s son Edem. When these three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph are added to the 70, the number comes to 75 members for the household of Jacob.

Chapter 47

Joseph reported to Pharaoh that his father and brothers, with their flocks, herds, and all other possessions, had arrived from Canaan and were then in the land of Goshen (Gesem [LXX], possibly a region in the eastern part of the Nile Delta). The Genesis account does not mention the names of the “five brothers” that Joseph chose to introduce to Pharaoh, but Targum Jonathan says that they were Zebulon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. When asked about their occupation, the brothers answered Pharaoh as Joseph had instructed them. They identified themselves as shepherds just as their forefathers had been and stated that they had come to Egypt on account of finding no pasture for their animals in Canaan and because of the severe famine there. The brothers asked that they be granted permission to stay in Goshen. (47:1-4)

Pharaoh agreed to their request, telling Joseph to settle his father and his brothers in Goshen, in the best part of the land. He also offered any capable men among Joseph’s brothers the oversight of the livestock belonging to him. (47:5, 6)

Joseph introduced his father to Pharaoh, and his father “blessed” Pharaoh or expressed his well wishes when greeting him. Asked about his age, Jacob replied to Pharaoh that it was 130 but that he had not as yet reached the age of his forebears. His comments about his life reflected great sadness, for he said, “Few and evil [distressing] have been the days of the years of my life.” This response is understandable, considering that the 20 years of service for Laban proved to be trialsome to him (31:38-42) and that for some 22 years he grieved over the loss of his beloved son Joseph, having been led to believe that he had been killed and devoured by a beast of prey. After he again “blessed” Pharaoh or expressed his well wishes as his parting words, Jacob left. (47:7-10)

As Pharaoh had commanded, Joseph settled his father and his brothers in the best part of the land, in the land of Rameses (possibly another name for Goshen or a distinct region in Goshen). Josephus (Antiquities, II, vii, 6) identified the residence of Jacob as coming to be Heliopolis (a site on the east bank of the Nile and close to the location where the waters of the river divide to start forming the Nile Delta). During the remaining five years of famine, Joseph supplied his father, his brothers, and all the rest of Jacob’s household with “bread” or food (“according to little ones” [or down to the number of little ones or dependents]; “according to bodies” [LXX) or in proportion to the number of persons). (47:11, 12)

The severe famine condition continued in Egypt and in Canaan, requiring all those affected to purchase grain from the stored-up supplies under the control of Joseph. He apparently deposited all the silver received in payment for the grain in the “house” or treasury of Pharaoh. After the Egyptians had no more silver to purchase grain, Joseph arranged for them to exchange their domestic animals (horses, sheep, goats, cattle, and donkeys) for grain. In the following year, the Egyptians had no more silver nor domestic animals to be used for obtaining grain. They proposed that they along with their land be purchased so that they could have food and not die from famine. “Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh” and settled the people in cities, probably to make it easier to distribute the needed grain to them. According to another reading of the Hebrew text, he made the Egyptians slaves, and this is the significance of the Septuagint reading. Joseph did not buy the land of the priests, but they received an allotment, evidently of grain, from Pharaoh, making it unnecessary for them to sell land in exchange for food. (47:13-22)

If the reference to moving Egyptians into cities reflects the original Hebrew text, it appears that this was a temporary arrangement. After telling the Egyptians that he had purchased them and their land for Pharaoh, he gave them seed for sowing. Likely, therefore, they would have returned to the land they had sold and to their houses. The arrangement that Joseph instituted for them was that a fifth of the yield would be for Pharaoh and the remaining four-fifths would be for them, their households, and their little ones or dependents. They are quoted as saying to Joseph, “You have saved our lives. May we find favor in the eyes of my [our (LXX)] lord, and we will be slaves to Pharaoh.” In a number of translations, these words are rendered in ways that convey different meanings. “You have saved our lives! We are grateful to my lord, and we shall be serfs to Pharaoh.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “‘You have saved our lives!’ they answered. ‘We have found favor with my lord; now we will be Pharaoh’s slaves.’” (NAB, revised edition) “‘You have saved our lives,’ the people said. ‘If it please your lordship, we shall be Pharaoh’s slaves.’” (REB) Joseph thereafter made it the law in Egypt that a fifth of the produce of the land would be turned over to Pharaoh. The priests, however, maintained ownership of their land. (47:23-26)

Josephus (Antiquities, II, vii, 7) describes what Joseph did in a way that differs from the extant Hebrew text and the rendering of the Septuagint. After the famine ended and the Nile flooded, providing ample water for irrigation and making the land productive, Joseph went to the cities and gave back the land to the people, the land “which by their own consent the king might have possessed alone.” “He also exhorted them to look on it as every one’s own possession,” to cheerfully pursue their agricultural labors, and “to pay, as a tribute to the king, the fifth part of the fruits for the land which the king, when it was his own, restored to them.” The Egyptians “rejoiced upon their becoming unexpectedly owners of their lands.” “By this means Joseph procured to himself a greater authority among the Egyptians and greater love to the king from them.”

The members of Jacob’s household continued to reside in Goshen and increased in number. Jacob lived there for 17 years, attaining the age of 147. Before his death at that age, he asked Joseph to come to him and then requested that he not be buried in Egypt but to be taken to Canaan for burial in the burial place of his forebears (the cave in the field of Machpelah in the vicinity of Hebron [50:13]). Jacob had Joseph swear that he would do this, placing his hand under his father’s thigh or hip. This may have signified that Joseph, in full submission to his father’s request, would fulfill his sworn oath. The Hebrew word for “thigh” or “hip” (yarék) may also be used euphemistically to apply to the generative organ. According to Targum Jonathan, Jacob said to Joseph, “If now I have found favor before you, put your hand on the place of my circumcision, and deal with me in goodness and truth, that you will not bury me in Mizraim [Egypt].” The circumcision was a sign of the covenant that included the divine promise regarding the continuance of the family line of Abraham and also the promise that his descendants would receive the land of Canaan as their inheritance. Viewed in this light, Joseph would have sworn that he would faithfully do his part in sharing in the fulfillment of everything that the covenant of circumcision required. (47:27-31)

After Joseph swore to carry out his request, Israel (Jacob) bowed upon or at the “head of his bed.” Possibly because he was exhausted from speaking to his son, he bowed at the head of his bed before lying down. A number of translations render the words to indicate that Jacob bowed in an act of worship. “Jacob bowed down and prayed at the head of his bed.” (CEV) “Israel bowed in worship by the head of his bed.” (REB) “Jacob gave thanks there on his bed.” (TEV) According to the Septuagint rendering, he appears to have supported himself on his staff and then, as he tired, bowed on top of his staff. (47:31)

Chapter 48

When news reached him that his father was ill, Joseph, with his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim, went to see him. Upon being told that Joseph had arrived, “Israel” (Jacob) gathered all his strength and sat up in bed. Jacob then related what God Almighty had revealed to him at Luz [Louza (LXX), the earlier name of the place Jacob called “Bethel” (28:11-19). He mentioned that God had blessed him and had said to him: “I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a crowd of peoples and will give this land [Canaan] to your seed [descendants] after you for a possession to limitless time.” (48:1-4)

Apparently so that Joseph would share in a double portion of that inheritance in the land of Canaan as the one who would be considered his firsborn son, Jacob declared Ephraim and Manasseh to be his own sons just his first two sons Reuben and Simeon were his own. Accordingly, Ephraim and Manasseh would each have an inheritance in Canaan. Any sons of Joseph would be his own, and they would be called “by the name of their brothers” in their share of the inheritance. This would mean that their tribal territory in the land of Canaan would be under the name of Ephraim and Manasseh or that they would be considered like direct descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh. (48:5, 6)

It appears that, because Joseph was the son of his beloved wife Rachel, Jacob recalled the sorrow her death brought him, saying to him: “And when I came from Paddan [Mesopotamia of Syria [LXX]) Rachel died to me in the land of Canaan on the way” to Ephrath “when there was still some distance to go” there “and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem.” Jacob’s choosing to adopt Ephraim and Manasseh also seems to have been the manner in which he considered honoring the memory of Rachel. The two sons of Joseph were born before the beginning of the years of famine. (41:50) Therefore, at this time, Ephraim could have been over 20 years of age and Manasseh could have been a year or two older. (48:7)

After vision-impaired “Israel” (Jacob) asked who the ones with Joseph were, Joseph identified them as the sons whom God had given him. Jacob asked Joseph to bring them near to him and he then kissed them and embraced them. As he had for years believed that Joseph was dead, he never thought that he would see his beloved son again, and he was grateful to God for letting him see Joseph’s children. The sons of Joseph appear to have been positioned at Jacob’s knees, and Joseph had them step back. According to the Hebrew text, he then bowed before his father, with his face to the floor (literally, the earth or the ground). The Septuagint, however, indicates that the two sons were the ones who bowed down. (48:8-12)

For his father to bless his sons, Joseph positioned the younger son Ephraim to his father’s left and the older son Manasseh to his father's right. “Israel” (Jacob) crossed his arms, placing his right hand on the head of Ephraim and his left hand on the head of Manasseh. The Masoretic Text refers to his blessing Joseph. Possibly this is to be understood as Jacob’s doing so by blessing Joseph’s two sons, for Joseph is not mentioned in the quoted words of the blessing. According to the Septuagint rendering, Jacob blessed the sons. His words of blessing were: “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked [or conducted themselves aright], the God who has sheperded me continually [from youth (LXX)] to this day, the angel [or messenger] who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. In them, may my name and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac be called [be perpetuated or live on]. And may they grow into a multitude in the midst of the land.” (48:13-16)

It displeased Joseph that his father laid his right hand on Ephraim and his left hand on Manasseh, and he tried to change the position of his father's hands, telling him that he should be putting his right hand on the firstborn’s head. His father refused to change the position of his hands, acknowledged that he knew who the firstborn was, and indicated to Joseph the the older son would become a people but that the younger brother would gain the ascendancy and that his “seed” or descendants would become a multitude of nations.” Ephraim’s becoming a “multitude of nations” may be understood to mean that the number of his descendants would be great enough to form separate nations. Historically, it proved to be that the tribe of Ephraim became greater than the tribe of Manasseh. Joshua of the tribe of Ephraim became the successor of Moses, brought the nation into the Promised Land, and served as the commander of the warriors who conquered the land. In later years, when two separate kingdoms came to exist among the Israelites, the first king (Jeroboam) of the ten-tribe kingdom was from the tribe of Ephraim. In subsequent years, the tribe of Ephraim continued to be the dominant tribe in the realm. Jacob revealed that, by the two sons of Joseph or by reference to them by name, Israel or Jacob’s descendants as a nation would pronounce blessings, saying, “God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh.” In his expressions of blessing, Jacob continued to mention Ephraim before Manasseh. (48:17-20)

Jacob recognized that he was about to die but maintained his faith in God’s promise that his descendants would return to the land of Canaan, saying to Joseph, “God will be with you and will bring you again to the land of your fathers” (Abraham and Isaac). To Joseph, Jacob promised to give the double portion that was the usual share of the inheritance that the firstborn son received. The wording of the Hebrew text could be translated, “I have given to you one shoulder [or one mountain slope] more than to your brothers, which [portion] I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and with my bow.” According to the Septuagint, Jacob said, “But I give you Sikima [Shechem] as a special [portion] above your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Ammorites [Amorites] with my sword and bow.” (48:21, 22)

The Hebrew word shekhem, depending on the context, can mean “shoulder,” “mountain slope,” or the city named Shechem. At the time, the tribes of Israel received their inheritance, the city of Shechem came to be in the territory of Ephraim, and it was there that the bones of Joseph were buried after the Israelites entered the land of Canaan. (Joshua 24:32) Jacob’s sons Simeon and Levi killed the men of Shechem in revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah, and he disapproved of their violent act. Therefore, it does not appear that Jacob would have linked his seizure with the rash action of his sons. It is more likely that Jacob spoke prophetically of the conquest of the area as if it already had been accomplished but which actually occurred much later when his descendants had become a nation and entered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua of the tribe of Ephraim. Accordingly, through the sword and the bow wielded by his descendants, Jacob could prophetically speak of it as having been done by him. Just as giving of the land to Joseph did not actually take place until long after the deaths of both Jacob and Joseph, so also the conquest by means of the sword and the bow may be considered as a later development. It was certain to happen and could, for this reason, be spoken of as having already taken place. (48:22)

Chapter 49

Aware that he would soon die, Jacob called all of his sons to him, informing them what would develop among them in the future. His parting words to them pointed forward to the time when their descendants would be living in the Promised Land. (49:1, 2) In his Antiquities, (II, viii, 1), Josephus commented that Jacob did not die until “he had foretold to [his sons] prophetically how every one of them was to dwell in the land of Canaan. But this happened many years afterward.”

Reuben, as Jacob’s firstborn, was the son of his then-existing might or vigor, the “firstfruits” of his procreative strength (“beginning of [his] children” [LXX]), foremost in dignity and foremost in might” (or in a highly respected position). Among the sons of Jacob, he should have been a man occupying the highest rank in the family and a man of preeminent honor, but he failed. Targum Jonathan represents Reuben’s dignity and might as what he should have had. Jacob is quoted as saying, “To you belonged the birthright, and the high priesthood, and the kingdom.” Years earlier Reuben had demonstrated himself to be like uncontrollable water that wreaks destruction. He defiled his father’s bed, violating his concubine Bilhah. Therefore, he (or his descendants) would not excel or have a position of leadership among his brothers or the descendants of his brothers. On account of his serious sin against his father, Reuben, as expressed in Targum Jonathan, lost out. The birthright was given to Joseph, the high priesthood to Levi, and the kingdom to Judah. In the Septuagint, more of the words of Jacob place Reuben in a negative light. Jacob referred to him as “hard to bear” and as “hard, self-willed” or stubborn. In connection with his being like water that uncontrollably breaks out, Reuben was told, “Do not boil over.” (49:3, 4)

Jacob censured the two brothers Simeon and Levi for their use of “implements of violence, their weapons” (or their plans). He (literally, his “soul”) did not desire to share with them in their council as they schemed to use violent means to obtain their objectives. Jacob did not want his dignity or honor to be joined to their company, refusing to support or condone their ruthless acts. According to the Septuagint, he did not want his “inward parts” (or inmost feelings and intentions) to be attached to their company. Apparently alluding to what they did to the men of Shechem and, in fact, to the people of the town, Jacob said that they killed men in their anger and, in their wantonness, hamstrung cattle (a “bull” [LXX]), crippling the animals. (Genesis 34:24-31) He cursed their fierce anger that had expressed itself in cruelty. To prevent any future cooperation between their descendants in violent actions, Jacob concluded, “I will divide them in Jacob (the people of Israel as a whole) and scatter them in Israel (among the people of Israel and in the land that they would occupy). The descendants of Levi received no distinct land inheritance in Canaan but were assigned 48 cities and surrounding pasture areas in the territory of the other tribes (Numbers 35:1-8), and the descendants of Simeon had territory within the portion of land assigned to the tribe of Judah. (Joshua 19:1-9) This arrangement fulfilled Jacob’s prophetic words. (49:5-7; see the Notes section.)

His brothers would praise Judah, and his “hand” would be “on the neck of [his] enemies.” They, his father’s sons, would bow down to him. (49:8) In his own life, Judah demonstrated the capacity for leadership. He persuaded his brothers, probably especially Simeon and Levi, not to kill Joseph. (37:26, 27) Years later, he demonstrated deep concern for his father, pleading for the freedom of his half brother Benjamin and requesting that he be made a slave in his stead. (44:18-34) When the descendants of Jacob, the Israelites, finally left Egypt and were on their way to the Promised Land, the tribe of Judah, under the leadership of Nahshon, was divinely designated to lead the way through the wilderness. (Numbers 2:3; 10:13, 14) Of the twelve men who were sent to spy out the land of Canaan, Caleb of the tribe of Judah and Joshua of the tribe of Ephraim were the only ones who proved themselves faithful, and Caleb participated in the conquest of the land assigned to the tribe of Judah. (Joshua 14:6-15) It was particularly after David became king that all the descendants of Judah’s brothers praised him and bowed down to him as their ruler. In the person of the king in the tribe of Judah who ruled the entire nation, Judah could be praised for the just administration of affairs and for maintaining national security. Also during David’s reign, the “hand” or power of Judah was on the back of enemy nations (Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Amalekites, and Syrians), for they were defeated or subdued, and the boundaries of the nation were extended to their God-ordained limits. (2 Samuel 5:1-10, 17-25; 8:1-15; 12:29-31) Targum Jonathan, Targum Neofiti, and the Jerusalem Targum refer to the prominence that would be assigned to Judah. The “brothers” of Judah or their descendants would take on the name Judah, for they would be called Jews.

Jacob likened Judah to a lion cub, possibly alluding to the early evidence of boldness or courage in a display of leadership. Comparable to a mature lion, Judah, especially in the person of the king, went up from the prey, ascending victoriously to the height of the capital city Jerusalem. As a lion that crouched, as a lion that was lying down, Judah would enjoy peaceful rest. Who would dare to rouse Judah or provoke the tribe of Judah and the Judean king of the nation to battle? (49:9; see the Notes section.) Targum Jonathan refers to Judah as dwelling quietly and in strength like a lion and like an old lion in repose. The Jerusalem Targum says that Judah, like the lion and the lioness, remains “tranquil in the midst of war.”

From Judah, the “scepter shall not depart and the ruler’s staff from between his feet until Shiloh [he whose it is or to whom it belongs] comes and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” The scepter was the symbol of royal authority, and it came into possession of the tribe of Judah when David was anointed as king. When seated, a monarch’s staff would be positioned between his legs that were covered by his robe and thus the staff would be between his feet. While scepter and ruler’s staff are parallel expressions, there may be a different significance. The staff could be representative of the authority to issue commands or decrees. Targum Jonathan, the Jerusalem Targum, and Targum Neofiti seem to represent the ruler’s staff as denoting scribes who teach the law. God’s covenant with David assured that kingship, including royal authority and power to command, would remain in his line and, therefore, in the tribe of Judah. (2 Samuel 7:16) From very ancient times, Shiloh or the one to whom the royal authority would come to belong has been identified as being the Messiah or Christ. (49:10; see the Notes section.) This identification is found in Targum Jonathan, the Jerusalem Targum, Targum Neofiti, and Targum Onkelos.

The future king, Messiah or Christ, would bind “his colt to a vine, and to a choice vine his female donkey’s offspring.” He would “wash his clothing in wine, and his garment in the blood [juice] of grapes.” Possibly the allusion here is to extensive viticulture. To transport the harvested grapes, donkeys could have been used as beasts of burden, and the grape gatherers may have initially tied them to the thick trunk of the vines. Those treading the grapes to obtain the juice from which the wine would be produced would stain their garments, and so poetically it could be said that the clothing would be washed in the blood or juice of grapes. Perhaps the reference to the colt, rather than to a horse used in warfare, may point to the peaceful aspect of Messiah’s rule, and the garment washed in the blood of grapes could suggest that the harvest would prove to be as abundant as water that would normally be used for washing. (49:11) Targum Jonathan makes the application to the King, the Messiah, who would come from the house of Judah. “He has girded his loins, and descended, and arrayed the battle against his adversaries, slaying kings with their rulers; neither is there any king or ruler who shall stand before him. The mountains become red with the blood of their slain. His garments, dipped in blood, are like the pressed-out juice of grapes.” Targum Onkelos conveys a different meaning. “Of goodly purple will be his clothing, and his garment of crimson wool with colors [or wool dyed red with colors]. His mountains shall be red with his vineyards, and his hills be dripping with wine.”

With apparent reference to the future king, Jacob is quoted as saying, “His eyes red from wine and his teeth white from milk.” Possibly the meaning is that the eyes had taken on a glow or sparkle, and the teeth appeared as if milk had whitened them. The Septuagint says that his “eyes are cheered from wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk.” (49:12) Continuing with the application to the Messiah, Targum Jonathan says, “How beautiful are the eyes of the king Meshiha [Messiah], as the pure wine! He cannot look upon what is unclean, nor on the shedding of the blood of the innocent; and his teeth, purer than milk, cannot eat that which is stolen or torn.” “Therefore, his mountains are red with wine, and his hills white with grain and with the cotes of flocks.” The Jerusalem Targum refers to his teeth as being used “according to the precept rather than in eating of the things of violence and rapine.” Its wording thereafter is similar to that of Targum Jonathan.“His mountains shall be red with vines, and his presses with his wine, and his hills be white with much grain and with flocks of sheep.”

In a literal sense, the poetic description of where Zebulun or his descendants would reside does not exactly match the specific boundaries of the territory that was assigned to the tribe of Zebulun. The words, however, may be understood in a relative sense. For the boundary to be at or toward Sidon could indicate that the location of the territory would be in the northern part of Canaan. Although no part of it bordered the seashore, the territory was not far from the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee. Therefore, circumstances existed for the descendants of Zebulun to have ships anchored at the sea and to engage in commercial activity. (49:13)

The extant Hebrew text likens Issachar to a “strong donkey” (literally, bony donkey). There is uncertainty about where this “donkey” is said to lie down or stretch out. Two possible definitions provided in lexicons are “sheepfolds” and “ash heaps.” A number of modern translations contain other conjectural renderings. “Issachar is a rawboned donkey, crouching between the saddlebags.” (NAB, revised edition) “Issachar, a gelded donkey lying down in the cattle pens.” (REB) “Issachar, you are a strong donkey resting in the meadows.” (CEV) The basic meaning seems to be that Issachar, like a donkey, had the capacity to bear burdens and also enjoyed rest from labors. In the Septuagint, a different thought is expressed. It says, “Issachar longed for good, resting between the inheritances.” (49:14)

Issachar (or the tribe descended from him) is depicted as seeing that his resting place was good and that the land was pleasant. So he bent his shoulder to bear the burden and toiled as an enslaved man. The wording appears to point to the productive soil in the territory of the tribe of Issachar, and the agricultural labors members of the tribe would perform. According to the Septuagint, Issachar would be a man who cultivates the ground. (49:15) The targums convey very different meanings. Targum Neofiti says that Issachar “bent his shoulders for the study of the law and to him all his brothers brought tribute.” Targum Jonathan refers to Issachar as a “donkey in the law; a strong tribe, knowing the order of the times; and he lies down between the limits of his brothers.” This targum continues, “And he saw the rest of the world to come that it is good, and the portion of the land of Israel that it is pleasant. Therefore, he bowed his shoulders to labor in the law, and to him his brothers shall come, bearing presents.” Targum Onkelos says of Issachar that he is “rich in substance” and would “have his heritage between the boundaries. He, seeing his portion as being good and the land as fat or fruitful, would “subdue the provinces of the people and disperse their inhabitants, and they who remain of them [would] become servants to him and bringers of tribute.”

Dan, as one of the tribes of Israel, would fill the role as judge or deliverer and is likened to a serpent that bites the heel of a horse, causing the rider to fall backwards. Samson was a man from the tribe of Dan, and he proved to be like a venomous serpent to the Philistines. (49:16, 17; see Judges 13:2―16:31.) Targum Onkelos, Targum Jonathan, the Jerusalem Targum, and Targum Neofiti point to the fulfillment in the person of Samson. Targum Onkelos says: “From the house of Dan will be chosen and will arise a man in whose days his people shall be delivered, and in whose years the tribes of Israel have rest together. A chosen man will arise from the house of Dan, the terror of whom shall fall upon the peoples.” He “will smite the Philistines with strength. As the serpent, the deadly serpent, lurking by the way, he will slay the mighty of the Philistines’ host, the horsemen with the foot; he will weaken (loosen) the horses and chariots, and throw their riders backward.” The other targums are specific in identifying this man as Samson, son of Manoah.

Jacob is quoted as concluding with the words, “For your salvation [or deliverance] I wait, O YHWH.” (49:18) Targum Jonathan expands on this expression of faith. It refers to the salvation or deliverance of Gideon and that of Samson as being the “salvation [or deliverance] of an hour,” and then adds, “But for your salvation I have waited and will look for, O Yy [Yeya (YHWH)]; for your salvation is the salvation of eternity.”

Gad (or his offspring) would be subject to raiders, but he would raid them at their heels. The territory of the tribe of Dan was located on the east side of the Jordan River and was exposed to raiders on their easternmost boundary. Nevertheless, with valiant warriors in their midst, they were able to launch a counterattack on raiders, putting them to flight and raiding them “at their heels.” (49:19) Men from the tribe of Gad who joined David while he was being pursued by King Saul are described as “valiant men, fighters fit for battle, armed with shield and spear; they had the appearance of lions, and were as swift as gazelles upon the mountains.” (1 Chronicles 12:9 [Tanakh (JPS, 1985 edition)])

The territory that came to be occupied by the descendants of Asher contained some of the most fertile soil in the land of Canaan. This aspect is evident from the words Jacob is quoted as saying about Asher. His “bread” or food would be “fat,” rich, or abundant, and the yield from the land would include dainties fit for royalty. (49:20) The Jerusalem Targum expresses the thought as follows: “Of happy Asher, how fertile is the land! With dainties, his land will satisfy the kings of the sons of Israel.”

Naphtali is likened to a hind that is set loose and is described as one “giving beautiful utterances” or expressing himself eloquently. In the Jerusalem Targum, Naphtali is represented as a “swift messenger declaring good tidings.” This targum concludes with the words, “And when he opens his mouth in the congregation of Jacob [Israel], his tongue is sweet as honey.” Targum Onkelos conveys a completely different thought. “In a good land will the lot of Naphtali be cast, and his inheritance will be fruitful. Over them will they give praise and benediction.” The Septuagint rendering also differs from the extant Hebrew text. It refers to Naphtali as “a stump [trunk or stem] springing up, yielding [literally, giving] beauty in the offspring [possibly, twigs, branches, or fruit].” Modern translations often render the Hebrew text according to an emendation (“fawns” instead of “words”), and certain renderings bear some resemblance to that of the Septuagint. “Naphtali is a hind let loose,which yields lovely fawns.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Naphtali is a spreading terebinth putting forth lovely boughs. (REB) The basic meaning appears to be that, in bearing (like a lovely hind) and in speech, descendants of Naphtali would be deserving of commendation. (49:21)

Joseph is designated as a “fruit-bearing son [or plant], a fruit-bearing [paráh] son [or plant] by a spring,” the branches (literally, “daughters”) thereof “run over a wall.” Targum Onkelos interprets this to mean that Joseph would “increase and be blessed like a vine planted by a fountain of waters.” The Septuagint reading differs from the extant Hebrew text. It refers to Ioseph (Joseph) as a “grown son, a grown son, envied, my youngest son.” The Septuagint then adds, “Return to me.” Targum Neofiti somewhat parallels part of the wording of the Septuagint. “My son, you who have grown; Joseph, my son, you who have grown and become mighty, again you are destined to become mighty. I compare you, my son, Joseph, to a vine planted by springs of water that sends its roots into the ground and breaks the teeth of all the rocks and sends its branches high and overshadows all the trees.” The same basic meaning is conveyed in Targum Jonathan and in the Jerusalem Targum. Based on different vowel pointing, a number of modern translations have rendered the Hebrew term that may be rendered “fruit-bearing” or “fruitful”as “wild donkey [péreh].” “Joseph is like a wild donkey by a spring, a wild colt on a hillside.” (TEV) “Joseph is a wild ass, a wild ass by a spring — wild colts on a hillside.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “Joseph is a wild colt, a wild colt by a spring, wild colts on a hillside.” (NAB, revised edition) These renderings do not seem to fit the context well. It appears preferable to regard the verse as indicating that Joseph’s descendants would become numerous, flourishing like a plant in a well-watered location. (49:22)

The “archers” who launched their attacks against Joseph may be regarded as his half brothers, especially Simeon and Levi. It could also be said that Potiphar’s wife, through repeated propositioning, assailed him and her false accusation against him led to his imprisonment. (49:23) Targum Onkelos is not specific in identifying those who attacked Joseph. It says, “The mighty men, the men of division, were bitter against him; they afflicted him and sorely grieved him; and his prophecy shall be fulfilled in them, because he was faithful to the law in secret and set his confidence firmly.” Targum Jonathan, the Jerusalem Targum, and Targum Neofiti make a more specific application. “All the magicians of Mizraim [Egypt] were bitter and angry against him, and brought accusations against him before Pharaoh, expecting to bring him down from his honor. They spoke against him with the slanderous tongue which is severe as arrows.” (Targum Jonathan) “The magicians of Mizraim [Egypt] and all the wise men spoke against him, but could not prevail over him. They spoke evil of him before his lord, they accused him before Pharaoh king of Mizraim [Egypt], to bring him down from his dignity. They spoke against him in the palace of Pharaoh with slanderous tongue severe as arrows.” (Jerusalem Targum) “They spoke against him, but all the magicians of Egypt and their wise men were no match for him. They spoke evil before their master and they informed against him before Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, in order to put him down from his office and to bring him from his throne of kingship. They spoke calumnious language against him in the palace of Pharaoh, which was more harassing for him than arrows.” (Targum Neofiti) Although Josephus is not specific in his Antiquities (II, viii, 1), he seems to have understood the attack to have come from Joseph’s brothers. “[Jacob] enlarged upon the praises of Joseph; how he had not remembered the evil doings of his brothers to their disadvantage; … on the contrary, was kind to them, bestowing upon them so many benefits as seldom are bestowed on men’s own benefactors.”

The attacks directed at Joseph were comparable to a multitude of arrows aimed against him, but they did not destroy him. He remained secure as if in possession of a taut (literally, “firm” or “enduring”) bow and agile arms (literally, “arms of hands”) able to expertly handle the bow. His secure position came from the “hands [or power] of the Mighty One of Jacob, by the name of [from there (LXX)] the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel [the one strengthening Israel (LXX)].” The Almighty God was the only God whom Joseph’s father Jacob revered. He was a Shepherd for Joseph, guiding and caring for him, and a “Rock,” providing support. If the expression “by the name of” is to be understood as denoting “from there” (as in the Septuagint), Joseph could be spoken of as a shepherd and rock of Israel by being divinely provided as such. He supplied all the members of Jacob’s household with all they needed to sustain them during the time of famine and so functioned like a shepherd who cared well for the flock. Joseph also proved himself to be like a dependable support or “rock of Israel” for the offspring of Israel (the descendants of his father Jacob). The Septuagint rendering could indicate that Joseph was the one who strengthened all those belonging to Israel or Jacob with the help of his father’s God, providing them with everything they needed for their well-being. Joseph triumphed by mercy, kindness, uprightness and wisdom because God was with him. The God of his father Jacob helped him. (49:22-25) Targum Jonathan says that Joseph “returned to abide in his early strength, and would not yield himself to sin, and subdued his inclinations by the strong discipline he had received from Jacob.”

The Septuagint does not link Joseph to the bow. After indicating that Joseph was reviled and that masters of archery assailed him, the Septuagint says regarding the attackers, “Their bows were broken with force, and the sinews of the arms of their hands were enfeebled because of the hand of the Powerful One of Iakob [Jacob].” With forceful action from the Almighty God directed against them, the attackers were rendered powerless. (49:24, LXX)

For Joseph, blessings would come from the Almighty God. The blessings from heaven would be bestowed in the form of needed rain for crops to flourish. There would also be the blessings from water below the ground, gushing up as springs and filling wells to supply people and domestic animals with water to drink. Blessings of the breasts and of the womb assured that Joseph would have many descendants. (49:25)

The Hebrew text of the concluding words of Jacob to Joseph could be literally rendered, “Blessings of your father are stronger beyond blessings of eternal mountains, the bounties of age-old hills. May they be on the head of Joseph and on the crown of one separate from his brothers [or a prince among his brothers].” This could mean that the blessings are far grander than everything that adorns mountains and hills — forests, vegetation, and crops. In view of his exemplary conduct, the blessings should rightly be bestowed on Joseph. The Septuagint refers to the blessing of Joseph’s father and of his mother and indicates that this blessing proved to be superior in strength to that of “stable mountains” and beyond that of “age-old hills” (or dunes). It then concludes with the words, “They [the blessings] shall be on the head of Ioseph [Joseph] and on the crown of the brothers whom he has led.” (49:26) Targum Neofiti interprets the aspect about blessings as follows: “May the blessings of your father be added to you, upon the blessings with which my fathers Abraham and Isaac blessed me, which the lords of the world, Ishmael and Esau longed for from the beginning. Let all these blessings come. Let them become a crown of dignity on the head of Joseph, and on the brow of the pious man who was master and ruler over the land of Egypt and paid attention the honor of his father and the honor of his brothers.”

Benjamin is likened to a wolf. In the early part of the history of the nation, which could be compared to the morning, the tribe of Benjamin provided Saul as the first king. He and his son Jonathan gained decisive victories over enemy peoples. (2 Samuel 1:22-24) In what might be likened to the evening time, Mordecai and Esther of the tribe of Benjamin filled a significant role in protecting the Jews from those who were determined to destroy them and demonstrated themselves to be like a wolf dividing booty. (Esther 2:5-7; 7:2-10; 8:3-17) In the Septuagint, Beniamin (Benjamin) is liked to a rapacious wolf that would still be devouring prey in the early morning and distributing provisions in the evening. (49:27)

After having blessed his twelve sons, Jacob indicated to them that he would be gathered to his people or join them in the realm of the dead. He then asked to be buried in the cave located in the field that Abraham had bought for a burial site and where he, his wife Sarah, Isaac and his wife Rebekah were buried. It was also in that cave where Jacob buried his wife Leah. The field itself was located at Machpelah, near Mamre (a site close to Hebron) in the land of Canaan. At the time Jacob spoke to his sons, he appears to have gathered his strength and sat up on his bed. Thereafter “he drew up his feet on to the bed, and breathed his last, and was gathered to his people.” (49:28-33)

Notes

There is uncertainty about the meaning of the plural Hebrew word rendered “weapons” in verse 5. It is translated bellantia (“war-waging” in the Vulgate). The Septuagint rendering may be understood to indicate that Simeon and Levi carried out injustice on the basis of their self-determination.

In verse 9, the Septuagint rendering differs somewhat from the reading of the extant Hebrew text. “A lion cub [is] Iouda” [Judah]. From a shoot, you my son, ascended. Lying down, you slept like a lion.”

The rendering of verse 10 in the Septuagint, although pointing to a future ruler, contains wording that differs from the extant Hebrew text. “A ruler will not be missing from Iouda [Judah] and a leader from his loins until whenever the things reserved for him shall come. And he [is] the expectation of nations.”

Chapter 50

Upon the death of his father, Joseph flung himself upon his face, wept over him, and kissed him. He directed the servants skilled in embalming to prepare his father’s body for burial. At the time, the required period for embalming was 40 days. For 70 days, the Egyptians wept for Jacob, probably on account of the high position his son Joseph occupied. (50:1-3) Writing in the fifth century BCE, the Greek historian Herodotus (Book II of his Histories) mentioned the Egyptian embalming procedure as including soaking the dead body in natron for 70 days. Over the centuries, the time involved may have varied. In the first century BCE, Diodorus Siculus (Library of History, I, 91, 6) said regarding what the embalmers did: “They carefully dress the whole body for over 30 days, first with cedar oil and certain other preparations, and then with myrrh, cinnamon, and such spices as have the property not only of preserving it for a long time but also of giving it a fragrant odor.” Over the centuries, the time involved in the embalming process may have varied. If, however, the time for soaking the body in natron continued to be 70 days throughout the centuries, it could be that, in Jacob’s case, the 40-day period was followed by an additional 30 days during which his corpse lay in natron. This would also account for the reference to the 70 days of weeping.

After the days of weeping for Jacob had passed, Joseph asked members of the “house [doubtless high officials in the royal court (powerful ones [LXX])] of Pharaoh” to speak for him to Pharaoh, preceding his request with the words, “If now I have found favor in your eyes.” Probably Joseph was still attired as a mourner and so would not have been in a suitable condition to appear before Pharaoh to make his request in person. He informed the men of Pharaoh’s house or the royal court that his father had made him swear that he would bury him in the burial place he had dug for himself in the land of Canaan. Therefore, Joseph asked them to tell Pharaoh that he wanted to fulfill his father’s request, requiring permission for him to leave Egypt to bury his father. Thereafter he would return to Egypt. After being granted permission to depart to bury his father, Joseph left. Accompanying him were “all the servants of Pharaoh” (likely major officials), elders of Pharaoh’s “house” (senior members of the household or royal court), “all the elders of the land of Egypt” (doubtless the most prominent men in Egypt), all members of his own “house” or household, his brothers, and “the house [or household] of his father.” Joseph’s brothers and members of the household of his father would have had flocks and herds. It would have been these flocks and herds that were left behind in Goshen (Gesem [LXX]). Children or little ones (“kindred” [LXX]) also did not leave. It logically follows that adults would have needed to be with small children, and this makes it likely that the women remained behind, with only Joseph’s brothers and men of Jacob’s household departing for Canaan to the burial place Jacob had prepared for himself. It may well have been at the time he buried his wife Leah that he dug a burial place for himself beside her. (50:4-8; see the Notes section.)

Likely for protection along the way, horsemen and skilled warriors in chariots accompanied the impressive large company that left Egypt. Upon arriving at the “threshing floor of Atad [the bramble]” (Goren-ha-Atad [probably on the west side of the Jordan River]), the entire company gave way to great lamentation and mourned seven days for Jacob. Canaanites who witnessed this were moved to say that it was a “grievous mourning” to the Egyptians (Mitsraim [Mizraim]) and, for this reason, the site came to be called Abel-mizraim (mourning of the Egyptians). The Genesis account does not reveal why this mourning took place there, for the burial itself occurred in the vicinity of Hebron. (50:9-11)

Joseph and his brothers did everything that their father had commanded them, burying him in the cave in the field at Machpelah that Abraham had originally acquired from Ephron the Hittite to bury his wife Sarah. The field was located near Mamre (close to Hebron). (23:17) After the burial had been completed, Joseph, his brothers, and all who accompanied them returned to Egypt. (50:12-14)

It appears that Joseph’s half brothers still doubted that he had forgiven them. They feared that he would hate them, repaying them for all the evil they had done to him. This prompted them to send a message to Joseph, telling him that, before he died, their father had commanded them to say to Joseph that he should forgive their sin. They then petitioned for his forgiveness and referred to themselves as “servants of the God of [Joseph’s] father.” This moved Joseph to tears, for he bore no grudge for what his half brothers had done to him. Still plagued by a recognition of the enormity of their guilt, they prostrated themselves before Joseph and said to him, “Look, we are your servants.” Reassuringly, Joseph responded with the words, “Fear not, for am I in the place of God?” According to the Septuagint rendering, Joseph indicated that he belonged to God, suggesting that God had worked out his purpose. His next words confirm how Joseph viewed everything that had happened. Whereas his brothers had intended evil or harm, God purposed it for good so that many people would be preserved alive. By means of Joseph, God made it possible for grain to be stored during the seven years of plenty and, as a result, many people were rescued from death by starvation. Joseph reassured and comforted his half brothers, telling them not to fear and informing them that he would continue to provide for them and their households. (50:15-21)

With all the household of his father Jacob or all of his descendants, Joseph continued to live in Egypt. He died at the age of 110. How many, if not all of his brothers, continued to live after his death is not disclosed in the Genesis account. Joseph did see Ephraim’s sons or offspring “of the third generation.” As for the older son Manasseh, Joseph experienced the joy of having the sons of his grandson Machir born on his knees. This probably meant that they were placed on Joseph’s lap at the time of their birth. (50:22-23) Targum Onkelos interprets the birth on the knees to mean that Joseph brought up the sons of his grandson Machir. Targum Jonathan says that Joseph circumcised these sons.

When Joseph realized that he would soon die, he expressed his faith in God’s oath-bound promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, telling “his brothers” that God would visit (or turn his attention to) them (their descendants) and bring them out of Egypt back to the land (Canaan) that he had promised on oath to their forefathers. He then made them swear that, at that time, they would take his bones away from Egypt to the land of Canaan. After being embalmed, the corpse of Joseph was placed in a coffin. (50:24-26; see Hebrews 11:22.) Years later the descendants of Jacob fulfilled Joseph’s request. (Joshua 24:32)

Notes

Josephus wrote that Joseph’s brothers were initially unwilling to return with him to Canaan, for they feared that Joseph would punish them as their father was no longer alive. He, however, persuaded them that they had no reason to fear harm and that they needed not to be suspicious of him. (Antiquities, II, viii, 1) The Genesis account, however, refers to the brothers of Joseph as expressing their fear after they had buried their father in the land of Canaan.

In verse 10, the Hebrew word that pertains to the location of the “threshing floor of Atad” (Goren-ha-Atad) in relation to the Jordan River could be understood to refer either to the east side or to the west side. A location on the east side appears to be less likely, for it would have required traveling out of the way along the east side of the Dead Sea. Moreover, the Canaanites occupied the land west of the Jordan River, and they witnessed the mourning over Jacob. (Verse 11) There are, however, translations that specifically identify the location as being east of the Jordan River. “When they came to the threshing place at Atad east of the Jordan, they mourned loudly for a long time.” (TEV)

The name Machpelah (in verse 13) is believed to be drawn from a root word that means “double.” This explains why the Septuagint uses the expression “double cave.”

Verse 16 does not indicate through whom the message was sent to Joseph. Targum Jonathan and Targum Neofiti say Joseph’s brothers instructed Bilhah to convey the message, and the Jerusalem Targum says that it was done by the “tribe of Bilhah.

Gleanings from Exodus

“Exodus,” the name of the second book of the Pentateuch or the Torah, is derived from Greek and refers to the departure of the Israelites from Egypt under the leadership of Moses. The account in this book starts with the period of oppression in Egypt before the birth of Moses and then continues with the birth of Moses, his role in Israelite history from then onward, the ten devastating plagues that led to the Israelites being liberated from enslavement and able to leave Egypt, the destruction of Pharaoh and his forces in the Red Sea, experiences of the Israelites as they traveled in the Sinai Peninsula, their receiving the law at Mount Sinai, the establishment of the Aaronic priesthood, and the institution of an arrangement for worship centered at a tabernacle. One of the serious ways in which the Israelites failed to remain loyal to their God YHWH was involvement in the worship of the representation of a calf.

The name of the Pharaoh who was responsible for the oppression of the Israelites is not provided nor is any information recorded about who the Pharaoh was when the Israelites left Egypt. Based on what is contained in the account in Exodus, one cannot establish a specific link to what is known about ancient Egyptian history. The first extant reference to Israel is commonly considered to be on a victory stele of Pharaoh Merneptah, who is thought to have reigned from 1213 to 1203 BCE. More than a century ago, the boastful words of this ruler were translated, “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.” In more recent years, however, whether Israel is actually mentioned has been questioned and another rendering of the words that omits any mention of Israel has been proposed. This serves to illustrate the difficulty in matching Egyptian inscriptions with biblical accounts. One event from a much later time does coincide with the biblical record. This is the invasion of Pharaoh Shishak (Sheshonk I) in the fifth year of the reign of the Judean king Rehoboam. (1 Kings 14:25, 26) A relief on a temple wall at Karnak lists numerous cities of Judah and Israel that Pharaoh Sheshonk I captured.

A question that is often raised about the book of Exodus relates to the number of able-bodied men who left Egypt. Exodus 12:37 says that it was about 600,000. According to the census taken in the second year after the Exodus, the number was 603,550. (Numbers 1:1, 2, 45) This would mean that the total number of Israelites who left Egypt numbered between two and three million persons. Many have found it difficult to believe that there could have been so many people who wandered thereafter in the Sinai Peninsula. Additionally, the people brought with them much livestock — cattle, sheep, and goats.

In the book of Deuteronomy (8:15), the arid region through which the Israelites traveled is described as “the great and terrible wilderness with its seraph serpents and scorpions, a parched land with no water in it.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) A cow may drink up to thirty gallons (c. 114 liters) of water each day. This amount of water would be significantly less when there is a high moisture content in the grass on which the cow feeds. A sheep may drink up to five gallons (c. 19 liters) of available water daily, and a goat up to two or three gallons (c. 7.5 to 11 liters). Goats need three to four percent of their body weight in the form of vegetation each day. Daily, a cow will eat the equivalent of two percent of its body weight. Sheep require enough pasture to consume between two and half and three percent of their body weight each day. Anciently, far more vegetation may have flourished in the Sinai Peninsula than presently, and much more water may have been accessible. The description in the book of Deuteronomy and biblical references to oases in the arid region, however, do suggest that the wilderness had limited lush pasture and not abundant water for many thousands of domestic animals. This is additionally confirmed by the necessity of miraculous provisions of drinking water for the people.

Regarding Canaan itself, the nations residing there are said to have been “greater and mightier” or more populous and in possession of greater military strength than the Israelites. (Deuteronomy 4:38) Today in that region west of the Jordan River more than 13.5 million make their home, and that includes cities with far larger populations than existed in ancient times. It is inconceivable that there were nations with populations in the millions that resided in ancient Canaan.

After their entrance into Canaan on the west side of the Jordan River, the Israelites ceased to benefit from miraculous provisions of food. They were to live on the produce of the land in the area surrounding their encampment near Jericho. (Joshua 5:11, 12) In this encampment, there were fewer Israelites than there had been when the people first arrived on the east side of the Jordan, for the households of the men from the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh remained settled on the east side. Nevertheless, with over 600,000 able-bodied men in addition to the women and children of the men from the other tribes, the camp would have been larger than the largest refugee camp of modern times. That there would have been enough grain to be harvested in a relatively small area near Jericho to supply more than 600,000 able-bodied men besides women and children does appear questionable. Moreover, the people needed to relieve themselves outside the camp, and one must consider the distance they would have to walk to get outside a camp that accommodated so many men, women, and children. Thousands of tents would have been required to shelter the people.

In view of the aforementioned factors and others that could be mentioned, one may conclude that the numbers in the Pentateuch could have a different significance, but the question is open as to how best to explain the numbers. One conjecture is that the Hebrew word rendered “thousand” (’eleph) refers to a unit or the chieftain of a unit or clan, greatly reducing the number of people who actually left Egypt. None of the various conjectures, however, provides anything close to a definitive resolution about how the numbers in the Pentateuch are to be understood, especially since the Septuagint and Josephus agree in saying that the men who were able to serve as warriors numbered about 600,000. (Antiquities, II, ix, 3; xv, 1)

Chapter 1

The descendants of the eleven sons of Jacob (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher) who came with their households to Egypt and the descendants of Joseph (who already was there at that time) increased greatly in number after all members of the first generation in the land had died. (1:1-7; regarding the “70 souls” (“75 souls” [LXX]), see the comments on Genesis 46:26, 27, and the accompanying note.)

The “new king” who arose in Egypt may well have been a man with whom a new dynasty had its start. His not knowing Joseph may signify that he gave no recognition to Joseph and the service that he had rendered for the Egyptians. In his Antiquities, (II, ix, 1), Josephus specifically mentions that the “crown” had “come into another family.” The new ruler perceived that the sizable population of Israelites, the descendants of Jacob’s sons, posed a potential threat to the Egyptians, as he feared that, in a time of conflict, they might side with the enemies of the Egyptians. Therefore, he instituted forced labor, impressing the Israelites into hard service for building projects (the store cities of Pithom and Raamses [Pithom, Ramesse, and On, that is, Heliopolis (City of the Sun), LXX]) and agricultural operations. The oppressive measures did not prevent an increase in the Israelite population, but it did make life bitter for the people. (1:8-14)

In view of the continued increase of the Israelite population, the Egyptian ruler determined to stop it and commanded the midwives Shiphrah and Puah (Sepphora and Phoua [LXX]) to kill all baby boys immediately at birth and to preserve only the lives of the baby girls. The Hebrew text indicates that the midwives were Hebrews, as were the Israelites. Josephus, however, referred to them as “Egyptian midwives,” indicating that, as Egyptians, their greater loyalty would have been to the ruler so that they would not have been inclined to “transgress his commands.” (Antiquities, II, ix, 2) The Septuagint would allow for this understanding, for it identifies them as “midwives of the Hebrews,” which could be understood to mean that they were appointed as midwives for the Hebrews. It appears that the two midwives, likely heads of the other midwives for the Hebrew community, could not bring themselves to kill the baby boys. They had a fear of God, possibly meaning (if they were Egyptians) that they had a sense of accountability to a deity. Hebrew midwives would have had a wholesome fear or regard for their God. (Exodus 1:15-17; see the Note section.)

Pharaoh, the Egyptian ruler, demanded to know why the midwives had not killed the male babies as he had instructed them to do. They answered that the Hebrew women were not like the Egyptian women. Even before the midwives arrived to assist in the delivery, the Hebrew women had already given birth. The Israelites continued to increase in number, and the action of the midwives led to God’s blessing them, for they came to have their own families. Pharaoh determined to continue a campaign of genocide, commanding his subjects to throw every Hebrew male baby into the Nile River but to preserve the female babies. (1:18-22)

Note

Targum Jonathan mentions that the chief Egyptian magicians Jannis (Jannes) and Jambres told Pharaoh that, “by the hand” or power of a child to be born to the Israelites, all the land of Egypt would be destroyed. This prompted Pharaoh to seek the death of all the Hebrew male babies. Josephus wrote (Antiquities, II, ix, 2) that one of the sacred scribes told the king that a child would be “born to the Israelites, who, if he were reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low and would raise the Israelites,” and that this one would “excel all men in virtue and obtain a glory that would be remembered through all ages.”

Chapter 2

The Levite (“man from the house of Levi” or a descendant of Jacob’s son Levi) was Amram. He married Jochebed who also was a descendant of Levi. According to the Hebrew text of Exodus 6:20, Jochebed was the sister of Amram’s father or Amram’s aunt. This may explain the comments in Targum Jonathan. It says that, on account of the decree of Pharaoh, Amram had separated from his wife and when they were again reunited she was 130 years old. By a miracle, she returned to the years of her youth and became pregnant. In the Septuagint, however, Iochabed (Jochebed) is identified as the daughter of the brother of Amram’s father or Amram’s cousin. (2:1)

Upon giving birth to her son, Jochebed saw what a fine or beautiful baby her son was, and she hid him for three months. The Septuagint rendering indicates that both parents recognized the beauty of the baby. When circumstances made it impossible for the baby to remain concealed and thus saved from being tossed into the Nile River to perish, Jochebed constructed a waterproof “ark”or a covered basket, placed her baby in it, and positioned the container among the reeds growing along the banks of the Nile. At a distance from where the basket had been placed, Miriam (the baby’s sister), undoubtedly at her mother’s direction (as Josephus wrote specifically [Antiquities, II, ix, 4]), watched to see what would happen to her baby brother. (2:2-4) Targum Jonathan says that the baby could not be hidden any longer because the Egyptians had become aware of his existence. (See the Notes section.)

Acts 7:20 refers to the baby as “beautiful to God,” which suggests exceptional beauty and may also indicate that this exceptional beauty indicated that he would become God’s special instrument for delivering his people from Egyptian enslavement. In his Antiquities (II, ix, 6), Josephus commented on the three-year-old boy’s beauty when others saw him. They were amazed at seeing the “beauty of his countenance.” Upon seeing him carried along the road, they would turn, stop their labors, and stand still for a great while to look at him. “The beauty of the child was so remarkable and natural to him on many accounts that it detained the spectators and made them stay longer to look upon him.”

Accompanied by her female servants, the daughter of Pharaoh came to the Nile to bathe. Noticing the basket among the reeds, she sent one of her servants to get it. Upon opening it, she saw the crying baby boy and took pity on him, concluding that the infant was one of the children of the Hebrews. (2:5, 6) Josephus wrote that Pharaoh’s daughter was named Thermuthis and that she wanted to keep the infant as her own. She asked her servants to bring her a wet nurse, but the infant refused to suckle the breast of any of the women whom they brought. Miriam approached Pharaoh’s daughter but made sure not to appear as though she had been there on purpose. She is quoted as telling Pharaoh’s daughter, “It is in vain that you, O queen, call for these women to nourish the child, [women] who are in no way related to it, but still, if you would order one of the Hebrew women to be brought, perhaps it may admit the breast of one of its own nation.” (Antiquities, II, ix, 5)

Both the extant Hebrew text and the Septuagint mention that Miriam asked Pharaoh’s daughter whether she should call one of the Hebrew women to nurse the child for her. Miriam was requested to do so, and she brought her mother to Pharaoh’s daughter, who then requested that she function as the wet nurse for the infant and said that she would pay her wages for the service. (2:7-9) Josephus added that the mother was not known to anyone there and that the infant “gladly admitted [her] breast and seemed to stick close to it.” (Antiquities, II, ix, 5)

Probably when her son no longer needed to be nursed, Jochebed brought him to the daughter of Pharaoh. It was the daughter of Pharaoh who then named the child Moses, saying, “For I drew him out of the water.” The Hebrew text appears to link the name Moses to the Hebrew verb mashah (“draw out”). (2:10) This association with mashah, however, may simply be a way to express what the daughter of Pharaoh meant by the name she gave to the infant, for she would not have been a speaker of Hebrew. Josephus indicated that the name Moses is derived from two Egyptian words. He wrote that the word for water that the Egyptians used was mou, (mo), and they called persons who were saved out of water eses. (uses). Josephus then indicated that the combination of the two words was the basis for the name Moses. (Antiquities, II, ix, 6)

In ancient Egypt, women enjoyed many of the same rights as did men, including the right to adopt children. One early case involved a woman named Nau-nakht. She adopted and raised the freed children of her female servant because of the kindness they had shown to her. So there appears to have been nothing extraordinary about the daughter of Pharaoh adopting Moses as her own son. (See the Notes section regarding the comments of Josephus about what Moses did while still a small child.)

The Exodus account makes no mention of any developments in the life of Moses as a member of the household of Pharaoh until circumstances forced him to flee from Egypt. Although there is no reference to the age of Moses when he fled from Egypt, Stephen, a devoted disciple of Jesus Christ, said that Moses was 40 years old. In his defense before the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, Stephen also stated that Moses was educated in “all the wisdom of the Egyptians” and was “powerful in his words and works.” (Acts 7:22, 23) What Moses said must have reflected exceptional insight, and his accomplishments must have been significant. (See the Notes section about what was believed in the first century CE about the instruction Moses received and for an example of his impressive deeds.)

Although Moses had been primarily reared in the royal surroundings of Egypt, he did not forget his ties to his fellow Hebrews. When, on one occasion, he left the royal dwelling to see what his “brothers” or fellow descendants of his ancestor Jacob were enduring as persons subjected to bearing burdens, he witnessed an Egyptian taskmaster submitting a Hebrew to violent abuse, and came to the defense of the victim. After looking around to see that no one was in sight, Moses killed the Egyptian who had been beating the Hebrew and then hid the dead body in the sand. (2:11, 12; Acts 7:23, 24) Apparently to justify what he did, Targum Jonathan says that Moses, through the operation of the holy spirit, came to know that there would never come to be a proselyte from the line of the Egyptian abuser, and so he killed him. In his Antiquities (II, xi, 1), Josephus makes no mention of the incident but attributes the flight of Moses to plots that were directed against him. He wrote: When Moses “learned beforehand what plots there were against him, he went away privately; and because the public roads were watched, he took his flight through the deserts and where his enemies could not suspect he would travel.” (See the Notes section.)

In view of his having taken action for his people, Moses thought that they would “understand that, by his hand, God was granting them deliverance, but they did not understand [this].” (Acts 7:25) The next day their failure to recognize a divinely chosen deliverer became apparent. When Moses saw two Hebrews fighting with each other, he tried to effect a reconciliation so that they would be at peace. To the one who wronged his fellow Hebrew, Moses said, “Why do you strike your fellow?” The man responsible for the mistreatment responded angrily and dismissively, “Man, who made you prince and judge over us? Do you mean to kill me like you killed the Egyptian [yesterday (LXX)]?” Upon hearing this angry retort, Moses perceived that his killing of the Egyptian had become known. It was this development that led him to flee from Egypt. Moreover, the report about the slaying of the Egyptian reached Pharaoh, who then determined to kill Moses, prompting him to make his escape. He fled to the land of Midian (probably a region east of the Gulf of ’Aqaba in the northwestern part of Arabia.) Apparently tired from the journey, Moses seated himself by a well in the area. (2:14, 15; see the Notes section.)

While Moses was seated there, the seven daughters of Reuel (Ragouel [LXX]; Ragouelos [Josephus]), the priest of Midian, arrived to draw water from the well to water their father’s flock. The nature of Reuel’s priesthood is not disclosed in the account. Possibly his role was that of a chieftain who led his household in worship. He was also known as Jethro (Iothor [LXX]; Ietheglaios [Josephus], 3:1) and Jether (Iothor [LXX], 4:18) This could mean that he had several names or that his personal name was Reuel and that the designation Jethro (Jether) functioned as his title. (2:16)

As Reuel’s daughters were in the process of watering the sheep, shepherds arrived and drove them away. Moses stood up and came to the aid of the women, helping them to water their flock. Josephus expands on the reason Moses came to their assistance. “Thinking it would be a terrible reproach on him if he overlooked the young women under unjust oppression and should permit the violence of the men to prevail over the right of the maidens, he drove away the men” who wanted more than their share of the water. (Antiquities, II, xi, 2) Aware of what his daughters usually faced at the well, Reuel asked them how it happened that they had returned so quickly. They explained that an Egyptian had delivered them from the “hand” or power of the shepherds and had watered the flock for them. Likely the daughters assumed that Moses was an Egyptian on the basis of his appearance and attire, for they did not know that he was a Hebrew. After asking where the man who had helped them was and why they had left him standing, Reuel asked his daughters to invite him for a meal. (2:17-20)

Josephus (Antiquities, II, xi, 2) represents Reuel’s invitation for Moses to come as having been prompted by the daughters. They entreated their father that “he would not let this generous action be done in vain, nor go without a reward. Now the father took it well from his daughters that they were so desirous to reward their benefactor and asked them to bring Moses into his presence that he might be rewarded as he deserved.”

Moses was willing to stay with Reuel, and he gave him his daughter Zipporah (Sepphora [LXX]) to be his wife. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son whom Moses named Gershom (Gersam [LXX]). This name indicted that Moses found himself as a resident alien in a foreign land. Gershom is linked to the Hebrew expression ger sham, which may be translated a “resident alien there.” (2:21, 22)

After a long time had passed, the Pharaoh who sought to kill Moses died, but this brought no relief from oppression for the descendants of Jacob (the “sons of Israel”). They cried out to God for his help, and he “heard their groaning” and “remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.” God took note of the mistreatment they were enduring and he remembered or purposed to take action in harmony with the covenant he had concluded with their ancestors. He “saw” what the people of Israel were experiencing and he “knew” or was fully aware of their plight and took notice of it. According to the Septuagint, “God looked upon the sons of Israel and made himself known to them.” (2:23-25)

Notes

In his Antiquities (II, ix, 2-7), Josephus added numerous details about the early life of Moses but did not identify the sources on which he based his comments. Whereas the Hebrew text and the Septuagint focus on what Jochebed did, Josephus wrote much more about Amram her husband. While Jochebed was pregnant, Amram was fearful about what would happen to the nation on account of Pharaoh’s decree for the baby boys to be killed and the resultant future lack of young men. Not knowing what to do, he prayed. In answer to his prayer, God revealed the following to him: “I shall provide for you all in common what is for your good, and particularly for yourself what shall make you famous; for that child, out of dread of whose nativity the Egyptians have doomed the Israelite children to destruction, shall be this child of yours and shall be concealed from those who watch to destroy him. [See the Note section for chapter 1.) … When he is brought up in a surprising way, he will deliver the Hebrew nation from the distress they are under from the Egyptians.” (Antiquities, II, ix, 3)

After having successfully hidden and cared for the infant in their home, Amram feared that he would be discovered and incur Pharaoh’s displeasure, leading to his own death and that of his son and jeopardizing the fulfillment of God’s promise. Therefore, he determined to entrust the “safety and care of the child to God” and not “to depend on his own concealment of him.” Amram “believed that God” would see to the safety of the child so that the “truth of his own predictions” would be secure. Both he and his wife participated in constructing a waterproof ark, laid their son inside it, and set it afloat on the Nile River, leaving “its preservation to God.” (Antiquities, II, ix, 4)

Pharaoh’s daughter adopted Moses, for she had no child of her own. She thought of her adopted son as her father’s successor to the throne. Josephus quoted her as telling her father the following on one occasion: “I have brought up a child who is of divine form and of a generous mind. As I have received him from the bounty of the river in a wonderful manner, I thought proper to adopt him for my son and the heir of your kingdom.” She then placed the infant in her father’s hands, and he embraced him close to his breast. On account of his daughter, he put his diadem on the boy’s head. “Moses threw it down to the ground” and “trampled upon it with his feet.” The scribe who had foretold that one of the Hebrew children to be born “would bring the Egyptian dominion low” recognized, by what Moses did, that he was this child and, therefore, urged that he be killed. Pharaoh’s daughter snatched the boy away and prevented him from being slain. (Antiquities, II, ix, 7)

The comments of the Jewish philosopher Philo provide some insight regarding what was believed in the first century CE regarding the kind of instruction Moses received. “His mother [Jochebed], who was also his nurse, came to bring him back to the princess who had given him to her, inasmuch as he no longer required to be fed on milk, and as he was now a fine and noble child to look upon. And when the king’s daughter saw that he was more perfect than could have been expected at his age, and when from his appearance she conceived greater good will than ever towards him, she adopted him as her son.”

“The child being now thought worthy of a royal education and a royal attendance, was not, like a mere child, long delighted with toys and objects of laughter and amusement, even though those who had undertaken the care of him allowed him holidays and times for relaxation, and never behaved in any stern or morose way to him; but he himself exhibited a modest and dignified deportment in all his words and gestures, attending diligently to every lesson of every kind which could tend to the improvement of his mind. And immediately he had all kinds of masters, one after another, some coming of their own accord from the neighboring countries and the different districts of Egypt, and some being even procured from Greece by the temptation of large presents. But in a short time he surpassed all their knowledge, anticipating all their lessons by the excellent natural endowments of his own genius; so that everything in his case appeared to be a recollecting rather than a learning, while he himself also, without any teacher, comprehended by his instinctive genius many difficult subjects; for great abilities cut out for themselves many new roads to knowledge.

“And just as vigorous and healthy bodies which are active and quick in motion in all their parts, release their trainers from much care, giving them little or no trouble and anxiety, and as trees which are of a good sort, and which have a natural good growth, give no trouble to their cultivators, but grow finely and improve of themselves, so in the same manner the well-disposed soul, going forward to meet the lessons which are imparted to it, is improved in reality by itself rather than by its teachers, and taking hold of some beginning or principle of knowledge, bounds, as the proverb has it, like a horse over the plain. Accordingly he speedily learned arithmetic, and geometry, and the whole science of rhythm and harmony and meter, and the whole of music, by means of the use of musical instruments, and by lectures on the different arts, and by explanations of each topic; and lessons on these subjects were given him by Egyptian philosophers, who also taught him the philosophy which is contained in symbols, which they exhibit in those sacred characters of hieroglyphics, as they are called, and also that philosophy which is conversant about that respect which they pay to animals which they invest with the honors due to God.

“And all the other branches of the encyclical education he learned from Greeks; and the philosophers from the adjacent countries taught him Assyrian literature and the knowledge of the heavenly bodies so much studied by the Chaldaeans. And this knowledge he derived also from the Egyptians, who study mathematics above all things, and he learned with great accuracy the state of that art among both the Chaldaeans and Egyptians, making himself acquainted with the points in which they agree with and differ from each other — making himself master of all their disputes without encouraging any disputatious disposition in himself — but seeking the plain truth, since his mind was unable to admit any falsehood, as those are accustomed to do who contend violently for one particular side of a question; and who advocate any doctrine which is set before them, whatever it may be, not inquiring whether it deserves to be supported, but acting in the same manner as those lawyers who defend a cause for pay, and are wholly indifferent to the justice of their cause.” (On the Life of Moses, I, v, 18-24)

According to Josephus (Antiquities, II, x, 1, 2), Moses was a mature man when the Ethiopians invaded Egypt and succeeded in conquering many of the cities. On account of an oracle, Moses was appointed as the general to deal with this serious military threat. In command of the Egyptian forces, Moses defeated the Ethiopians, “deprived them of the hopes they had of success against the Egyptians, and went on to overthrow their cities.”

Among the Romans, a man’s coming to the defense of a severely mistreated slave and killing the cruel taskmaster would have been regarded very unfavorably. Possibly, therefore, Josephus chose to omit the reference to what Moses did for his abused fellow Hebrew. (2:11, 12)

In the Septuagint, the wording of the angry response to Moses in Exodus 2:14 is the same as that in Acts 7:27, 28.

Chapter 3

One day while shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro (Reuel) the “priest of Midian,” Moses found himself at the “mountain of God” or Horeb (Choreb [LXX]). Seemingly, Horeb is called the “mountain of God” because of the divine revelation that Moses received there. Josephus, however, wrote that men believed that God resided there and that shepherds did not dare to ascend the mountain. (Antiquities, II, xii, 1) It appears that Horeb was also called Mount Sinai (See Exodus 3:12; 19:1, 2, 10-12.) In other contexts, Horeb designated the mountainous area in which Mount Sinai was located. (3:1)

In the area, Moses noted that a bush was in flames, but the fire did not consume it. Therefore, he turned aside to determine why the bush was not burned up. From the midst of the bush, Moses then heard the voice of YHWH’s angel. That angel was the direct representative of YHWH and spoke in his name. Therefore, the account represents YHWH as speaking to Moses and telling him not to come near and to remove his footwear because the place where he stood was holy ground. The ground was holy, apparently because God had revealed himself there to Moses. Speaking in God’s name, the angel said: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Numerous translations render the singular “father” as “ancestors.” (CEV, NJB, TEV) It is preferable to retain the singular “father,” as this is also the rendering in the Septuagint. The reference to “father” could be understood to apply to Amram, the father of Moses. His forefathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) worshiped the only true God and so did his father Amram. Accordingly, there existed a relationship in the ancestral family with God, which included trust in him as the one who would make it possible for their descendants eventually to possess the land of Canaan. Seemingly, in recognition of his lowliness and flawed human condition, Moses, out of “fear” or reverential regard, concealed his face so as not to look upon God or upon the angel in his capacity as God’s direct representative. (3:2-6)

Through his angel, God revealed that he was fully aware of the suffering of his people and that he had heard their outcry for help and relief. He had “come down” or turned his attention to them for the purpose of bringing them out of Egypt and settling them in a land “flowing with milk and honey.” There would be an abundance of milk from female goats and cows and much honey from wild bees and also in the form of syrup obtained from fruit. At the time, the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites (Gergesites [LXX]), Hivites, and Jebusites were inhabiting the land. God commissioned Moses to go to Pharaoh and to lead his fellow Hebrews (“sons of Israel”) out of Egypt. (3:7-10)

Moses did not consider himself qualified for the task and raised the question, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and lead the sons of Israel out of Egypt?” Speaking for God, the angel assured Moses with the words, “I will be with you, and this will be the sign for you that I have sent you: When you have led the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God upon this mountain” (Horeb or Mount Sinai). (3:11, 12)

Moses believed that, upon hearing that God had sent him, the “sons of Israel” (apparently the representatives of the people) would ask him, “What is his name?” He wondered what reply he should give. The answer in the Hebrew text is, ’ehyéh ’ashér ’ehyéh, (I will be who I will be), and the rendering of these words in the Septuagint is, egó eimi ho ón (I am the one who is). Both the Hebrew words and the Septuagint rendering associate the answer with the thought of “being.” Moses was to say to the “sons” or people of Israel, ’Ehyéh (I will be [ho ón (the one who is), LXX] “has sent me to you.” The Hebrew expression ’ehyéh ’ashér ’ehyéh, may be understood to indicate that God would be exactly who he has revealed himself to be. He is the ultimate Source of everything that exists and that will come to be in fulfillment of his word and purpose. Never will he deviate from what he has declared or revealed he would prove himself to be. The rendering of the Septuagint egó eimi ho ón may in a more specific way identify God as the Eternal One, the One who is and who always will be. (3:13, 14)

Moses’ question about God’s name may relate to his wondering whether God would reveal himself under a new name that would reflect his purpose respecting his people. The words of the representative angel then specifically focused on the name that appears to incorporate the Hebrew root hayáh (to be.) “Thus say to the sons of Israel, YHWH, God of your fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name for all time to come, and this is my memorial from generation to generation” (or throughout all generations). The distinctive name represented by the four Hebrew consonants (yod, he, waw, and he) was the name by which God wanted to be remembered for all future time. It was to be his “memorial.” He is identified as the same God who had revealed himself to the forefathers of the people of Israel, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (3:15; see the Notes section.)

YHWH’s angel instructed Moses to assemble the elders of Israel and tell them that YHWH the God of their fathers or ancestors (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) had appeared to him and that he had observed their mistreatment in Egypt. Moses was to assure them that YHWH would deliver them from the affliction they had experienced in Egypt and lead them to the land that the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, (Gergesites [LXX]), Hivites, and Jebusites were then inhabiting. It was a land “flowing with milk and honey.” (3:16, 17; see 3:8 for additional comments.)

The angel told Moses that the elders would listen to him or believe his words. Accompanied by the elders, Moses was to go to Pharaoh, saying to him that “YHWH the God of the Hebrews” had encountered them and that they desired permission for a three days’ journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to YHWH their God. The petition for a few days to leave Egypt was reasonable, and it served to test Pharaoh. If the request then had been for a permanent departure of all the people with their livestock, Pharaoh’s refusal might have been understandable. YHWH knew, however, that Pharaoh would not grant the reasonable request and that he would not let the people leave unless he was forced to do so upon experiencing a “mighty hand” or power directed against him. (3:18, 19)

Through his angel, YHWH declared that he would strike Egypt with his wonders or with deeds that would give rise to astonishment and fear. Thereafter Pharaoh would let the people depart. At that time, YHWH would “give favor” to his people before the “eyes of the Egyptians” so that they would not leave the land empty-handed. There would be no doubt in the minds of the Egyptians that the Israelites were YHWH’s people and under his care and protection, resulting in their coming to have great respect for and a measure of fear of them. As a consequence, the Egyptians would be prepared to grant their requests. The Israelite women were to ask their Egyptians neighbors or any woman residing in a neighbor’s house for articles of silver and gold and clothing. With the obtained items, the Israelite women were to dress and adorn their sons and daughters. The enslaved Israelites had worked for nothing in Egypt, and the Egyptians had greatly profited from their labor. Rightfully, then, the Israelites could exact payment and thereby despoil the Egyptians. (3:20-22)

Notes

Throughout the centuries, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob used the name YHWH freely. The abbreviated form of the name (Yah) is part of many personal names, and the name itself was used in naming places (YHWH-jireh, YHWH-nissi). In the book of Psalms, one often finds the expression “hallelujah,” which means “praise Yah [Jah]” or “praise YHWH.” Military correspondence from the time of the Babylonian conquest of the kingdom of Judah and written on pottery fragments that were found at Tell ed-Duweir in 1935 contain the name YHWH. Long before that time, non-Israelite peoples were familiar with this name. For example, in the ninth century BCE, the Moabite Stone (or Mesha Stele) was set up by King Mesha. It refers to the God of the Israelites as YHWH. In connection with his victories over Israel, Mesha boasted, “I took [vessels] of YHWH.”

In the sixth century BCE, a temple for the worship of YHWH existed in the land of Egypt, and sacrifices were offered on the altar there. A papyrus letter (written in Aramaic) from the fifth century BCE says that, when Cambyses came to Egypt, he found this temple in Elephantine. Cambyses, the son of Cyrus the Great who conquered Babylon with the military forces under his command, died in 522 BCE. This means that, before the temple was rebuilt in Jerusalem, a functioning temple existed in Egypt. According to the letter, the temple in Elephantine was destroyed at the instigation of Vidranga. His son Nefayan led Egyptians with other forces to Elephantine and leveled the temple to the ground. The letter from the fifth century BCE was addressed to “Bagoas [Bagohi], governor of Judah,” and petitioned him for support in having the temple rebuilt. Bagoas was the Persian governor, and the letter to him referred to God as YHW (the Aramaic letter represented the divine name with three letters, not four). Nevertheless, it shows that non-Israelites would have understood who was being designated by the name YHWH.

At the time Judea came under the control of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the second century BCE, a campaign against the Jews prohibited them from using the divine name (YHWH). According to the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah, 18b), the Grecian government had forbidden the Israelites to mention God’s name. (Also see 1 Maccabees 1:10-61 about what the Jews experienced.) When, however, the “Hasmoneans became strong and defeated them” (the forces of Antiochus IV Epiphanes), they ordained that the people should include the name of God even in legal documents. The sages objected, claiming that once a debt was repaid, the debtor would throw the document away and God’s name would be dishonored.

It appears that, after the view of the “sages” came to be the dominant one, the use of the name YHWH became progressively more restrictive. This is also suggested in the way the name YHWH was written in Hebrew manuscripts. The Great Isaiah Scroll (dated between 150 and 100 BCE) contains the name YHWH in the same script as the rest of the text. In the best preserved scroll of the book of Psalms (11Q5, dated between 30 and 50 CE), the name YHWH is written in paleo-Hebrew script. It may well be that this different treatment of the divine name alerted the reader not to pronounce it. An even clearer indication of this are ancient manuscript fragments that represent the divine name by four dots (1QS, 4Q175, 4Q176). In what is called the “Community Rule” (1QS), the penalty for uttering the divine name for any reason whatsoever was expulsion, and the individual was not allowed to return to the “Council of the Community.” Josephus, probably expressing the view of the Pharisees, wrote, “God declared to [Moses] the holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more.” (Antiquities, II, xii, 4)

In ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures such as the fragmentary Minor Prophets Scroll (8HevXIIgr), the name YHWH appears in paleo-Hebrew script. Without knowing the ancient Hebrew script nor how the name should be pronounced, the presence of the divine name would have been meaningless to a Greek reader. It would have been comparable to the experience of someone today who only knows English and then finds Hebrew letters in an English text. Another factor that poses a problem when Hebrew letters are inserted into a Greek text is that Hebrew is read from right to left, whereas Greek is read from left to right. Some copyists of the Hebrew name YHWH made it resemble the Hebrew in Greek capital letters (Π Ι Π Ι), which led to the mispronunciation of the divine name as Pipi. A fragment of a Greek translation of the book of Leviticus [4Q129, thought to date from the first century BCE] transliterates the divine name as IAO, which would suggest the pronunciation Yahoh. This Greek transliteration may have been widely known, for it is found in the writings of the historian Diodorus Siculus (c. 80 BCE to c. 20 BCE). Diodorus Siculus mentioned “Moses [Moyses] and the God who is invoked as Iao.” (Book I, 94) Possibly IAO was the manner in which the oldest Greek manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures represented the divine name. In later centuries, this transliteration of the name YHWH seems to have disappeared, and the Jews, in general, did not pronounce the name. As a memorial name, only the four letters have been preserved, but the ancient pronunciation has been lost, apparently on account of developments that started in the second century BCE.

Chapter 4

Although having been assured that the elders of Israel would heed his words, Moses was hesitant. Perhaps he recalled what had happened when he came to the defense of a fellow Hebrew and afterward tried to restore peace between two Hebrews who were quarreling. Moses felt that the people would not believe him, questioning that YHWH had indeed appeared to him. (4:1)

Through his angel, YHWH empowered Moses to perform three signs or miracles to back up his words. The angel told him to cast his rod on the ground,and it became a serpent from which Moses fled. Moses was then to grasp the serpent by the tail, and it became a “rod in his hand.” Next Moses was to place his hand into his bosom or the upper fold of his garment. Upon taking the hand out, he saw that it had turned white like snow as if stricken with leprosy. Upon returning his hand into his bosom and taking it out again, Moses saw that the skin of the hand looked like the rest of his skin (literally, “flesh”). The angel continued to speak, saying that, if the Israelites did not believe Moses and disregarded the first sign (the one involving the rod), they may believe the second sign (the change of the skin of the hand to a leprous condition and then back to a healthy state). If the people did not believe upon witnessing the two “signs,” Moses could take water from the Nile River and pour it on the ground. That water would become “blood on the dry ground.” It would not be transformed into human or animal blood but would come to have the appearance of blood. This is also the way in which Josephus (Antiquities, II, xii, 3) understood the miracle to take place when he referred to it as being done initially at Mount Sinai. “[Moses] also, upon God’s command, took some of the water that was near him and poured it upon the ground, and [he] saw the color was that of blood.” (4:2-9)

Despite being empowered to perform miracles, Moses considered himself unqualified for the commission that had been given to him. Forty years previously he had thought that fellow Hebrews would understand that he was God’s chosen instrument to deliver them from Egyptian enslavement. (7:7; Acts 7:23-25) At the age of 80, however, he presented reasons for being unsuitable to function in this capacity. Directing his words to YHWH, Moses said, “My Lord, I am not a man of words” [or eloquent], either yesterday or three days ago or since you have spoken to your servant, for I am slow of speech (weak-voiced [LXX]) and slow of tongue.” The expression “yesterday or three days ago” is a Hebrew idiom that may be understood to mean “recently or in the past.” Moses’ words indicate that he did not consider himself a good speaker at any time in the past nor then but regarded himself as a man who had difficulty in expressing himself. (4:10)

YHWH’s response, conveyed through his angel, reproved Moses. “Who made man’s mouth [gave man a mouth (LXX)], or who makes the speechless or the deaf, or the seeing or the blind? Is it not I, YHWH?” The various conditions in which humans may find themselves have come to be because YHWH has permitted them to exist. He does not directly cause individuals to be speechless, deaf, or blind. As the One who fully understands the organs involved in speaking, he can use whoever he may choose as his messengers. YHWH did not release Moses from the assignment he had given him, but instructed him to go and assured him that he would be with him and tell him what to say. Still, Moses continued to object to his being commissioned to appear before Pharaoh and to ask that his fellow Hebrews be liberated from enslavement. He requested that a more qualified person be sent and thereby incurred YHWH’s anger or displeasure. YHWH called Moses’ attention to his brother Aaron who could indeed speak and fill the role of his spokesman. At the time, Aaron was on his way to meet him and, “in his heart” or his inmost self, would be happy to see him. (4:11-14)

Moses was to be the one to relay the words that his brother Aaron would then speak. YHWH told Moses that he would be with his mouth and with that of Aaron, assuring Moses that whatever either one of them would say had his backing. Moreover, YHWH promised to teach both men what they were to do. Aaron would function as the spokesman for Moses to the people, acting as the “mouth” for him. Moses’s role would be that of God to Aaron, for Moses would be speaking the words that God had given him and would be functioning as his representative. The Septuagint indicates that, with reference to Aaron, Moses would be occupied with “matters pertaining to God.” To perform the signs or miracles that he had been empowered to do, Moses was instructed to take with him the rod he held in his hand (literally, the “rod of God” [“the rod (which was) from God” (LXX)]). (4:15-17)

Thereafter Moses asked his father-in-law Jethro (Reuel) whose flock he shepherded (3:1) for permission to return to his “brothers” or kinsmen in Egypt to see whether they were still alive (or how they were faring). Jethro wished him well, saying, “Go in peace.” (4:18)

The account does not reveal how Moses received the message from YHWH that instructed him to return to Egypt and informed him that all the men who had been seeking his soul, or wanting to take his life, were dead. With his wife Zipporah and his two sons Gershom and Eliezer (2:21, 22; 18:2-4), Moses departed. He seated his wife and children on a donkey (draft animals [LXX]), and he appears to have walked with the rod that he would later use to perform signs or miracles (literally, the “rod of God” [“the rod [which was] from God” (LXX)]). (4:19, 20)

YHWH directed Moses to perform all the “wonders” or miracles that he had been empowered to do before Pharaoh. The Egyptian ruler, however, would not be responsive to the request that the Israelites be permitted to leave the country. YHWH is quoted as saying that he would “harden [Pharaoh’s] heart,” allowing him to persist in his refusal to let the people depart. As he was the source of the signs Moses performed and the plagues that followed, YHWH hardened Pharaoh’s heart or caused him to be stubbornly defiant by means of them. The message to Pharaoh was to be: “Israel is my son, my firstborn [God’s people with whom he had a special relationship like that of a father to his firstborn son]. And I have said to you, Let my son go that he may serve me. And should you refuse to let him go, look, I will slay your son, your firstborn.” (4:21-23)

While Moses and his family were on their way and had stopped to rest for the night, something unexpected happened. According to a literal reading of the Hebrew text, “YHWH met him and sought to kill him. And Zipporah took a flint stone, cut off the foreskin of her son, and touched his feet and said, A bridegroom of blood you [are] to me. And he withdrew from him. Then she said, A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.” (4:24-26)

From the context, one cannot definitively determine whose life was in danger, whose feet the foreskin touched, whether the word for “feet” is used euphemistically to denote the organ of procreation, and what the expression “bridegroom of blood” meant. The obscurity of the Hebrew text has led to a variety of interpretive renderings. “On the journey, while they were encamped for the night, the LORD met Moses and would have killed him, but Zipporah picked up a sharp flint, cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ genitals with it, saying, ‘You are my blood-bridegroom.’ So the LORD let Moses alone. It was on that occasion she said, ‘Blood-bridegroom by circumcision.’” (REB) “At a camping place on the way to Egypt, the LORD met Moses and tried to kill him. Then Zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone, cut off the foreskin of her son, and touched Moses’ feet with it. Because of the rite of circumcision she said to Moses, ‘You are a husband of blood to me.’ And so the Lord spared Moses’ life.” (TEV) “One night while Moses was in camp, the LORD was about to kill him. But Zipporah circumcised her son with a flint knife. She touched his legs [either those of Moses or those of the boy (footnote)] with the skin she had cut off and said, ‘My dear son, this blood will protect you [or you are a man of blood (footnote)].’ So the LORD did not harm Moses. Then Zipporah said, ‘Yes, my dear, you are safe because of this circumcision.’” (CEV) In view of the fact that Moses was chosen to liberate his people from enslavement in Egypt, it appears puzzling that YHWH, by his representative angel, purposed to kill Moses. Contextually, however, Moses appears to be the one whose life was in danger, for the third person singular does not fit the reference to “sons.” One conjecture is that Moses also was not circumcised and that, vicariously by the circumcision of the firstborn son, he was circumcised and thus, in a new sense, became the bridegroom or husband of Zipporah through the blood of circumcision. It, however, is unlikely that Moses was uncircumcised, for baby boys were circumcised on the eighth day in obedience to the covenant God concluded with Abraham. (Genesis 17:9-14)

Like numerous modern translations, Targum Jonathan is specific in indicating that the life of Moses was in danger. It says that, because of the objection of Jethro, the father of Zipporah, Gershom was not circumcised but that Moses and Jethro made an agreement for the second son, Eliezer, to be circumcised. Targum Jonathan continues: “And Zipporah took a stone, and circumcised the foreskin of Gershom her son, and brought the severed part to the feet of the angel, the Destroyer, and said, The husband sought to circumcise, but the father-in-law obstructed him; and now let this blood of the circumcision atone for my husband. And the destroying angel desisted from him, so that Zipporah gave thanks, and said, How lovely is the blood of this circumcision that has delivered my husband from the angel of destruction!”

The Septuagint differs from the way the account about the circumcision is narrated in the Hebrew text. It indicates that, after Zipporah circumcised her son, she fell at the feet of the angel and said to him that the “blood of the circumcision is stopped” or had ceased to flow. The Septuagint concludes with the words, “And he [the angel] went away from him, for she said, The blood of the circumcision of my child is stopped.” Perhaps at this point, Zipporah and her two sons returned to the household of her father, for it was not until the Israelites left Egypt as a free people that she and her two sons were reunited with Moses. (4:24-26; 18:2-6)

Possibly through an angel, YHWH revealed himself to Aaron, directing him to go into the wilderness to meet his brother Moses. They met at the “mountain of God” (Horeb or Sinai). Aaron kissed his brother. Moses told Aaron all that YHWH had made known to him and about the signs or miracles that he had been empowered to perform. After arriving in Egypt, Moses and Aaron arranged for the elders of the people of Israel to assemble. Aaron, as Moses’ spokesman, related all the “words that YHWH had spoken to Moses and performed the signs before [their] eyes.” The assembled elders believed (“and rejoiced” [LXX]) that YHWH had “visited,” or turned his attention to, his people and had “seen” or become fully aware of their affliction. This moved them to bow their heads and to prostrate themselves in worship. (4:27-31)

Chapter 5

After having met with the elders of the “sons [or people] of Israel,” Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, informing him that “YHWH the God of Israel” was telling him to let his people depart from Egypt to observe a festival in the wilderness. Defiantly, Pharaoh declared: “Who is YHWH that I should obey [literally, hear] his voice and let Israel go? I do not know YHWH, and moreover I will not let Israel go.” Pharaoh knew that YHWH was the God of the people he had enslaved, but he did not “know” or recognize him as the true God who had to be obeyed. Furthermore, he did not believe that he would face serious consequences for resisting YHWH’s will. (5:1, 2; see the Note section regarding the comments of Josephus.)

Apparently Moses related the message to Aaron who then conveyed it to Pharaoh, saying: “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Let us go, we request, a journey of three days into the wilderness and sacrifice to YHWH our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.” Disobedience would have led to his withdrawing protection from his people, leading to their either being afflicted with serious disease or coming under military attack in their vulnerable position in the land of Goshen. In response, Pharaoh accused Moses and Aaron of keeping the people from their labors and added, “Get to your burdens [or labors].” It appears that he believed that, for the Israelites to desist from their burdens would be disruptive to Egypt, for the people were numerous. So he objected with the words, “And you made them rest from their burdens [or labors].” (5:3-5)

Pharaoh decided to make the labors of the enslaved Israelites more difficult. That same day he gave a charge to the taskmasters and the foremen of the people of Israel not to provide them with straw as an ingredient for making bricks. Instead, they were to gather it themselves and still make the same quantity of bricks as had been their previous quota. He claimed that they were lazy and that, because of not having enough to do, they wanted to leave and sacrifice to their God. Pharaoh insisted that heavier work be imposed on the Israelite men so that they would cease paying attention to lying words. Apparently what he termed “lying words” or deceitful promises related to the opportunity the Israelites would have to depart in order to sacrifice to their God. (5:6-9)

In keeping with the command of Pharaoh, the taskmasters and foremen told the Israelite laborers that they would not be given any straw. (5:10) To make the bricks, workers would mix finely chopped-up pieces of straw with the clay, moisten the mixture with water, and trample it underfoot. With the straw in the clay, the substance was easier to mold by hand or to be pressed into four-sided wooden molds. Additionally, as has been established by experiments in modern times, the inclusion of straw in the clay made the sun-dried or kiln-dried bricks three times stronger than bricks made without the use of straw.

After being told that they would have to get the straw themselves and still have to produce the same amount of bricks, the laborers scattered throughout Egypt to find stubble. Although this required significant time that otherwise could have been used for making bricks, the Egyptian taskmasters insisted that the workers meet the daily production quota. When they failed, the Israelite foremen whom the Egyptian taskmasters had placed in charge of the Israelite workforce were beaten and asked why the daily quota of bricks had not been attained. Therefore, the foremen complained to Pharaoh for what had happened to them because the workers were not given straw. He callously answered them, “You are idle; you are idle. Therefore, you say, Let us go to sacrifice to YHWH. And now go, work; and straw will not be given to you, and the same number of bricks you must deliver.” (5:11-18)

The Israelite foreman recognized the impossible situation in which they had been placed. So when they met Moses and Aaron after having left Pharaoh’s presence, the foremen said to them, “May YHWH look upon you and judge, for you have made us a stench in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants [or court officials] and have put a sword in their hand to kill us.” According to the Septuagint rendering, the foremen blamed Moses and Aaron for having put such a sword into the hand of Pharaoh so as to kill them. Disheartened by the unfavorable developments, Moses directed his complaint to YHWH. “Why, O Lord, have you done evil to this people? Why now did you send me? And since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has done evil to this people, and you have not delivered [literally, and delivering, you have not delivered] your people.” (5:19-23)

Note

In his Antiquities (II, xiii, 2), Josephus indicated that Moses called Pharaoh’s attention to what he had done for the Egyptians. Moses “came to the king who had indeed but lately received the government and told him how much he had done for the good of the Egyptians when they were despised by the Ethiopians and their country had been laid waste by them; and how he had been the commander of their forces and had labored for them as if they had been his own people.” Moses “informed him in what danger he had been during that expedition, without having any proper” rewards given to him “as he had deserved.” He also told Pharaoh concerning what had happened to him at Mount Sinai, what God had said to him, and the signs God did to assure him of the authority of the commands he had given him. Moses also exhorted Pharaoh not to disbelieve what he had told him nor to oppose God’s will.

Chapter 6

In response to his complaint as to why God had let the people of Israel continue to experience affliction, Moses received the divine assurance that he would see Pharaoh, by a “strong hand” (“by a strong hand” and a “raised arm”), or mighty divine power directed against him, forced to drive the people out of Egypt. God is then quoted as telling Moses: “I am YHWH, and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, and by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them.” (6:1-3; see the Notes section.)

In his dealings with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God revealed himself as the Almighty. For example, he demonstrated his role as the Almighty One when he revived the reproductive powers of Abraham and Sarah, making it possible for Sarah to give birth to Isaac in her old age. Moreover, based on the blessings and protective care they experienced, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would have discerned that God was the Almighty One, the Sovereign. According to the Genesis account, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and persons who lived long before their time were acquainted with the name YHWH. Therefore, their not knowing the unique name appears to relate to their not knowing everything that it signified — the fuller knowledge of the Almighty as the God to whom people of all the nations must submit. It would be futile for individuals, tribes, and nations to resist God’s will.

For the Israelites in the time of Moses, the name YHWH would come to have greater significance than it did for their forefathers. This is evident from the quoted words of YHWH that follow. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob received the promise that their descendants, the Israelites, would receive the land of Canaan as their possession, a land in which their forefathers lived as resident aliens. The Israelites would come to know YHWH as the fulfiller of his promise and as the God who was fully aware of their suffering and groaning in Egypt. He would not forget the covenant he had concluded with their forefathers, but would demonstrate that he remembered it by acting in harmony therewith. YHWH would display his mighty power (literally, his “outstretched arm”) and deliver the Israelites from Egyptian enslavement and oppression. They would witness the impressive judgments of YHWH in the form of ten devastating plagues upon the Egyptians. Furthermore, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as a people would be brought into a special relationship with YHWH. They would come to be his own people, and he would be their God YHWH, their God under whose protection and care they would find themselves. The Israelites would come to know YHWH in a greatly expanded way because of his freeing them from the harsh bondage that the Egyptians had imposed on them. They would take possession of the land that he swore (literally, “lifted up his hand” [as when taking an oath]) to give to their forefathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). (6:3-8)

As at other times, YHWH likely used his representative angel to speak to Moses. Thereafter Moses related the words to the “sons [or people] of Israel.” They, however, did not “hear” or “listen” to Moses from the standpoint of their not believing his words. The people were disheartened or discouraged (literally, they experienced “shortness of spirit”) on account of the harsh bondage to which they had been submitted. When YHWH told Moses to go to Pharaoh and inform him that he should let the “sons [or people] of Israel” depart from his land, he objected that the “sons of Israel” had not listened to him. So how could it be that Pharaoh would listen? Moses then referred to his lack of eloquence, saying, “And I am a man of uncircumcised lips” (as if a man with a speech impediment who could not express himself well). Nevertheless, YHWH gave Moses and Aaron the charge that applied both to the “sons of Israel” and to Pharaoh. That charge was for the “sons [or people] of Israel” to be led out of Egypt. According to the Septuagint, God instructed Moses and Aaron to inform Pharaoh that he should “send the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt.” (6:9-13; see the Notes section.)

At this point in the narrative, the heads of three paternal houses of the people of Israel are listed. They are: The sons of Reuben (Rouben [LXX]) the firstborn of Israel — Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi (Enoch, Phallous, Asron, and Charmi [LXX]); the sons of Simeon (Symeon [LXX]) — Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman (Iemouel, Iamin, Aod, Iachin, Saar, and Saoul the one from the Phoenician [LXX]); the sons of Levi (Leui [LXX]) — Gershon, Kohath, and Merari (Gedson [Gerson], Kaath, and Merari [LXX]). In view of the role of Moses and Aaron, the family line of Levi is continued. Levi died at the age of 137. The sons of Gershon (Gedson [Gerson], LXX) were Libni and Shimei (Lobeni and Semei [LXX]). Kohath (Kaath [LXX] had four sons (Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel [Ambram, Issaar, Chebron, and Oziel (LXX)]) and lived 133 (130 [LXX]) years. The sons of Merari were Mahli and Mushi (Mooli and Omousi [LXX]). (6:14-19)

Amram (Ambram [LXX]) married Jochebed (Iochabed [LXX]) the daughter of his father’s brother or his aunt. According to the Septuagint, however, Jochebed was Amram’s cousin (the daughter of his father’s brother). Jochebed gave birth to the sons Aaron and Moses (Moyses [LXX]) and their sister Miriam (Mariam [LXX]). Her husband Amram died at the age of 137. (6:20; for additional comments, see Exodus 2:1 and the Notes section.)

The sons of Izhar (Issaar [LXX]) were Korah, Nepheg, and Zichri (Kore, Naphek, and Zechri [LXX]). Uzziel (Oziel [LXX]) had three sons (Mishael, Elzaphan, and Sithri [Elisaphan and Setri (LXX); Mishael is omitted in Rahlfs’ text of the Septuagint]). Aaron the brother of Moses married Elisheba (Elisabeth [LXX]) the daughter of Amminadab (Aminadab [LXX]) and the sister of Nahshon (Naasson [LXX]). She gave birth to four sons (Nadab, Abihu [Abioud (LXX), Eleazar, and Ithamar. The sons of Korah (Kore [LXX]) were Assir (Asir [LXX]), Elkanah (Elkana [LXX]), and Abiasaph. Aaron’s son Eleazar married one of the daughters of Putiel (Phoutiel [LXX]), and she gave birth to Phinehas (Phinees [LXX]). (6:21-25)

The more extensive listing of the family line of Levi through Kohath served to identify the two brothers Aaron and Moses as the ones whom YHWH had commissioned to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. The two brothers informed Pharaoh regarding this. At the time YHWH, probably through his angel, spoke to Moses, he said, “I am YHWH; speak to Pharaoh the king of Egypt everything that I speak to you.” Considering himself to be not well-suited for the task, Moses objected, “Look, I am uncircumcised of lips [weak-voiced (LXX)]. How then will Pharaoh listen to me?” (6:26-30; see the Notes section.)

Notes

It appears that Josephus (Antiquities, II, xii, 4) believed that the revelation of the name YHWH did not precede the time of Moses. Also in modern times, many basically have agreed with this interpretation of the words of Exodus 6:3. The literal view of these words would require interpreting the references to the name YHWH in the Genesis account as reflecting what the Israelites knew at the time the account came to be in its final written form and not what individuals knew about God’s name YHWH and their use of the name in earlier centuries.

The Septuagint does not use the expression “uncircumcised of lips.” In verse 12, the rendering is alogós, and this word commonly means “unreasonable.” Possibly the thought is that Moses lacked eloquence or the ability to express himself well as would be characteristic of a person lacking reasonableness. In verse 30, the Septuagint reads, ischnóphonós (weak-voiced).

Before the Israelites received the law at Mount Sinai, marriage to an aunt was not prohibited. If the Hebrew reading of Exodus 6:20 preserves the original text, Amram married his aunt Jochebed. Manuscripts of the Septuagint vary about the age at which Amram died (132, 136, 137).

Chapter 7

YHWH purposed to make Moses “God” to Pharaoh and his brother Aaron his “prophet.” In his role as “God” to Pharaoh, Moses would represent YHWH, speak the words he revealed to him, and do everything he commanded. As Moses’ prophet, Aaron would relate and act according to the messages that his brother received from YHWH. Moses was to speak everything that YHWH commanded him, and Aaron would then tell Pharaoh everything, with the main message being that Pharaoh should permit the Israelites to leave Egypt. (7:1, 2)

YHWH knew beforehand that Pharaoh would defiantly refuse to obey. By allowing him to become obstinate, YHWH hardened his heart or his disposition and used the time during which Pharaoh manifested his stubborn attitude to perform impressive signs and wonders in Egypt, revealing himself to be the Supreme Sovereign whose will could never be successfully resisted. YHWH determined to lead his people out of Egypt subsequent to inflicting severe judgments upon the Egyptians. After he “stretched out [his] hand,” or directed his power, against the Egyptians and liberated his people from enslavement, they would “know” or be forced to recognize him as YHWH, the Almighty God, and their own gods and goddesses as powerless to help them. (7:3-5)

Moses and Aaron did everything YHWH commanded them to do. At the time of their speaking to Pharaoh, Moses was 80 years old and Aaron was 83. (7:6, 7) There were times when Aaron’s speaking was accompanied by his use of the rod that Moses had used as a shepherd. When Aaron held it and was directed to use it, this rod is identified as Aaron’s rod.

Upon Pharaoh’s asking for a (sign or [LXX]) wonder, YHWH directed that Moses tell Aaron to take his rod and throw it down on the ground before Pharaoh (“and before his servants” [or officials in the court]). It would then become a serpent (dragon [LXX]). Moses and Aaron did what they had been commanded, Aaron threw down his rod, and it turned into a serpent (dragon [LXX]). In response, Pharaoh summoned his sages and sorcerers or magicians. Resorting to their secret arts, these men threw down their rods and they became serpents (dragons [LXX]). Aaron’s rod, however, swallowed up their rods, establishing the superiority of the wonder that he performed. The Exodus account does not reveal whether the magicians seemingly duplicated the wonder through slight of hand or by holding the serpents in a manner that made them stiff and look like a rod until they were cast down. (7:8-12; see the Notes section regarding the comments of Josephus about this incident and also that of Targum Jonathan concerning the magicians.)

Despite witnessing what the “rod of Aaron” had done, Pharaoh continued to have a hardened heart or stubbornly to resist letting the Israelites leave. As YHWH had revealed to them beforehand, Pharaoh refused to listen or heed what Moses and Aaron said. YHWH then instructed them to take along the rod that had been turned into a serpent and to wait for Pharaoh at the edge of the Nile the next morning, at which time he would be arriving. (7:13-15) The Exodus account does not explain why Pharaoh would come to the Nile in the morning. Targum Jonathan says that he did this to “observe divinations at the water as a magician.” Another reason, in view of the importance of Nile flooding to supply water for irrigation, could be that Pharaoh may have been on an inspection tour to see the level of the river.

The message for Pharaoh was that “YHWH, the God of the Hebrews,” had sent Moses to him to request that he let his people leave to serve him in the wilderness, but he had not obeyed. Therefore, YHWH purposed to have the Nile struck “with the rod” so that the water would be turned into blood. The river would become toxic, causing the fish to die. It would become fowl smelling, and the Egyptians would not be able to drink the water. This would make it clear to Pharaoh that the God who had sent Moses was YHWH and needed to be obeyed. (7:16-18)

YHWH instructed Moses to tell Aaron to take his rod and stretch out his hand, apparently the arm of the hand that held the rod, over the water of Egypt. This is probably to be understood concerning the section of the Nile where they were standing and over the canals, ponds, and pools of water. All visible water would become blood, including that in wooden and stone vessels. Before the “eyes” or in the sight of Pharaoh and his servants or court officials, Aaron did as he was directed, and the water changed into blood. This was not human blood nor that of any specific animal, but the water came to look exactly like blood and came to have toxic properties. Fish were killed, and the Egyptians could not drink the water. (7:19-21) The way the water then looked may have resembled a satellite image of the Nile River that was taken in 2016. Infrared technology revealed the water to have taken on a deep red color which had resulted from the heat of the surrounding vegetation.

With their secret arts, the magicians of Egypt were able to change water into blood. The Exodus account does not say where they obtained the water. According to verse 24, the Egyptians could obtain drinking water by digging for it along the banks of the Nile. So there is a possibility that this was the source for the water the magicians used. Targum Jonathan indicates that the waters of Goshen were not affected by the miracle and says that the magicians changed these waters into blood. Subsequently Pharaoh’s heart was hardened or he became stubbornly and defiantly resistant to heeding YHWH’s word directed to him through Moses and Aaron. Pharaoh returned to his own house and gave no consideration to the miracle he had witnessed after Aaron stretched out his rod. Meanwhile, the Egyptians had to continue digging for drinking water by the Nile, for the plague lasted seven days. (7:22-25; see the Notes section.)

Notes

According to Josephus, Pharaoh derided Moses, claiming that he had run away from Egyptian slavery and returned “with deceitful tricks, wonders and magical arts to astonish him.” Moses was undaunted by what the men he whom Pharaoh summoned did with their rods. He is quoted as telling Pharaoh: “‘I do not myself despise the wisdom of the Egyptians, but I say that what I do is so much superior to what these do by magic arts and tricks, as divine power exceeds the power of man. I will demonstrate that what I do is not done by craft, or counterfeiting what is not really true, but that [the wonders] appear by the providence and power of God.’ When he had said this, he cast his rod down upon the ground and commanded it to turn itself into a serpent. It obeyed him, went all around, and devoured the rods of the Egyptians, which seemed to be dragons, until it had consumed them all. It then returned to its own form, and Moses took it into his hand again.” (Antiquities, II, xiii, 3)

Targum Jonathan names two magicians Janis and Jamberes (Jannes and Jambres). In his second letter to Timothy (3:8), the apostle Paul also referred to Jannes and Jambres as resisting Moses.

The changing of the water of the Nile River into blood (7:19-25) would have revealed the impotence of the Nile god Hapi, a fertility deity that was regarded as responsible for the Nile floods that supplied the needed water for irrigation. As Exodus 12:12 indicates, the judgments were also directed against “all the gods of Egypt.”

Regarding the effect from the plague on the water of the Nile, Josephus wrote: “The water was not only of the color of blood, but it brought upon those who ventured to drink of it great pains and bitter torment.” (Antiquities, II, xiv, 1)

Chapter 8

YHWH commanded Moses to return to Pharaoh and again request that he let his people depart from Egypt to serve him. If he refused to let them leave, Egypt would be overrun by a plague of frogs that would come up from the Nile. (8:1-4 [7:26-29])

YHWH directed Moses to tell Aaron to stretch out his hand with the rod (the arm of the hand with which he held the rod) over the rivers, canals and pools to cause frogs to come up and spread out over the land of Egypt. Aaron did so and the frogs covered the land. With their secret arts, the Egyptian magicians also seemed to cause frogs to come up from the water, but they were unable to end the plague. The croaking of frogs and their presence in houses, sleeping quarters, beds, ovens, and kneading bowls must have been extremely annoying, prompting Pharaoh to summon Moses and Aaron with the request that they entreat YHWH to end the plague. He even agreed to let the Israelites depart from Egypt to sacrifice to YHWH. (8:5-8 [8:1-4]; see the Notes section.)

Moses granted Pharaoh the honor over him to designate the time for the entreaty to be made so that the frogs would no longer plague him and his people, perishing from the houses and only remaining in the river. After Pharaoh asked that it happen the next day, Moses said that it would take place so that Pharaoh would come to know or recognize that there is no one like YHWH, the God of his people Israel. Frogs would cease to be in the houses and would only remain in the Nile. After leaving the presence of Pharaoh with his brother Aaron, Moses prayed to YHWH regarding the frogs. God answered according to Moses’ petition, and the frogs in the houses, courtyards, and fields died. The Egyptians piled up the dead frogs and the land began to stink as the frogs decayed. (8:9-14 [8:5-10])

After Pharaoh experienced relief from the plague of frogs, he went back on his word. He “hardened his heart” or stubbornly refused to let the Israelites depart to sacrifice in the wilderness to YHWH their God. Just as YHWH had revealed beforehand, Pharaoh refused to heed the words conveyed to him through Moses and Aaron. (8:15 [8:11])

YHWH told Moses to direct Aaron to stretch out his rod and to strike the dust of the earth or land, causing the dust to give rise to gnats . After Aaron acted on the directive and gnats came to be on people and animals, the Egyptian magicians tried to do the same with their secret arts but were unsuccessful. They said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger [or power] of God.” Targum Jonathan refers to them as saying that the plague was “not by the power or strength of Mosheh and Aharon [Moses and Aaron],” but that it was a plague “sent from before YY” (Yeya [YHWH]). Despite what he had witnessed, Pharaoh continued his stubborn resistance, not permitting the Israelites to leave in order to sacrifice to YHWH in the wilderness. His “heart” was hardened or he remained defiant in his refusal to heed the words of Moses and Aaron. (8:16-19 [8:12-15]; see the Notes section.)

YHWH instructed Moses to rise early in the morning and then to head for the water, evidently the Nile River, to meet Pharaoh. The ruler of Egypt would be coming to the water. His reason for arriving in the morning is not stated in the Exodus account. Possibly it was to make an inspection of the water level, for water from the Nile was needed for irrigation purposes. Targum Jonathan refers to Pharaoh as going forth “to observe divinations at the water, as a magician.” Again the word of YHWH for Pharaoh was, “Let my people go that they may serve me.” If he refused, Pharaoh, his officials, and his subjects would experience a plague of stinging flies. These could have been horseflies or “dog flies” (LXX). Female horseflies are blood-sucking insects, and both male and female dog flies suck blood. These insects can inflict significant pain on their victims. In the case of this particular plague, the Egyptians would see that they alone had swarms of these insects fill their houses and that they would be throughout their land, but the Israelites would be spared. None of these insects would be found in Goshen. This demarcation between the Egyptians and the Israelites would serve to let Pharaoh know that YHWH is the God “in the midst of the land” or the God who was actively involved in everything that occurred in the land of Egypt or in all lands (or in the whole “earth”) (8:20-22 [8:16-18]; see the Notes section.)

YHWH revealed that the plague would start the next day. After Pharaoh, his officials, and his subjects suffered from the effects of the plague, he summoned Moses and Aaron and told them that they could sacrifice to their God in the land (in Egypt). To this Moses replied that it would not be acceptable to do so in Egypt, as the Egyptians would regard the sacrificing as abominable and would kill the Israelites by stoning. In the fifth century BCE, the Greek historian Herodotus (Histories, II, 65) wrote that the punishment for killing a sacred animal intentionally was death. Therefore, the Israelites needed to undertake a journey of three days into the wilderness and there sacrifice to YHWH their God as he had commanded them. (8:23-27 [8:19-23])

Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites go to sacrifice to YHWH, but he did not want them to go so far away into the wilderness. Moreover, he wanted YHWH to be entreated for him. Before departing from Pharaoh’s presence and telling him that he would pray to YHWH so that the plague would end the next day, Moses made it clear that he should not trifle with the Israelites, going back on his word and refusing to let the people go to sacrifice to YHWH. In answer to Moses’ prayer, YHWH brought an end to the plague. After experiencing relief, Pharaoh did not keep his word. He hardened his heart or continued to be stubborn in his refusal to let the Israelites leave to sacrifice to YHWH. (8:28-32 [8:24-28])

Notes

The plague of frogs may especially have been troubling to the Egyptians, as their goddess Heqet (also spelled Heket, Heqtit, Heqat, and Heqt), a deity of childbirth and fertility, was powerless to do anything to stop the plague. This goddess was represented as a frog or as a woman with the head of a frog, and what was sacred to her had been transformed into an annoying plague.

There is some uncertainty about the Hebrew word rendered “gnats” (ken, kinnim [plural]). It was most likely a blood-sucking insect like a gnat, mosquito, louse, or flea. The plague of these insects could not be duplicated by means of the Egyptian secret arts, and would have exposed the weakness of the god Thoth (the inventor of magic) and the god Heka (Hekau), a deity associated with magic and medicine.

In a significant manner, the fourth plague (8:18 [8:14]) exposed the Egyptian deities as powerless. Whereas YHWH protected his people from the effects of this plague, the gods and goddesses whom the Egyptians revered could not shield them from experiencing its full impact.

Chapter 9

Again YHWH, probably by means of his representative angel, told Moses to go to Pharaoh, informing him that YHWH, the God of the Hebrews, was requiring that he permit his people, the Israelites, to leave Egypt in order to serve him. Refusal on his part would lead to his witnessing the “hand [or power] of YHWH” directed against cattle, horses, donkeys, camels, and herds (of cattle) and flocks (of sheep and goats) out in the field. The domestic animals would be afflicted with a serious pestilence that would result in a high mortality rate. None of the domestic animals belonging to the Israelites, however, would die. As announced beforehand, the pestilence did strike the next day, with only the animals of the Egyptians dying. Pharaoh apparently sent men in his service to investigate the situation among the Israelites and received a report that not one of their animals had died. Nevertheless, Pharaoh did not change his attitude. He hardened his heart, remaining stubbornly defiant, and refused to let the people of Israel leave. (9:1-7; see the Notes section.)

The word of YHWH, doubtless through his representative angel, directed Moses and Aaron to take handfuls of ashes or soot from a kiln and then for Moses to throw the ashes skyward before the “eyes” (or in the sight) of Pharaoh. By means of this act, the Egyptians and their domestic animals would be stricken with painful boils. The pain proved to be so severe that the magicians of Egypt were unable to stand before Moses. Pharaoh, however, did not change his attitude. YHWH permitted him to remain defiant and thus hardened his heart. Pharaoh, as YHWH had revealed beforehand, refused to listen to Moses and Aaron, remaining unresponsive to the request that he permit the Israelites to leave Egypt in order to serve their God. (9:8-13; see the Notes section.)

YHWH’s purpose in sending the plagues was to make it clear to Pharaoh, his officials, and his subjects that there was no god like him in all the earth. In this case, “earth” includes Egypt and lands far beyond its borders. YHWH could have taken the life of Pharaoh and of his subjects, but he chose to let Pharaoh live, using the opportunity to show his power and to have his name declared “throughout all the earth.” (9:14-16) The name of YHWH did become widely known. About 40 years later, Rahab of Jericho in the land of Canaan recalled what YHWH had done in drying up the water of the Red Sea and liberating his people. (Joshua 2:10) Centuries thereafter, the Philistines still knew about the mighty God who had struck the Egyptians with every kind of plague. (1 Samuel 4:8)

Pharaoh continued to exalt himself over the Israelites, maintaining an arrogant bearing toward them as he refused to let them leave to sacrifice to YHWH their God. Therefore, YHWH decreed that the Egyptians would experience a hailstorm of such severity as had never occurred in the history of their country. The Egyptians were advised to bring all their animals under shelter and to leave no slaves out in the fields. Those who “feared,” or trusted, that the word of YHWH would be fulfilled the next day brought their animals and slaves into the safety of a shelter, but those who had no regard for (literally, “did not set [their] heart on”) YHWH’s word left their slaves and animals out in the open. When Moses, at YHWH’s command, stretched out his rod toward the sky, it began to thunder and hail, and “fire” or lightning struck the ground. All during the time the hail fell, lightning flashes were visible in the midst of it. Every man and every animal out in the field were struck down. All plants were flattened, and all trees were shattered. In Goshen, where the Israelites resided, there was no hail. (9:17-26; see the Notes section.)

Apparently the severity of the hail and the damage it caused prompted Pharaoh to acknowledge that he had been in the wrong when refusing to allow the Israelites to depart for the wilderness to sacrifice to YHWH. After summoning Moses and Aaron, he is quoted as saying to them: “I have sinned this time. YHWH is righteous [just or in the right], and I and my people are guilty [or in the wrong (impious [LXX])].” He requested that they entreat YHWH to bring an end to the thunder (literally, “voices [or sounds] of God”) and hail (“and fire” or lightning [LXX]). Pharaoh also consented to permit the Israelites to depart. (9:27, 28)

Moses agreed to stretch out his hands to YHWH upon being outside the city. This meant that he would lift his arms and open palms skyward in an attitude of prayer, petitioning YHWH to cause the thunder and the hail (“and the rain” [LXX]) to stop. Moses wanted Pharaoh to “know” or to recognize, based on the cessation of the hail, that the “earth” or land belonged to YHWH or that everything was under his control. Nevertheless, Moses revealed that he knew that Pharaoh and his servants or officials did not at that time really fear, or have a proper regard for, YHWH. (9:29, 30)

The plague of hail probably occurred in the middle of February or early in March, for the hail ruined the flax and the barley. Wheat and spelt, grains that matured later, were not destroyed. (9:31, 32)

After Moses made his appeal to YHWH, the thunder (literally, “sounds” or “voices”), the hail, and the rain stopped. Having experienced relief from the hailstorm, Pharaoh and his servants or officials revealed that they had not come to fear YHWH. They hardened their hearts and stubbornly resisted his words that were conveyed to them through Moses. Just as YHWH had made known in advance, Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites depart. (9:33-35)

Notes

The deadly pestilence that affected domestic animals (9:3-6) would have revealed the impotence of Apis (the sacred bull deity), Hathor (a goddess represented as a cow, a woman with the head of a cow, or a woman with the ears of a cow), and the sky goddess Nut (represented as a woman or a cow forming the sky over the land and with stars on her body).

Verse 6 refers to “all” the domestic animals of the Egyptians as having died from the pestilence. This may be understood to mean that all the animals the pestilence affected died or that a significantly large number of them died. The Egyptians still had domestic animals that survived the pestilence. Later, before the seventh plague, the Egyptians needed to bring their domestic animals under shelter to escape death from the plague of hail. (9:19) Then, at the time the firstborn died, the Egyptians lost firstborn domestic animals. (12:29)

For the Egyptians there was no cure for their painful boils or sores. (9:10, 11) Deities to which they may have looked for relief could not help them. These deities may have included the goddesses of healing (Heka and Sekhmet), the goddess Isis, and the gods Thoth and Ptah.

Any appeal to the Egyptian deities to cause the hailstorm to end would have been in vain. No aid would have come from Tefnut (the goddess of rain), Set (the god of desert storms), Reshpu (a god who was believed to control lightning) and Thoth (a god to whom power over rain and thunder was attributed). (9:22-25)

Chapter 10

YHWH hardened the “heart of Pharaoh” and the “heart of his servants” or officials, allowing them to remain defiant in not heeding his word conveyed to them through Moses. Their stubborn resistance provided YHWH with the opportunity to show his “signs” among them. These “signs” came in the form of destructive plagues that revealed his power which could not be successfully resisted. In the case of the Israelites, these “signs” and what YHWH did among the Egyptians were matters they were to relate to their sons or children and to their grandsons or grandchildren. In this way, they and their offspring would come to “know” their God as YHWH, the Supreme Sovereign who had acted for them in effecting their liberation from Egyptian enslavement. (10:1, 2)

As YHWH had commanded him (10:1), Moses and his brother Aaron presented themselves before Pharaoh and told him what YHWH the God of the Hebrews had said. “How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me [literally, my face]? Let my people go that they may serve me.” If he continued to be arrogant, refusing to heed YHWH’s word, the Egyptians would experience a severe locust plague that would be greater than they and their forefathers had ever faced. The locusts would consume everything that had remained after the devastating plague of hail. Recognizing how disastrous such a plague would be, Pharaoh’s servants urged him to let the Israelites depart. Therefore, Moses and Aaron received a request to return to Pharaoh. Although then saying that they could leave to serve YHWH their God, Pharaoh asked about who would be going. After being told that the young and the old, the sons and the daughters, and the flocks and herds would be leaving because the people would be holding a festival to YHWH, Pharaoh did not consent, insisting that only the men could go to serve YHWH. He then drove Moses and Aaron out from before his “face” or from his presence. Pharaoh wanted to make sure that the men would return to Egypt to rejoin their families and then continue in their state of enslavement. (10:3-11; see the Notes section.)

After Moses and Aaron left, YHWH instructed Moses to stretch out his hand “over the land of Egypt.” This meant that Moses was to extend the arm of the hand that held his rod. This would signal the start of the locust plague. After Moses did this, an east wind began to blow all day and all night. By the morning of the next day, the wind brought in a huge swarm of locusts. The huge swarm blocked out light from the sun, causing the land to be darkened, and the voracious locust swarm consumed everything that the plague of hail had not ruined. No greenery of any kind escaped from the devastation the locusts effected. (10:12-15; see the Notes section.)

Faced with disaster, Pharaoh hastily summoned Moses and Aaron, acknowledged that he had sinned against YHWH their God and against them, requested that they forgive him his sin “only this once,” and entreat YHWH their God to remove from him “this death” (or the plague that was certain to have a deadly outcome for the Egyptians). (10:16, 17)

After leaving, Moses entreated YHWH to end the locust plague. In answer to that prayer, a very strong west wind drove the locusts into the Red Sea, liberating the Egyptians from the plague. Nevertheless, Pharaoh hardened his heart, or stubbornly defied the word of YHWH through Moses and refused to let the Israelites leave. This hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is attributed to YHWH, for he created the circumstances that permitted Pharaoh to manifest his stubborn resistance.(10:18-20)

After Moses, at YHWH’s command, stretched out his hand toward the sky (evidently raising his arm while holding his rod), thick darkness enveloped the land of Egypt for three days. Whereas the Egyptians felt this darkness, could not see one another, and did not venture from their dwellings, the Israelites enjoyed light in the land of Goshen. (10:21-23; see the Notes section.) In his Antiquities (II, xiv, 5), Josephus described this darkness as follows: “A thick darkness, without the least light, spread itself over the Egyptians, whereby their sight being obstructed and their breathing being hindered by the thickness of the air, they died miserably and under a terror lest they should be swallowed up by the dark cloud.”

The plague of darkness made enough of an impact on Pharaoh for him to summon Moses, telling him that that all the people, including the children, were free to go in order to serve YHWH. He, however, required that their domestic animals remain behind, evidently wanting to keep their flocks and herds to assure that they would return to Egypt. Moses rejected this stipulation, insisting that all the domestic animals needed to be taken. It would be from them that sacrifices for YHWH their God would be chosen and in this way their God would be served. In view of this, Pharaoh hardened his heart, stubbornly refusing to permit the Israelites to depart. Again this hardening is attributed to YHWH, for he permitted Pharaoh to remain defiant in disregarding his word respecting the Israelites. (10:21-27; see the Notes section.)

Pharaoh threatened Moses, ordering him to leave and telling him that he would be killed on the day that he ventured to see his face again. To this, Moses replied, “As you say, I will not see your face again.” (10:28, 29) In Exodus 11:4-8, it says that Moses warned Pharaoh about the coming of the tenth plague — the death of all the firstborn of the Egyptians. So it appears that the first three verses of chapter 11 should be regarded as parenthetical and that Moses continued to speak to Pharaoh until he then left, doing so in anger. In advance, YHWH had revealed to Moses that the tenth plague would be the last one. Therefore, he could positively say (10:29) that he would not try to see Pharaoh again. Pharaoh, however, was forced to summon Moses and Aaron and agree to the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. (12:30-32)

Notes

In verse 10, Pharaoh is quoted as saying, “YHWH be with you if ever I let you go and your little ones. See, for bad [you have] before your faces” (or evil you have purposed). The words “YHWH be with you” would usually constitute a blessing. In this case, however, they were part of Pharaoh’s defiant refusal to let the Israelites depart with their children. In effect, therefore, these words could be understood as expressing a curse. Modern translations have interpretively rendered the words as follows: “The LORD will certainly need to be with you if I let you take your little ones! I can see through your evil plan.” (NLT) “The LORD had better watch over you on the day I let you leave with your families! You’re up to no good.” (CEV) “I swear by the LORD that I will never let you take your women in children! It is clear that you are plotting to revolt.” (TEV)

The locust plague (10:12-15) would have humiliated deities that were regarded as responsible for a bountiful harvest. This could have included the goddess Renenutet (Renenet, Ernutet) and the god Min.

In verse 13, the Septuagint says “south wind” (not “east wind”). Possibly the translator chose the rendering “south wind” because of believing that it was more appropriate for the direction from which locusts came into Egypt.

For the Egyptians, the thick darkness (10:22, 23) may have made them feel that their sun gods Ra and Horus had forsaken them and were unable to come to their aid.

Chapter 11

It appears that the initial three verses interrupt what Moses continued to say to Pharaoh after the end of the ninth plague (the three days of deep darkness), for the words of verse 4 are simply introduced (“Moses said”) without any indication that YHWH had sent him. Accordingly, at the end of the ninth plague, Moses knew that there would only be one more plague, after which Pharaoh would drive all of the Israelites out of Egypt. Prior to their departure from Egypt, the men and the women were to ask their Egyptian neighbors for objects of gold and silver (“and clothing” [LXX]). In view of what had developed through Moses in relation to the plagues, he became much esteemed among Pharaoh’s servants or officials and the Egyptians generally. (11:1-3; see the Notes section.)

Apparently after saying that he would not see Pharaoh’s face again (10:29), Moses continued to speak, announcing to him the word of YHWH. Around midnight, YHWH would bring about the death of the firstborn in every household. This included the firstborn of Pharaoh and even the firstborn of a slave woman grinding grain with a millstone. Moreover, the firstborn of all livestock would die. This would result in a loud mournful cry in all of Egypt, a cry of such greatness as had never occurred before and as would never take place again. No harm, however, would come to the Israelites. Against them and their animals, no dog would “sharpen its tongue.” This could mean that dogs would not bark or snarl at them. “But not even a dog will bark at the Israelites or their animals.” (TEV) According to another view, nothing like the outcry in Egypt would be occurring among the Israelites. “Things will be so quiet that not even a dog will be heard barking.” (CEV) “But throughout all Israel no sound will be heard from man or beast, not even a dog’s bark.” (REB) “But among the Israelites it will be so peaceful that not even a dog will bark.” (NLT) Pharaoh and his subjects would then “know” or be forced to recognize that YHWH had made a distinction between the Egyptians and the “sons [or people] of Israel.” Thereafter all the “servants” or officials of Pharaoh would go to meet Moses and bow down to him, saying, “Get out, you and all the people who follow you [literally, people at your feet”].” After this would take place, Moses would depart from Egypt. Having finished speaking to Pharaoh, Moses left his presence in “hot anger.” (11:4-8)

YHWH had revealed to Moses that Pharaoh would not listen and that his stubborn attitude provided the opportunities for YHWH to increase his “[signs and (LXX)] wonders in the land of Egypt.” These wonders included the devastating plagues. During the time Pharaoh continued to be defiant, Moses and Aaron performed all the signs that YHWH had empowered them to do before Pharaoh. YHWH, however, “hardened the heart of Pharaoh” or permitted him to remain stubbornly resistant to letting the “sons [or people] of Israel” depart from Egypt. (11:9, 10)

Notes

According to verse 2 in the Septuagint, Moses was to speak “secretly into the ears of the people” (of Israel), telling them to make request of their neighbors for gold and silver items and clothing. Their neighbors would comply, for God had granted favor for his people among the Egyptians. (11:3)

The Septuagint rendering of verse 3 indicates that Moses became “exceedingly great before the Egyptians and before Pharaoh and before all his servants.”

In his Antiquities (II, xiv, 5), Josephus indicated that Moses would not return to see Pharaoh but that Pharaoh himself and his “principal men” would want the Israelites to leave. “When the darkness, after three days and as many nights, had dissipated, and when Pharaoh still had not repented and let the Hebrews leave, Moses came to him and said, ‘How long will you be disobedient to the command of God? for he enjoins you to let the Hebrews go. There is no other way to be freed from the calamities you are under, unless you do so.’ But the king was angry at what he said and threatened to cut off his head if he came anymore to trouble him about these matters. Thereupon Moses said he would not speak to him anymore about them, for that he himself, together with the principal men among the Egyptians, should desire the Hebrews to go away. So when Moses had said this, he went his way.” (Compare Exodus 10:29; 11:8.)

Chapter 12

Before the Israelites left Egypt, their new year began in the fall. For the start of their sacred year this changed, with the month of their liberation from Egyptian enslavement being divinely designated as the first month. This month came to be known as Abib (mid-March to mid-April) and, after the exile in Babylon, it was called Nisan. Early during the month, YHWH, probably by means of his representative angel, told Moses and Aaron that it was to be the first month and, during this month, an annual commemoration regarding their release from enslavement was to be observed. This commemoration came to be known as Passover, for YHWH’s angel passed over the houses of the Israelites at the time all the firstborn of the Egyptians died. (12:1, 2; see the Notes section.)

Certain features of the first Passover observance in Egypt were unique, but other features continued to be part of the celebration after it was conducted on an annual basis. On the tenth day of the month, the household head was to select a lamb (or goat). If the household was too small to eat an entire roasted lamb (or goat), the household head was to invite his nearest neighbor, along with the man’s entire household to share in eating the meal. This arrangement was to take into consideration the number of persons present for the observance and what they would be able to eat. (12:3, 4)

At twilight on the fourteenth day of the month, the selected unblemished one-year-old male lamb or goat was to be slaughtered. Only in Egypt was some of the blood of the slaughtered animal collected in a basis and, with a bunch of hyssop, put on the two doorposts and the lintel of the house in which the meat would be eaten. In Egypt and also in the land of Canaan (the Promised Land), the entire animal (head, legs, and inner parts) was to be roasted (not left raw nor cooked in water), undoubtedly after having been skinned and having the inner parts washed. The meat was to be eaten that night along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. All of the meat was to be consumed by morning. Any leftover meat was to be burned. (12:5-10, 22; see the Notes section.)

In Egypt, the Israelites were to eat the meal as persons who were ready to depart without delay. With their loins girded, their sandals on (so as to be prepared to travel over varied terrain), and a staff in their hand, they were to eat in haste (not leisurely). YHWH (his “destroying angel” [Targum]) would pass through the land of Egypt that night, striking down all the firstborn of man and beast (the firstborn offspring). It would be a night when YHWH would be executing judgment (or taking vengeance [LXX]) on all the “gods of Egypt,” exposing them as without any power to shield the firstborn from death. The blood on the the doorposts and lintels of the houses would indicate these houses to be the ones to be passed over at the time the Egyptian firstborn would be slain. (12:11-13, 23)

Throughout future generations, the Israelites were to commemorate the day of their deliverance from Egyptian enslavement. It was to be an annual memorial day, a “festival to YHWH.” For seven days after the Passover, from the fifteenth day of the month (which began at sundown) onward, the Israelites were to eat unleavened bread (never leavened bread). This required that they search throughout their houses to make sure that all leaven was removed. From the first day of the festival (Abib [Nisan] 15, which began in the evening of the fourteenth day) until the seventh day (Abib [Nisan] 21, which ended in the evening of that day), anyone eating what was leavened would be “cut off” (“destroyed” [LXX]) from the community of Israel. This included resident aliens living among the Israelites. On the first day and the seventh day, a “holy assembly” was to be held. With the exception of preparing food to be eaten, the people were not to perform any work. (12:14-20, 24)

When the Israelites observed the Passover in the Promised Land annually as they had been commanded, their “sons” would ask the reason for the observance. It would then be explained to them that YHWH had passed over the houses of his people and spared their firstborn when the firstborn of the Egyptians were killed. (12:25-27)

Moses summoned the elders of Israel and related to them everything that had been revealed to him about the Passover and the seven-day festival associated with it. Apparently after Moses had finished speaking, the elders bowed down and prostrated themselves in worship. The “sons [or people] of Israel” did everything that was required of them in preparation for the first Passover observance and the observance itself. (12:21-28)

At midnight, YHWH (his “destroying angel” [Targum]) struck down “all the firstborn in the land of Egypt.” None were spared, from the firstborn of Pharaoh to the firstborn of a prisoner or captive confined in a pit or dungeon. Also all the firstborn of domestic animals died. Pharaoh, his servants or officials, and all his subjects got up in the night and gave way to a loud, mournful outcry or wailing. He summoned Moses and Aaron, telling them that the “sons [or people] of Israel” should leave with their flocks and herds to serve YHWH their God. Pharaoh did not want to be cursed, leading to additional calamities. Therefore, he requested that Moses and Aaron bless him or wish him well. (12:29-32; see the Notes section.)

The death of all their firstborn must have filled the Egyptians with dread, fearing that the continued presence of the Israelites in the land would lead to utter ruin. They urged them to leave quickly, for, as they said, “We are all dead men.” In view of their hasty departure from Egypt, the Israelites took their unleavened dough in their kneading bowls, bound them up in their garments, and carried the bowls on their shoulders. Later, they used the dough to bake unleavened bread. This aspect was recalled during the seven-day festival that followed the Passover on Nisan 14, for no leavened bread was to be eaten during the entire festival. (12:33, 34, 39; see the Notes section.)

Before their departure, the Israelites, in keeping with the instructions Moses had given them, asked the Egyptians for silver and gold articles and garments. The Egyptians gave them everything according to their requests. In this manner, the Israelites despoiled the Egyptians. This development is attributed to YHWH. The account reads, “YHWH had given favor to the people before the eyes [or in the sight] of the Egyptians.” (12:35, 36)

Raamses (Rameses [Ramesses (LXX)]), the starting point from which the Israelites set out in their departure from Egypt, cannot be positively identified with any known location. It could have been either a district or city in Goshen that was located not far from the capital of Egypt at that time. Josephus (Antiquities, II, xv, 1), in conjunction with the exodus of the Israelites, refers to Leto (Letopolis), a site about 10 miles (c. 16 kilometers) south of Heliopolis and about 10 miles (c. 16 kilometers) north of Old Cairo. Although Succoth has been linked to Thukke in Egyptian inscriptions, there is no way to make a definitive identification of Succoth with any known site. (12:37)

Besides women and children, the number of men who left Egypt is given as about 600,000. This number is also found in the Septuagint. Josephus (Antiquities, II, xv, 1) indicated that it was not easy to number all who left Egypt, “including the women and children.” The men who were old enough to be “fit for war” numbered 600,000. (Regarding this number, see the comments in the introduction of Exodus.) Along with sizable flocks and herds, a “mixed multitude” departed with the Israelites. This mixed multitude could have included Egyptians who had married Israelites and their offspring as well as Egyptians and other foreigners who had come to believe that YHWH, the God of the Israelites, was the only true God. It may well have been that the ten plagues led them to this conviction. (12:37, 38)

According to the Masoretic Text, the “sons [or people] of Israel” resided in Egypt 430 years and then departed. (12:40, 41) This, however, is in error. The Septuagint preserves the right significance, indicating that they lived in Canaan and Egypt during the 430 years. Josephus, in his Antiquities (II, xv, 2), correctly wrote that the Israelites were in Egypt 215 years, not 430 years. “They left Egypt in the month of Xanthicus [Abib or Nisan], on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; 430 years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan but 215 years only after Jacob removed into Egypt.” In his letter to the Galatians, the apostle Paul likewise included the residence in Canaan as being part of the 430 years, for he wrote that 430 years passed between the time God made the promise to Abraham regarding his future “seed” or offspring that would receive the land of Canaan as their inheritance (Genesis 12:4-7) and the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, in the same year the Israelites had left Egypt. (Galatians 3:16, 17) Although Targum Jonathan provides a different starting point for the 430 years, it clearly states that the time the Israelites were in Egypt was much shorter than 430 years. It says, “The days of the dwelling of the sons of Israel in Mizraim [Egypt] were thirty weeks of years (thirty times seven years), which is the sum of 210 years.” (See the Notes section.)

The night of Abib or Nisan 14, was a night for YHWH to watch developments in relation to bringing his people out of Egypt. It was his night. As a night to be remembered by all future generations of Israelites, this night was to be one for watching or a vigil. It would be a night for them to observe in honor of YHWH for what he had done for them in liberating them from Egyptian enslavement. (12:42)

To Moses and Aaron, YHWH revealed additional requirements for those who would be partaking of the Passover meal. No foreigner was entitled to eat it. Any non-Israelite slave whom the Israelites might purchase would have to be circumcised before he could join in eating the Passover meal. Alien residents or hired non-Israelites would be excluded from the Passover observance. Each roasted lamb or goat was to be eaten in just one house. None of the meat was to be carried outside that house, and no bone of the lamb or goat was to be broken. The entire community of Israel was to observe the Passover. A resident alien could eat the Passover meal if he and all the males in his household had been circumcised. His status would then be like that of an Israelite native in the land. No uncircumcised male, however, could eat the Passover meal. Only one law would govern natives, strangers, and resident aliens in the midst of the people of Israel. (12:43-49)

“All the sons [or people] of Israel did what YHWH commanded them through Moses and Aaron. It was on the very day the Israelites observed the first Passover that YHWH brought them as a free people out of the land of Egypt. (12:50, 51)

Notes

Although the month of Abib (Nisan) was the first month of the sacred calendar (12:2), the Israelites continued to consider their secular or agricultural year to begin in the fall. In his Antiquities (I, iii, 3), Josephus wrote, “Moses appointed that Nisan … should be the first month for their festivals because he brought them out of Egypt in that month.” … This “month began the year as to all solemnities they observed to the honor of God, although he [Moses] preserved the original order of the months as to selling and buying, and other ordinary affairs.”

In the Septuagint, verse 10 contains an addition regarding the animal, “and you must not break a bone of it.”

The death of the Egyptian firstborn (12:29) would have exposed the weakness of the deities they worshiped, for none were able to save even one of their firstborn. Rulers of Egypt considered themselves as gods, the sons of the god Ra or Amon-Ra. Therefore, the death of the firstborn son of Pharaoh would have been regarded as the death of a god.

In verse 29, the Septuagint refers to a captive woman confined in a pit, whereas the Hebrew text indicates that the prisoner or captive was a male.

Regarding the unleavened dough (12:34, 39), Josephus (Antiquities, II, xv, 1) wrote that the Israelites had no food from the land near the Red Sea, “because it was a desert.” He then continued, “They ate of loaves kneaded of flour, only warmed by a gentle heat; and this food they made use of for thirty days.” This was because what they brought from Egypt was insufficient to sustain them any longer. Targum Jonathan says that the dough “was baked for them by the heat of the sun.”

The words of Josephus about the residence in Canaan agree with the Genesis account (25 + 60 + 130 = 215 years). From the time Abraham entered Canaan until the birth of Isaac was 25 years. (Genesis 12:4, 5; 21:5) Isaac became father to the twins Esau and Jacob at the age of 60. (Genesis 25:26) Jacob was 130 years old when he entered Egypt with his household. (Genesis 47:8, 9)

Chapter 13

YHWH decreed that all the firstborn of the Israelites, both man and domestic animal, belonged to him and should be dedicated or sanctified to him. This was because the firstborn of the Israelites had been spared at the time the firstborn of the Egyptians perished. (13:1, 2)

The day the Israelites were delivered from Egyptian enslavement was one they should remember. Upon being settled in the land that YHWH, on oath, had promised to their forefathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) to give to their descendants, they were to observe parts of the month of Abib or Nisan (mid-March to mid-April, the month during which their deliverance had occurred). They would then be enjoying the land formerly in possession of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Chananites, Chettites, Euites, Gergesites, Amorrites, Pherezites, and Iebousites [LXX]) as their land, a land flowing with milk and honey. Their cows and goats would be supplying the Israelites with much milk, and they would have an abundance of honey from wild bees and from fruits in the form of juice or syrup. (13:3-5)

During seven days of the month of Abib (Nisan), the Israelites were to eat unleavened bread. The seventh day was to be observed as a festival to YHWH, and during the entire seven-day period no leaven was to be found anywhere in their homes throughout their territory. To keep the memory alive about the significance of the seven-day observance, the Israelites were to tell their sons about what YHWH had done for them when they came out of Egypt. (13:6-8)

To indicate that the memory of what happened should never be allowed to fade, the Israelites were to consider this as if it was an actual sign or mark on their hand, a mark that would always be before them in all their activity. It was to be a “memorial between [their] eyes” or, according to the Septuagint, a “memorial before [their] eyes [or in full view before them].” The Hebrew expression a “memorial between your eyes” could be understood to mean that what YHWH had done for them was to be like a permanent mark on their foreheads. It was a historical development that should have been firmly fixed in their memory. (13:9)

With the deliverance that YHWH brought about with his “mighty hand” or power being part of their permanent memory, the Israelites would have it as the “law [or teaching] of YHWH in [their] mouth.” They would be able to use their mouths to explain to their offspring the significance of the observance of the Passover and why the seven-day period that followed was one during which no leaven was to be in their homes. From year to year, they were to commemorate the deliverance of their ancestors from Egypt. This included remembering the events associated with the first Passover on Abib (Nisan) 14 — the death of the Egyptian firstborn and preservation of the Israelite firstborn. In obedience to the word of YHWH, their ancestors had eaten the roasted one-year-old lamb or goat along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Also as commanded, they had put some of the blood of the animal on the two doorposts and lintels of their houses . This was the required sign for them to have their firstborn spared from death. When their ancestors left Egypt they had no time to bake bread for the journey but took the available unleavened dough in their bowls. Therefore, the seven-day period that followed Passover served as a reminder that the Israelites ate unleavened bread following their exodus from Egypt. (13:9, 10)

Upon being settled in the land YHWH had promised to give them, the Israelites were to set apart their firstborn sons and the firstlings of their domestic animals as belonging to him. The firstborn males of cattle, sheep, and goats were to be offered as sacrifices. A firstborn of a donkey (an unclean animal and one not acceptable for sacrifice) was to be redeemed with a sheep, which would then be offered as a sacrifice. If a firstborn donkey was not redeemed, the neck of the animal was to be broken. This may have served to deter any Israelite from failing to redeem a firstborn male donkey, for he would have lost the animal as a potential valuable beast of burden. The firstborn sons were to be redeemed by making a payment of five silver shekels at the tabernacle and later at the temple. (13:11-13; Numbers 18:15, 16; see the Notes section.)

If, in later times, a son asked his father about the significance of the redemption of the firstborn, the father was to explain that it was because YHWH, with a “mighty hand” or his great power, had delivered their ancestors from enslavement in Egypt. To force stubborn Pharaoh to free the people, YHWH had struck down every firstborn, the firstborn of both man and beast, among the Egyptians. Therefore, because the firstborn of the Israelite ancestors were spared, their descendants sacrificed to YHWH the first animals to proceed from the wombs of the animals in their herds and their flocks and redeemed their firstborn sons. (13:14, 15)

For the Israelites to carry out the divine command respecting the firstborn was to be like a sign or mark on their hand and a frontlet or symbol “between [their] eyes” or on their forehead (“unmovable before [their] eyes” [LXX]). They were not to forget what their ancestors had experienced in Egypt. In all their activity and on whatever they focused their eyes, the Israelites were to remember YHWH’s law, including the commands regarding the redemption of the firstborn and its significance. (13:16)

The most direct route to the land of Canaan would have been through the territory of the Philistines. YHWH, however, did not lead his people through that territory. This was so that they would not almost immediately after their departure from Egypt have found themselves fighting the Philistines, and warfare could have led them to regret ever having left Egypt and could have made them desire to return there to enjoy peace. Therefore, God led them by “way of the wilderness” toward the Sea of Reeds (yam-suph) or the Red Sea (LXX). This may have been the western arm of the Red Sea, which is now known as the Gulf of Suez. According to the Septuagint, the people departed from Egypt in the “fifth generation,” apparently the fifth generation after Jacob arrived in Egypt with his household. (13:17, 18; see the Notes section.)

Although the Israelites did not have to fight soon after departing from Egypt, the men did leave as persons prepared for battle. They did, however, have to fight against the Amalekites years before they entered the land of Canaan. (13:18; 17:8-16; Deuteronomy 25:17-19)

In expression of his faith in God’s promise that the descendants of his father Jacob would become permanent residents in the land of Canaan, Joseph solemnly enjoined his brothers to carry his bones out of Egypt when God visited them or turned his attention to them. Accordingly, Moses complied with that request. In this way, whenever the Israelites showed a lack of faith, the bones of Joseph continued to be a tangible evidence of his faith in YHWH’s promise and should have reproved their faithlessness. (13:19)

At this point, the Exodus account indicates where the Israelites encamped after they left Succoth. The place of encampment was at “Etham [Othom (LXX)], on the edge of the wilderness.” It is not possible to be definite in linking Etham to any specific known site. (13:20)

The manner in which YHWH led his people through the wilderness is described as having been by means of a pillar or column of cloud by day and a pillar or column of fire at night. Apparently the pillar appeared like a column of fire that provided illumination during the night. This made it possible for the Israelites to travel not just during the day but also during the night. The column itself was always present with the Israelites. (13:21, 22)

Notes

In verse 13, the Septuagint says that, if a firstborn donkey was not exchanged with a sheep, the donkey was to be redeemed. There is no explanation of how the donkey should be redeemed. Possibly the translator, in the time he lived, understood the redemption price to have been a stipulated amount of money and chose to translate the Hebrew text according to what had become the practice outside the land of Israel in much later centuries.

The Hebrew expression yam-suph (Sea of Reeds) has given rise to the view that the Israelites did not cross the Red Sea or its western arm. Those who have adopted this view believe that the Israelites crossed the swampy Bitter Lakes region. This region, however, does not fit the biblical narrative that the waters of the sea covered Pharaoh’s entire military host. (13:18; 14:28)

Chapter 14

YHWH, probably through his representative angel, instructed Moses to tell the people to “turn back” from where they were then situated (evidently at Etham [13:20]) and encamp in front of (literally, “before the face”) of Pihahiroth “between Migdol and the sea.” The new location is also described as “by the sea” and in front of (literally, “before the face”) of Baal-zephon “over against it.” None of the place names can be positively identified with known sites. In the Septuagint, there is no reference to Pihahiroth. It says that they were to encamp “before [or opposite] the settlement between Magdolos [Migdol] and between the sea, opposite Beelsepphon [Baal-zephon].” “Before them,” the people were to encamp “by the sea.” The reference to “before them” could mean that they were to encamp opposite the named locations. Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint agree that the new camping place was near the sea. (14:1, 2)

Josephus, in his Antiquities (II, xv, 3) wrote that there was a mountain ridge on either side of the location and that both of the mountain ridges “terminated at the sea” and “were impassable by reason of their roughness.” One view that this description and the biblical narrative support links the place of encampment to the vicinity of Mount Ataka. The mountain is located at the beginning of the Gulf of Suez and overlooks the western bank of this arm of the Red Sea.

YHWH had the Israelites turn back to a new place of encampment because it would cause Pharaoh to draw the wrong conclusion about them. Pharaoh would think that the people were trapped. Through this circumstance, YHWH hardened Pharaoh’s heart, allowing him stubbornly to resist YHWH’s purpose to bring the Israelites into the land of Canaan as his liberated people. When Pharaoh chose to act defiantly, YHWH purposed to gain glory or honor for himself through him and his military host. This would force the Egyptians to “know” or to recognize the God of Israel as YHWH, the One whose will could never be successfully resisted. (14:3, 4)

Upon coming to know that the Israelites had fled, Pharaoh and his servants regretted that they had let them depart. This had left them without a large number of enslaved laborers for their agricultural operations and building projects. Therefore, Pharaoh determined to capture the Israelites and bring them back to Egypt. He readied his chariot and, with his military force, began his pursuit. The military force included 600 choice chariots and numerous other chariots (literally, “all the other chariots of Egypt” [“all the cavalry of the Egyptians” (LXX)]). All of the chariots were manned. The Hebrew word referring to persons in the chariot may literally be translated “third men.” Ancient Egyptian depictions of chariots, however, show only two warriors positioned on a chariot. Therefore, the designation may simply be understood to apply to officers or commanders. (14:5-7)

With a “hardened heart” or a defiant attitude that YHWH had permitted him to develop, Pharaoh went forth against the Israelites who had, “with uplifted hand” (boldly, defiantly, or victoriously like men with raised arms, poised to strike), left Egypt. Pharaoh, with his entire army that included horses, chariots, and horsemen, caught up with the Israelites at Pihahiroth in front of (literally, “before the face of”) Baal-zephon. (14:8, 9) Josephus (Antiquities, II, xv, 3) commented regarding Pharaoh’s pursuit. Pharaoh reasoned that the Israelites had “no pretense to pray to God against them,” as they had been permitted to leave Egypt (the implication being that all the conditions of the word of YHWH directed to him had been met). He and the warriors with him thought that the Israelites should be “easily overcome,” for they “had no armor” and would have been weary from their journey. “Now when the Egyptians had overtaken the Hebrews, they prepared to fight them, and by their multitude they drove them into a narrow place; for the number that pursued after them was 600 chariots, with 50,000 horsemen, and 200,000 footmen, all armed. They also seized on the passages by which they imagined the Hebrews might flee, shutting them up between inaccessible precipices and the sea.”

Upon seeing the Egyptian warriors pursuing them, the Israelites gave way to fear and cried out to YHWH. They also became angry at Moses, telling him, “Is it because no graves exist in Egypt that you brought us to die in the wilderness? What have you done to us by leading us out of Egypt? Is not this the word we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, Leave us alone and let us serve the Egyptians? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness.” Moses encouraged the people not to be afraid but to wait for YHWH to act, assuring them that the Egyptians they then saw they would never see again. “YHWH will fight for you, and you only have to be quiet” or remain calm without having to do anything to defend yourselves. (14:10-14)

In his Antiquities (II, xv, 4), Josephus added details that are not in the Exodus account. He wrote that the Hebrews “expected a universal destruction, unless they delivered themselves up to the Egyptians. So they laid the blame on Moses and forgot all the signs that had been wrought by God for the recovery of their freedom.” … In their incredulity, they began to throw stones at Moses “while he encouraged them and promised them deliverance.” They resolved to “deliver themselves up to the Egyptians. So there was sorrow and lamentation among the women and children, who had nothing but destruction before their eyes, while they were encompassed by mountains, the sea, and their enemies, and discerned no way of fleeing from them.”

Apparently Moses also cried out to YHWH, and the response was, “Why do you cry out to me? Tell the sons [or people] of Israel to set out” or break camp. Through his representative angel, YHWH directed Moses to stretch out his hand (the arm of the hand in which he would be holding his rod) over the sea , thereby causing the sea to divide and making it possible for the Israelites to pass through the opened sea on dry ground. YHWH would then “harden the heart of the Egyptians” or permit them to become stubbornly defiant and to pursue the Israelites. By the action he would take, YHWH purposed to get “glory through Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots and his horsemen.” The Egyptians would be forced to “know” or recognize YHWH as the God without equal at the time he gained “glory through Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen” or by means of what he would do to them in an impressive manner. (14:15-18)

God’s angel had accompanied the Israelites after they left Egypt, going before them. Apparently the angel was closely associated with the pillar or column of cloud, for both he and the cloud moved from in front of the Israelites to a position in their rear. The pillar of cloud blocked the view of the Egyptian warriors, left them in darkness, and prevented them from nearing the Israelites, who had light. With the rod in his hand, Moses stretched out his arm over the sea. During that night, YHWH (his representative angel) caused the sea to divide with a strong east wind (south wind [LXX]) and dried the pathway through the opened sea. The Israelites entered the dry pathway, and the waters of the sea formed a wall on their right and left sides. (14:19-22)

Thereafter the Egyptian military force followed the Israelites in the passage through the opened sea. During the morning watch (from around 2:00 a.m. through about 6:00 a.m.), YHWH, through his representative angel, looked down from the pillar or column of cloud and fire and threw the Egyptian host into confusion or panic. He caused the wheels of their chariots to become clogged (literally, he turned the wheels), making it difficult for the charioteers to drive onward. Recognizing that it must have been YHWH who was fighting for the Israelites, the Egyptian warriors determined to flee from before them. This, however, became impossible. (14:23-25)

When Moses, at divine direction, stretched out his hand (the arm of the hand that held his rod) over the sea, the water of the sea flowed back over the passageway and drowned the Egyptians. Not a single one of the Egyptian warriors remained alive. Whereas the Egyptian military force perished, the Israelites, between a wall of water on either side of them, crossed to the other side of the sea on dry ground. They thereafter saw the dead Egyptians on the seashore. The “great work” that YHWH did at that time against the Egyptians filled the Israelites with a wholesome fear. They believed in YHWH (in him as the God who had rescued them from the Egyptians) and in Moses as YHWH’s servant. (14:26-31)

Commenting on the events at that time, Josephus (Antiquities III, xvi, 3) wrote: “The Egyptians were not aware that they were going into a road made for the Hebrews, and not for others; that this road was made for the deliverance of those in danger but not for those who were earnest to make use of it for the others’ destruction. As soon, therefore, as the whole Egyptian army was within it, the sea flowed to its own place and came down with a torrent raised by storms of wind and encompassed the Egyptians. Showers of rain also came down from the sky, and dreadful thunders and lightning, with flashes of fire. Thunderbolts also darted upon them. … A dark and dismal night oppressed them. And thus did all these men perish, so that there was not one man left to be a messenger of this calamity to the rest of the Egyptians.”

Chapter 15

To express their gratitude to YHWH, Moses and all the “sons of Israel” sang a song that focused on the deliverance they experienced at the Sea of Reeds or the Red Sea. The specific mention of Moses suggests that he had composed this song. (15:1; see the Notes section.)

To YHWH is attributed the act of tossing horse and rider into the sea. In the context of the events at that time, “rider” could apply more specifically to the charioteer. Regarding YHWH’s saving deed for his people, the Hebrew text repeats the verb that may be defined as meaning “to rise up” or “to be exalted” (“to be exalted, exalted”) and could be understood to signify “to be exalted in triumph” or “to be impressively exalted.” The Septuagint rendering may be translated, “gloriously he is glorified.” (15:1)

All the people of Israel were delivered from the Egyptian force that was determined to enslave them again. Accordingly, the singular pronouns identify what happened as a personal experience. YHWH is referred to as “my strength and my song,” the source of “my salvation,” and “my God.” Moreover, the expression of praise is personal. “I will praise him, the God of my father, and I will exalt him.” At the sea, the Israelites, in their vulnerable circumstances, were weak and helpless. YHWH, however, proved to be their strength when he delivered them. He rendered the mighty Egyptian host helpless, and all the warriors perished. YHWH was the “song” for the Israelites individually, for his deliverance provided the occasion for the song of praise. In the Septuagint, the expression “My strength and my song” is not rendered literally. It says, “A helper and protector he has become to me for deliverance.” The reference to “God of my father” could apply to their forefather Abraham or to Jacob as the patriarchal head from whom all the tribes of Israel had descended. Targum Jonathan does not include the personal aspect but says, “God of our fathers” or forefathers. (15:2)

YHWH had fought for his people, providing the basis for his being called a “man of war” or a warrior. The Septuagint refers to him as crushing wars. (15:3)

YHWH threw Pharaoh’s chariots and his military force into the sea. All the Egyptian warriors sank into the sea like a “stone.” (15:4, 5)

The right hand is commonly the one that functions when wielding weapons of offense or defense. For this reason, YHWH’s “right hand” is portrayed as the hand of glorious or impressive power and as shattering the enemy. To YHWH, foes are like stubble that the expression of his anger consumes as does a fire. (15:6, 7)

The strong east wind that divided the water of the sea and created a wide, dry pathway is likened to the blast of YHWH’s nostrils. According to the Septuagint, the “spirit” or “wind of [God’s] wrath” divided the water. On both sides of the created passageway through the sea, the water “stood up in a heap” or like a wall as though the water had been congealed. (15:8) According to Targum Jonathan, the waters stood “as if bound like skins that confine flowing water.”

The Egyptian warriors, the enemy, intended to pursue and overtake the Israelites, divide the booty, and wield the sword against them to effect their destruction. The words about their “soul” having “its fill of them” relates to fulfilling their desire or aim regarding them. In the Septuagint, the objective is expressed as follows: “Pursuing, I will overtake; I will divide spoils; I will fill my soul [or desire]; I will lift up [kill with] my sword; my hand will dominate.” The Egyptians did not succeed, for YHWH blew with his wind, the water of the sea then covered them, and the warriors sank “like lead in mighty [or turbulent] waters.” (15:9, 10)

In view of what YHWH had accomplished that none of the deities the Egyptians worshiped could do, the questions are raised, “Who is like you among the gods, O YHWH? Who is like you, majestic in holiness [impressively holy or pure in all respects; glorified among holy ones (LXX)], awe-inspiring in renown [astonishing in glories (LXX)] or astonishing in acts that reveal glory, splendor, or majesty], performing wonders?” YHWH is indeed the God without equal. (15:11)

YHWH is represented as stretching out his “right hand,” extending his arm to take action against the enemies of his people, and the “earth” then swallowed these enemies or the earth became their watery grave. In his compassionate concern, kindness, or enduring love for them (his “righteousness” or “justice” [LXX]), YHWH had redeemed them from Egypt, their house of slavery. With his strength, he guided them, using his power to aid them. His purpose was to bring them to his “holy abode,” apparently the land he had promised to give to them. The attainment of their future dwelling place was a certainty and, therefore, is referred to as if the Israelites had already arrived there. (15:12, 13)

News about the calamity that had befallen the Egyptian military force spread to neighboring lands, causing the peoples there to tremble in fear. The Septuagint says that “nations heard and were angered.” In Philistia, the inhabitants were seized with “pangs” (like those of a woman about to give birth), possibly when contemplating what could befall them. Chieftains of Edom were frightened (hurried [LXX]), and leaders of Moab gave way to trembling in fear. The inhabitants of Canaan “melted away” or were deprived of their strength and courage. All the peoples in the various lands experienced terror and dread. On account of the greatness of YHWH’s arm or the power he displayed when destroying the entire Egyptian military force, the various peoples are depicted as becoming “still like a stone,” unable to move, as if the Israelites (the people whom YHWH had acquired) were already passing by their lands. (15:14-16)

Ultimately, YHWH would bring his people into the land he had promised to give to them. There they would be “planted” or established. The “mountain of [YHWH’s] inheritance” apparently would be the place where his sanctuary would be. It would be a place of his choosing and, therefore, the place he made and the sanctuary that he established by his “hands” or power. (15:17)

As the only true God, YHWH is the supreme Sovereign, and he “will reign forever and ever.” It appears that, with this thought, the song concludes. (15:18)

The words of verse 19 seemingly function as a summary about the destruction of Pharaoh’s horses, chariots, horsemen or charioteers, and concerning the deliverance of the “sons [or people] of Israel.” (15:19)

Aaron’s (also Moses’) sister Miriam is called a “prophetess,” indicating that inspired messages were conveyed through her to the people. In view of her taking the lead in singing praise to YHWH with the other women, this may have been included in her prophesying. Miriam, with a tambourine in her hand, led all the women who played their tambourines and danced. Miriam sang to the women, “Sing to YHWH, for he is impressively exalted. Horse and its rider he has tossed into the sea.” Likely Miriam was the first woman to begin singing and then the other women joined in playing their tambourines, dancing, and singing. According to verse 1, Moses and the “sons of Israel” sang the song. Therefore, Miriam and the other women probably sang the words as a refrain in response to the singing of the men. (15:20, 21; see the comments on verse 1 and the Notes section.)

From the “Sea of Reeds” or the “Red Sea” (LXX), Moses led the Israelites into the “wilderness of Shur [Sour (LXX)],” possibly the arid region near the place named Shur. This place cannot be positively identified with any known site. For “three days” in that arid region, the Israelites did not find any water. When they did find water, they could not drink it, for it was bitter. Therefore, they named the location Marah, meaning “bitterness.” The people then began to murmur against Moses, saying to him, “What shall we drink?”(15:22-24)

In response to his outcry to YHWH, Moses was instructed to toss a specific tree into the water, and it became “sweet,” suitable for drinking. It was there at Marah that YHWH put the people of Israel to a test as to whether they would trust him to care for them and to supply what they needed. Drinking water that is bad can make people sick. When Moses followed YHWH’s direction in using the designated means to make the water fit to drink, this revealed that YHWH could do what was essential to protect his people from illness. The statute and ordinance that the Israelites were then given is set forth in the words that follow. If they heeded the “voice of YHWH [their] God,” did what “is right in his eyes,” obeyed “his commandments” and “all his statutes,” they would not experience the diseases that he “put upon the Egyptians” or the diseases from which he did not shield the Egyptians. He did not prevent the Egyptians from following practices that were injurious to their physical well-being. Instead of being the One to put diseases upon them or allowing them to contract illness on account of disobedience, the Israelites, as an obedient people, would find YHWH to be the One who would be healing them. (15:25, 26)

Moses next led the Israelites to Elim (Ailim [LXX]), a place that cannot be identified with certainty. One conjecture links Elim to Wadi Gharandel (not far from the western shore of the Gulf of Suez and about midway between the land bordering the southern shore of the Mediterranean Sea and the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula). According to the Exodus account, there were twelve springs in the area and seventy palm trees. (15:27; see the Notes section.)

Notes

There is no record in the Exodus account that the Israelites had any weapons when they left Egypt, but later they had an armed conflict with the Amalekites. (17:13) Josephus includes information that explains how the Israelites came to have weapons of war. “On the next day [after the destruction of the Egyptian military force] Moses gathered together the weapons of the Egyptians, which were brought to the camp of the Hebrews by the current of the sea, and the force of winds assisting it; and he conjectured that this also happened by divine providence, so that they might not be destitute of weapons.” (Antiquities, II, xvi, 6) This could have happened either before or after the singing of the song.

When Moses was three months old, his sister Miriam was old enough to take the initiative to approach Pharaoh’s daughter and ask her whether she should call one of the Hebrew women to nurse the infant for her. (2:2-9) This means that, at the time she led the women in song (15:20), Miriam may have been in her late eighties or early nineties. (7:7) The other women must have had high regard for her and viewed her as a “mother” in Israel, a woman to whom they looked for teaching and advice.

In his Antiquities (III, i, 3), Josephus describes Elim as an undesirable place. At a distance, the site appeared to be a good place, for it had a grove of palm trees. When the Israelites came near the location, “it appeared to be a bad place, for the palm trees were no more than seventy; and they were poorly grown and creeping trees.” There was insufficient moisture to water the trees. The twelve fountains were a “few moist places” rather than “springs.” When the people “dug into the sand, they met with no water; and if they took a few drops of it into their hands, they found it to be useless, on account of its mud.”

Chapter 16

After leaving Elim, the “sons [or people] of Israel” came to the “wilderness of Sin,” situated “between Elim and Sinai [Ailim and Sina (LXX)].” The exact location of this wilderness is not known, but it must have been in the southwestern part of the Sinai Peninsula. One conjecture places the wilderness in the region located east of the approximate midway point of the Gulf of Suez. It was then the fifteenth day of the second month (Iyar [mid-April to mid-May]), about a month after the Israelites had departed from Egypt. (16:1)

The entire community of Israel began to murmur against Moses and Aaron, complaining that there circumstances were so bad that it would have been better for them to have died in Egypt by YHWH’s “hand” or by his power directed against them. They maintained that they had sufficient bread to eat in Egypt and also sat there by pots of meat for their meals. Their complaint was that Moses and Aaron had brought them into the wilderness so that they might die from hunger. (16:2, 3; see the Notes section.) According to Josephus,the Israelites had become so angry at Moses that they contemplated picking up stones and hurling them at him. (Antiquities, III, i, 5)

Faced with the grumbling of the people, Moses (according to Josephus [Antiquities, III, i, 5]) ascended an eminence in the area and prayed to God. He requested that God might deliver the people from the want they were experiencing, “because in him, and in him alone, was their hope of deliverance.” Moses also expressed the desire that God would forgive the people for what their lack of food had forced them to do, “since such was the nature of mankind, hard to please and very complaining under adversities.”

YHWH (evidently through his representative angel) informed Moses that he would cause it to rain “bread from the heavens.” This was to be a daily portion that the people were to gather each day for six days, with the sixth day being the one for them to collect twice as much. The directive for them to gather a double portion on the sixth day and not to set out to collect this “bread from the heavens” on the seventh day was to serve as a test to the Israelites as to whether they would either “walk” or conduct themselves in YHWH’s law or not. Moses and Aaron told the people that, when he, in the evening, provided food for them, they would “know,” or be made to recognize, that YHWH had brought them out of Egypt. In the morning, the people were to witness the “glory of YHWH.” He had heard their murmurings against him. With reference to Moses and Aaron, the question to the people was, “For what are we that you should murmur against us?” Their complaint had really been directed against YHWH, for only he could supply their needs and they, in effect, murmured that he had failed to care for them. Personally, Moses and Aaron could not provide essential food. They also experienced hunger and had to rely on what YHWH would do for them. (16:4-7)

Since it would be YHWH who would be giving them meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning because he had heard their murmuring, Moses said to the people that their complaining was against YHWH. As had been revealed to him about the “glory of YHWH,” Moses told Aaron to say to the “sons [or people] of Israel” to come near before (literally, “before the face of”) YHWH, for he had heard their murmuring. While Aaron was still speaking, the people saw the “glory of YHWH” when looking in the direction of the wilderness. This “glory” was revealed in a cloud that may have glowed brilliantly. Possibly their seeing the “glory of YHWH” also included their receiving meat in the evening and bread (or food) in the morning. Evidently through his representative angel, YHWH told Moses that the people would be eating meat in the evening and their fill of “bread” in the morning. This would reveal to the people that YHWH was indeed their God, the One who cared and provided for them. (16:8-12)

As had been made known to Moses, a supply of meat became available in the evening. Quail came into and covered the camp of Israel. (16:13) Josephus, in his Antiquities (III, i, 5), described what happened. Quail in great numbers hovered over the people, until “wearied from their laborious flight, and, indeed, as usual, flying very near to the earth, they fell down upon the Hebrews, who caught them and satisfied their hunger with them, and supposed that this was the method whereby God meant to supply them with food.” (See the Notes section.)

In the morning all around the camp, the Israelites, after the dew lifted, saw a substance on the ground that they had never seen before. The substance was flaky and fine like hoarfrost. The Israelites are quoted as saying, man hu’ (“what is this” [LXX])? Josephus (Antiquities, III, i, 6) wrote that this question was the basis for calling the substance “manna.” “Now the Hebrews call this food manna; for the particle man, in our language, is the asking of a question, What is this?” Moses explained to the people that the substance was the “bread” YHWH had provided for them to eat. Based on the number of persons in the household, every “man” was to gather enough so that each of the members of the household had one omer (2 dry quarts [2.2 liters]) or the tenth part of an ephah as their food for the day. (16:36; see the Notes section.) The head of the household either collected the manna or supervised the gathering. According to the Septuagint, the ones dwelling in each tent were to share in collecting the manna. (16:13-16)

Likely the people gathered the manna without delay, for it melted when subjected to the heat of the sun as the day progressed. Once the approximate supply for the entire household had been collected, it was measured. Regardless of how much had been gathered, the amount always equaled one omer for every person in the household. Commenting regarding this, Josephus (Antiquities, III, i, 6) wrote: “They [the Hebrews] were enjoined to gather it equally; the measure of an omer for each one every day, because this food should not come in too small a quantity, lest the weaker might not be able to get their share by reason of the overbearing of the strong in collecting it. However, these strong men, when they had gathered more than the measure appointed for them, had no more than others, but only tired themselves more in gathering it, for they found no more than an omer apiece.” Although Moses told them not to leave any of the manna until the morning of the next day, some of the people did not listen. Worms came to be in the manna, and it began to stink. Therefore, Moses became angry at the disobedient ones. (16:17-21)

On the sixth day of the week, the people were to gather two omers of manna for every member of the household, and none was to be collected on the seventh day. Moses made known to the assembled leaders of the people that YHWH had commanded observing the seventh day as a day of rest, a “holy sabbath.” Accordingly, on the sixth day, the Israelites were to bake or boil what they wanted and to keep the extra amount of manna until the next morning for use as their food on that day. On the seventh day, the manna did not become infested with worms nor did it begin to stink. Although Moses had told them that there would be no provision of manna on the seventh day, some of the people disregarded what he said. They left their tents to look for manna but did not find any. Moses directed YHWH’s words of reproof against them, “How long will you refuse to observe my commandments and my laws?” So that the people could observe the seventh day as a day of rest and not leave their tents, YHWH had provided them with a two-day supply of manna. (16:22-30)

The food that the Israelites called manna is described as being white like coriander seed and tasting like wafers made with honey. Regarding manna, Josephus (Antiquities, III, i, 6) wrote that “it was like honey in sweetness,” and in “greatness” or size “equal to coriander seed.” Coriander seed can be grayish-white in color and between 3 and 5 millimeters in size (c. 0.12 and c. 0.2 inches). According to Numbers 11:7, manna was like coriander seed and had an appearance like that of bdellium (a resinous gum). (16:31)

To provide tangible evidence regarding what the Israelites ate in the wilderness, YHWH commanded that one omer of manna be kept in a (gold [LXX]) container for generations to come. After the “ark of the covenant” (or the “ark of the testimony”) had been constructed, this container was to be placed inside it before (literally, before the face of) YHWH. As YHWH had commanded Moses, Aaron stored the container filled with one omer of manna “before the testimony” (probably meaning before the two stone tablets on which the “Ten Words” or “Ten Commandments” were written and which tablets had been placed inside the ark of the covenant). (16:32-34)

For some 40 years during their wandering in the wilderness, the Israelites ate manna, but the provision of manna ended when they came into the land of Canaan. (16:35; Joshua 5:10-12)

Notes

The complaint of the people that they had been brought into the wilderness to die of hunger suggests that whatever food supply they had brought with them had been exhausted in about a month after they had left Egypt. This may explain why Josephus wrote that, for “thirty days,” the Israelites made use of the unleavened dough they had brought from Egypt. (Antiquities, II, xv, 1)

According to the ancient Greek historian Herodotus (Histories, II, 77), the Egyptians salted and ate quail raw. Whether this is what the Israelites did is not indicated in the account. Pliny the Elder (Natural History, X, 33) wrote that quail are light and have limited strength. In their long migratory flight, they rely on a breeze to assist them. He also indicated that it often happened that at night, exhausted quail would settle on the sails of a ship in such great numbers as to cause the vessel to sink.

In verse 36, the Septuagint refers to the gomor (omer) as consisting of three measures. This is apparently based on the then-current understanding that three seah measures equaled one ephah.

Chapter 17

After leaving the wilderness of Sin in keeping with YHWH’s commandment, the Israelites arrived at Rephidim (Raphidin [LXX]). There is no certainty about where Rephidim was located. One common conjecture links the place to a site northwest of and comparatively near the traditional location of Mount Sinai. At Rephidim, the people found no water and began to quarrel with Moses, telling him that he should give them water to drink. He responded with the questions, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test YHWH?” The people were wrongfully testing YHWH, for their words challenged YHWH as if he were absent from them and could or would not provide for them what they needed. (17:1, 2)

Their grumbling against Moses reached the point where they accused him of leading them out of Egypt to kill them, their children, and their livestock with thirst. Moses felt seriously threatened and prayed to YHWH about what he should do, for the people were almost ready to stone him. YHWH (evidently his representative angel) told Moses to choose some of the elders of Israel to accompany him to the rock at Horeb (the mountainous area around Mount Sinai) and there, with the rod he had struck the Nile, to strike the rock. It appears that YHWH revealed that he would point out the particular rock, for he is quoted as saying, “Look, I will stand before you [literally, before your face] there.” The account does not, however, reveal whether the angel of YHWH stood at the location or whether the cloud moved to that location. When Moses struck the rock “before the eyes of the elders of Israel,” water in abundance gushed forth. (17:3-6)

Moses named the place, where water had been provided from the rock, Massah (Testing [also LXX]) and Meribah (Quarreling; Reviling [LXX]). They had put YHWH to the test when implying with their faithless complaint that he was not there for them, not providing them with water. They had challengingly questioned whether YHWH was among them or not. The people had also quarreled with or railed against Moses for leading them away from Egypt into a desert where they would die of thirst. (17:7)

At Rephidim, the Amalekites attacked the rear of the camp of Israel. Based on Genesis 36:15, 16, the Amalekites were the descendants of Eliphaz, the firstborn son of Jacob’s twin brother Esau. When they launched their unprovoked attack, the Israelites were in a weak (hungry or famished [LXX]) and weary state. (Deuteronomy 25:18) Moses directed Joshua to select men from among the people to fight against the Amalekites. According to Josephus, they had earlier collected weapons of the Egyptian military force that perished in the Red Sea (Antiquities, II, xvi, 6) and would have been in a position to engage in battle. Moses assured Joshua that he would stand on top of a hill in the area and hold the “rod of God in [his] hand.” (17:8, 9)

Joshua acted on Moses’s directive to fight against the Amalekites, and Moses, accompanied by his brother Aaron and by Hur, walked up to the “top of the hill.” With the rod in his hand pointing skyward, Moses was unable to keep his arm continually aloft. Apparently the lifted rod constituted an appeal to God to render aid to Joshua and the men under his command. It appears that the petition for God’s help required that the rod be steadily held aloft. Therefore, when Moses’ hands became weary, causing him to lower the rod, the Amalekites proved to be superior in their fight against Joshua and the men with him. Witnessing this development, Aaron and Hur found a stone on which Moses could sit. Then, with Aaron on one side of his brother and Hur on the other side, they held his hands steady until the sun set and the Amalekites were defeated. The role of Moses with the rod revealed that the victory had been attained with YHWH’s assistance. (17:10-13; see the Note section.)

In view of what the Amalekites did, Moses was to record, as a memorial or a reminder, YHWH’s judgment against them and to read it aloud to (literally, “in the ears of”) Joshua. The memory of Amalek was to be blotted out. Evidently in expression of thanksgiving for the victory over the Amalekites, Moses built an altar and called it YHWH-nissi (YHWH is my standard or banner, the One around whom the warriors assemble). In the Septuagint, the name of the altar is rendered “The Lord [is] my refuge [or, My Lord [is] a refuge].” (17:14, 15; see the Notes section.)

There is uncertainty about the significance of the Hebrew noun kes in the words ascribed to Moses, “Hand upon the throne [kes] of Yah.” Numerous translations render kes as “banner.” Perhaps the words constitute a battle cry, possibly implying that the warriors should look to YHWH for help as if taking hold on his throne or as if assembling around him like a raised banner. That the Israelites would again fight against the Amalekites is evident from the words that YHWH would be at war “with Amalek from generation to generation.” According to the Septuagint, God would be fighting against Amalek with a “hidden hand,” perhaps indicating that the power at work against Amalek would be secret, not visible. (17:16; see the Notes section.)

Notes

Hur was probably the son of Caleb of the tribe of Judah and the grandfather of the expert craftsman Bezalel. (1 Chronicles 2:19, 20) Josephus wrote that Hur was the husband of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron. (Antiquities, III, ii, 4)

About the altar (17:15) Josephus (Antiquities, III, ii, 5) wrote, “Moses offered sacrifices of thanksgiving to God and built an altar.” Josephus identified God as the Lord who conquers or grants the victory.

Uncertainty about the significance of verse 16 has led to various renderings in modern translations. “‘Take up the banner of the LORD!’ The LORD has a war against Amalek through the ages.” (NAB, revised edition) “Hold high the banner of the LORD! The LORD will continue to fight against the Amalekites forever!”(TEV) “For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.” (NIV) “They have raised their fist against the LORD’S throne, so now the LORD will be at war with Amalek generation after generation.” (NLT) “My oath upon it: the LORD is at war with Amalek generation after generation.” (REB) “Then Moses explained [the reason for the victory], ‘This is because I depended on the LORD. But in future generations, the LORD will have to fight the Amalekites again.’” (CEV)

Chapter 18

News about everything God had done for his son-in-law Moses and the people of Israel reached Jethro (Iothor [LXX], Ietheglaios [Josephus]; also known as Reuel, Ragouel (LXX), Ragouelos [Josephus]). He heard that YHWH had delivered the Israelites out of Egypt. In his role as priest of Midian, Jethro may have functioned as a chieftain who led his family in worship. Likely he received the report about Moses from a messenger. (18:1)

Somewhere along the route on his way to Egypt, Moses had sent his wife Zipporah (Sepphora [LXX]) and his two sons Gershom and Eliezer back to Jethro. The name Gershom (Gersam [LXX]) indicted that Moses found himself as a resident alien in a foreign land, for the name is linked to the Hebrew expression ger sham, which may be translated a “resident alien there.” Eliezer, the younger son, also had a name that reflected Moses’ circumstances after he had fled from Egypt to escape from being killed. The name Eliezer means “my God is help [or a helper]” and served to express how Moses felt about what God had done for him, “for,” as Moses said, “the God of my father [his own father Amram, his ancestor Abraham, or his forefather Jacob from whom he descended through the line of Levi] [was] my help and he delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.” Upon coming to know that Moses was encamped with the Israelites in the wilderness in the proximity of the “mountain of God” (Mount Sinai) Jethro, accompanied by his daughter Zipporah and his two grandsons Gershom and Eliezer, set out to meet his son-in-law Moses. (18:2-5)

Upon receiving a messenger’s report that his father-in-law Jethro and his wife and his two sons were on their way, Moses went to meet him. He respectfully prostrated himself before his father-in-law and kissed him. The two of them asked about each other’s welfare (literally, “peace”). Apparently so that he might have a private conversation with his father-in-law, Moses conducted him into his tent and related to him everything YHWH had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for the sake of Israel, all the hardships the Israelites experienced during their journey, and how YHWH had delivered them. Jethro rejoiced over the report about “all the good that YHWH had done for Israel” when delivering the people “out of the hand [or power] of the Egyptians.” He was moved to say, “Blessed be YHWH who delivered you [Moses and all those with you] out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of Pharaoh.” Jethro acknowledged that he then knew that YHWH was greater than all other gods, basing this on the overwhelming evidence that YHWH had acted against the people who had dealt arrogantly with the Israelites. (18:6-11)

Jethro apparently had brought with him animals for sacrifice, and he presented a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God. Thereafter Aaron and the elders of Israel shared with Jethro in the communal meal of the meat from the animals that had been sacrificed. (18:12; see the Notes section.)

When later observing the people standing before Moses from morning to evening so that he might render judgment concerning them and make known to them God’s statutes and laws, instructions, or teachings, Jethro advised that his son-in-law make an adjustment to this arrangement, for the responsibility was too great for him to handle by himself. He recommended that Moses choose capable, trustworthy, God-fearing men, men who hated bribery, assigning them to handle the less serious cases. These men would then have the responsibility as rulers or chieftains over groups of various sizes — thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. While they would be handling minor disputes, Moses would handle the major disputes that they would bring to him. The benefit would be that Moses would be able to bear the burden of responsibility without becoming overwhelmed, and the people would not be wearing themselves out by having to wait a long time for him to hear their respective cases. After Moses accepted the recommendation of his father-in-law and wished him well, he departed for his own land. (18:13-27; see the Notes section.)

Notes

According to Josephus (Antiquities, III, iii), Moses is the one who offered the sacrifice and “made a feast for the multitude.” This does not agree with the extant Hebrew text nor the rendering of the Septuagint. A number of modern translations are definite in identifying Jethro as having brought the animals to be sacrificed. “Then Jethro brought an offering to be burned whole and other sacrifices to be offered to God; and Aaron and all the leaders of Israel went with him to eat the sacred meal as an act of worship.” (TEV) “Then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, brought a burnt offering and sacrifices to God. Aaron and all the elders of Israel came out and joined him in a sacrificial meal in God’s presence.” (NLT)

Josephus (Antiquities, III, iv, 1) indicates that Moses’ father-in-law did not say anything while he observed him handling disputes, not wanting to interfere with what he was doing. “But afterward he took him to himself, and when he had him alone, he instructed him in what he ought to do.” He advised him to leave the “lesser causes to others but himself to take care of the greater.” If those to whom Moses delegated the responsibility to handle cases found one that was too difficult for their determination, they were to bring it to him. Jethro is quoted as adding, “By these means two advantages will be gained: the Hebrews will have justice rendered to them and you will be able to attend constantly on God and procure him to be more favorable to the people.”

According to the Hebrew text of verse 23, matters would work out well for Moses and for the people if God directed him to accept Jethro’s recommendation or if he approved of it. In their renderings of this verse, a number of translations are more specific than is the Hebrew text. “If you follow this advice, and if God commands you to do so, then you will be able to endure the pressures, and all these people will go home in peace.” (NLT) “If you do this, as God commands, you will not wear yourself out, and all these people can go home with their disputes settled.” (TEV) “This is the way God wants it done. You won’t be under nearly as much stress, and everyone else will return home feeling satisfied.” (CEV) “If you do this, then God will direct you and you will be able to go on. And, moreover, this whole people will arrive at its destination in harmony.” (REB) The Septuagint conveys a different meaning. It indicates that God would “strengthen” Moses if he followed Jethro’s advice.

Chapter 19

The Israelites arrived in the wilderness of Sinai on the “third new moon” after their departure from Egypt. According to Numbers 33:3, the entire nation left Rameses on the fifteenth day of the first month (Abib or Nisan [mid-March to mid-April]). If the month of Abib is considered to be the month of the first new moon, then Iyyar or Ziv (mid-April to mid-May) began with the second new moon and Sivan (the third month) began with the third new moon. Based on this reckoning, the arrival of the Israelites in the wilderness of Sinai occurred in the month of Sivan. There is a measure of ambiguity about the reference to the “day” of their arrival. The Hebrew text says “that day” and could be understood to apply to the first day of the third month Sivan or the fifteenth day (the anniversary date of the departure from Egypt or, more specifically, from the location of Rameses), or the third day of Sivan (the number of the day corresponding to the number of the month). (19:1)

In the wilderness of Sinai, the Israelites encamped “before the mountain” (Mount Sinai) after having set out from the site of Rephidim. Earlier, before Moses returned to Egypt to lead the Israelites out of that land, YHWH made known that Moses and the liberated people would serve him at this mountain. (3:12) Seemingly, in view of the promise, Moses ascended the mountain to receive instructions. The angel of God had accompanied the Israelites on their journey from Egypt and his presence is associated with the pillar or column of cloud. (14:19) Therefore, it is likely that the pillar of cloud was seen at the top of Mount Sinai, and it was from the cloud that YHWH, through his representative angel, called out to Moses, telling him what he was to say to the “house of Jacob” or the “sons [or people] of Israel.” He was to remind the Israelites of what they had seen YHWH do to the Egyptians and how he had cared for them, carrying them as if on the “wings of eagles” and bringing them to himself at the previously designated location (Mount Sinai). Instances have been reported in more recent years where a parent eagle swooped below a struggling fledgling and supported it on its wings and back. This appears to be the basis for the expression used to indicate what YHWH did for his people while in circumstances comparable to that of young eagles just learning to fly. (19:2-4; see the Notes section about Mount Sinai.)

The Israelites should have responded with gratitude for what YHWH had done for them. For them truly to be his people and to continue to enjoy his blessing and aid, they had to meet certain requirements. Therefore, Moses was to relate YHWH’s words regarding this. “If you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” If obedient, the Israelites would have a unique position as the only people on earth having a direct relationship with YHWH. He, however, was not their God in a limited sense but continued to be the Supreme Sovereign over all nations and peoples, for the earth belonged to him and, therefore, all its inhabitants were subject to what he willed respecting them. The Israelites would be a “kingdom” or a royal realm, with YHWH as their Sovereign. In that royal realm, they would individually be “priests,” enjoying a direct approach to him through prayer and having him respond to their individual needs. As a nation, Israel would be “holy” or in a sanctified condition before their God as a people acceptable to him. (19:5, 6)

Moses summoned the elders of the people and related to them the words of YHWH. As representatives of the entire nation, they answered for themselves and all the rest of the Israelites, “All that YHWH has spoken we will do.” Thereafter Moses reported their words of agreement to YHWH. (19:7, 8, 9b)

YHWH is quoted as telling Moses that he would be coming to him in a thick cloud. Subsequent to that coming, the words of YHWH to Moses would be heard by all the people. The reason for this was so that the people would thereafter fully trust Moses, apparently recognizing him as YHWH’s chosen instrument to communicate his messages to them. In view of the fact that the pillar or column of cloud was linked to the angel of God, this coming of YHWH in a thick cloud must have been something different. (19:9)

Based on other biblical passages, including those recorded many centuries later (Acts 7:38, 53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2), Moses did not speak directly with YHWH, but all his communication was with the representative angel. At least two angels appear to have been involved — the one who led the Israelites out of Egypt and accompanied them in the wilderness (Exodus 23:23; 32:34; 33:2; Numbers 20:16) and who was linked to the pillar or column of cloud, and the angel who was manifested in the fear-inspiring developments at Mount Sinai.

To prepare for the manifestation of YHWH (through the angel who appears to have been in the closest relationship to him and who, in the most direct way, could speak representatively as YHWH), Moses was directed to sanctify the people. This required that, on the first and second day, they be set apart as clean, pure, or acceptable before his manifestation on the third day from then. To be found in a sanctified state, the Israelites needed to wash their clothes and abstain from sexual relations. Bounds were to be established around the mountain, and the people were commanded not to ascend it. No person and no animal that touched the mountain would remain alive. Only after the sounding of the trumpet would the people be permitted to go up on the mountain. (19:10-13, 15; see the Notes section.)

As he had been commanded, Moses informed the people about what they needed to do to get ready for the third day. On the morning of that day, a thick cloud descended upon the mountain, thunders and lightnings occurred, and a loud trumpet (shofar) blast resounded. All the encamped people began to tremble in fear. Thereafter Moses led the people out of the camp “to meet God.” They stationed themselves at the foot of the mountain. Meanwhile, smoke, like the smoke from a kiln, rose from the mountain (Mount Sinai), and the entire mountain shook violently. The sound of the trumpet became louder and louder. “Moses spoke, and God answered him in thunder.” Summoned to ascend the mountain, Moses did so and then was sent back down to warn the people not to “break through to YHWH” or to ascend Mount Sinai, for doing this would lead to their death. Before leaving, Moses replied that the people had already been commanded not to do so and that bounds had been set around the mountain. After being told that Aaron (likely because of his future appointment to serve the Israelites as their high priest) should come with him after he returned from having gone down to the people, Moses departed from the mountaintop. He then made known to them the word of YHWH. This included telling the people that the “priests” should sanctify or purify themselves and that these priests and the rest of the people should not ascend the mountain. (19:14-25; see the Notes section.)

Notes

There is uncertainty about the location of Mount Sinai. Josephus (Antiquities, III, v, 1) described the mountain as the highest in those regions. In the southern part of the Sinai Peninsula, Mount Katrina is the loftiest mountain, but it has not been traditionally identified as Mount Sinai. The traditional site is Jebel (Gebel, Jabal, Gabal, Djebel, or Djabal) Musa (Moses, Mousa, or Moussa) that is significantly lower. Weighing against the site of Jebel Musa is the absence of a large plain where the Israelites could have encamped. In front of the nearby peak known as Ras Safsafa, however, there is a sizable plain that measures a little over half a mile in width (c. 1 kilometer) and about two miles in length (c. 3 kilometers).

According to the Septuagint rendering of verse 13, the people could ascend Mount Sinai after the cloud vanished and the “sounds” (thunders) and trumpet blasts ended.

In verse 18, the Septuagint does not refer to the trembling or shaking of the mountain but says that “all the people” trembled or were terrified.

The reference in verses 22 and 24 to “priests” could not apply to the Levitical priesthood, for men from that tribe had not as yet been appointed as priests. These “priests” would have been the adult firstborn sons or the heads of families who functioned as priests for their respective households.

Chapter 20

YHWH revealed himself to be the Supreme Sovereign and the only true God, for he had delivered the Israelites from Egyptian enslavement. In keeping with what he had proved himself to be to them, the first one of the “Ten Words” or Ten Commandments forbade them from having or revering any other gods. YHWH alone was the one whom they should worship. (20:1-3)

The second commandment prohibited the Israelites from making any image patterned after anything visible in the sky and after any creature on the earth or in the waters beneath the surface of the higher land. They were not to prostrate themselves in worship before any image of this kind. As the only true God, he rightly required that his people be devoted to him alone as their God. He would not tolerate any deviation from such devotion through idolatry. From that perspective, he was a jealous God. The Israelites were warned that engaging in idolatry would have serious consequences for future generations. Offspring from the individuals who initially became idolaters and demonstrated their hatred for YHWH when practicing what was repugnant to him would be inclined to follow the bad example of their forebears. YHWH, in turn, would visit with punishment the “iniquity” (“sins” [LXX]) of the idolatrous (“wicked” [Targum Jonathan]) fathers upon their (“rebellious” [Targum Jonathan]) “sons” or children to the third and fourth generation. He, however, would show kindness, enduring love, or “mercy” (LXX) to “thousands” (“of generations of the righteous” [Targum Jonathan]) who love him and demonstrate their love by obeying his commandments. (20:4-6)

The third commandment about not taking up the name of God (YHWH) “in vain” could include the use of the name in any way that did not reflect a proper reverential regard for him. In his Antiquities (III, v, 5), Josephus is more restrictive in what the commandment signifies. He wrote “that we must not swear by God in a false matter.” YHWH would not hold anyone guiltless for taking up his name “in vain” or using it in a way that disregards that he is the Supreme Sovereign, the God of truth who is holy or pure in the absolute sense. (20:7)

The fourth commandment called upon the Israelites to remember the Sabbath, keeping it holy as a day of rest by refraining from all activity that would have been contrary to observing it as a day free from all customary labors. Undistracted by the usual work, the people would also have been in a position to focus appreciatively on God’s loving care for them. Everyone was to benefit from the day of rest — sons and daughters, male and female servants, as well as resident aliens. All of them would be able to enjoy a day without having to work. With the people not laboring, even the domestic animals used in agricultural operations and for other work were to have a day of rest. (Deuteronomy 5:14) This aspect is also included in the Septuagint text of Exodus. Through Sabbath observance, the people would have been imitating YHWH, for he completed the creation of heaven (the celestial dome), earth (or land), and sea and everything “in them” (or all creation relating to the sphere in which humans live) in six days and rested on the seventh day, looking upon the completed creative work as “good” and finding joy in what he had brought into existence during six creative days. YHWH blessed the seventh day when pronouncing what had been accomplished as good and sanctifying it or setting it apart as a sacred day of rest. (20:8-11; compare Genesis 2:2, 3.)

The fifth commandment that directs children to honor their mother and father is linked to a promise. For the Israelites, the promise was that their “days” would be “long in the [good (LXX)] land that YHWH [their] God” had given them. The Septuagint adds, “that it may go well with you,” and this is also included in the quotation found in Ephesians 6:3. Parents are concerned about the welfare of their children. Therefore, when children honor their father and mother by obeying them, they avoid pursuing activities and practices that can lead to a premature death. Honoring parents also includes caring for them and coming to their aid in their times of need. (20:12; see Mark 7:10-12; Ephesians 6:1-3)

The sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments are expressed in brief terms ([6] you must not kill or murder, [7] you must not commit adultery, [8] you must not steal, and [9] you must not testify falsely against your fellow. In the Septuagint, the order of the commandments differs. Do not commit adultery; do not steal, do not murder, do not “testify falsely against your fellow with false testimony.” (20:13-16)

The tenth commandment is unique among laws, for it is humanly unenforceable, and a person’s transgressing the tenth commandment leads to a defilement of the inner person. This commandment is against coveting or against an inordinate desire to possess what others have. The commandment states that a person must not covet the house, wife, male servant, female servant, bull, donkey, or anything else that belongs to one’s fellow. As only God, not humans, can discern and judge the inmost thoughts of an individual, the tenth commandment reveals that everyone is directly accountable to him for becoming guilty of coveting. (20:17)

While the assembled Israelites heard the “Ten Words” or Ten Commandments, they also witnessed thunders and lightnings, the sound of the trumpet (shophar), and smoke ascending from Mount Sinai. The people trembled in fear and stood far off. They did not want God to continue to speak to them, fearing that they would die, and wanted Moses to relate to them the messages he received from God, saying that they would listen. Moses told the people not to be afraid, for what was taking place served God’s purpose to have them fear him and to restrain them from sinning. The people, however, did not come closer to Mount Sinai, but Moses approached where the thick cloud was, the cloud that was a manifestation of God’s presence. (20:18-21; see the Notes section.)

YHWH is quoted as telling Moses to tell the “sons [or people] of Israel” that they had heard him speak to them “from the heavens.” At that time, they had not seen any form but only heard the voice. (Deuteronomy 4:12) Therefore, they had no basis for making any image of their God, and Moses was to command them not to make any gold or silver images of other gods. (20:22, 23)

At locations where YHWH would reveal himself (cause his “name to be remembered), evidently by acting in an impressive manner to benefit the Israelites, they were to erect an altar of earth (a simple mound of soil) on which they would offer animals sacrifices. YHWH’s coming to his people at these locations signified his turning his favorable attention to them, and he would bless them there. If the Israelites chose to build an altar of stones, they were not to shape the stones with a tool but leave them in their natural state. Destroying the natural state of the stones would have constituted an act of profanation, for it would have altered their appearance from the state in which God had designated them to remain. Steps were ruled out for all altars, as ascending steps would expose “nakedness” or the private parts upon the altar. (20:24-26; see the Notes section.)

Notes

With reference to Exodus 20:19, the writer, in his letter to the Hebrews (12:18-26), warned them not to be like the Israelites who wanted to excuse themselves from having God speak directly to them.

The comments on verse 24 follow the way in which the Septuagint rendering of the text has been punctuated.

The command about altars (20:24, 25) applied particularly prior to the construction of the altar for the tabernacle. In later times, Gideon, Samuel, and Elijah must have followed this command when erecting altars. (Judges 6:26-28; 1 Samuel 7:9; 1 Kings 18:31, 32)

Exposure of private parts when ascending steps was possible whenever robes and no undergarments were worn. (20:26) The book of Exodus (28:42) does include the directive that shorts should be made for those who would be serving as priests. Likely, however, men generally did not wear shorts under their robes.

Chapter 21

The laws and regulations in this and other chapters of Exodus served to meet the needs and circumstances existing in times and cultures that differed significantly from our own. Often these laws and regulations affected long-established institutions and the then-existing social order. They prohibited abuses, introduced a more humane, compassionate, or just way of dealing with fellow humans, set forth penalties for criminal behavior and serious negligence, promoted greater consideration for the welfare of domestic animals, established practices that contributed to the preservation of productive arable land, and outlined procedures for preventing illness and controlling infectious diseases. (21:1)

Long before the Israelites received the laws that are recorded in the book of Exodus, slavery existed and often slaves were mistreated. Among the Israelites, a fellow Israelite could not, without his personal consent, be owned permanently. The period of servitude for an Israelite slave ended after six years (or earlier if the time remaining until the Jubilee year was less than six years). During the time of his servitude, the slave was to be treated justly like a hired laborer. (Leviticus 25:39, 40) According to Deuteronomy 15:12-15, the liberated slave was to be provided with a generous gift that would aid him to start his life as a free man on a sound footing. (21:2)

A Hebrew (or Israelite) slave who began his service for a master as a single man would be set free as a single man in the seventh year, but a married man would be set free along with his wife. In case the master gave the single man a woman to be his wife, the master retained possession of the woman and of any children resulting from the union. Apparently the woman would have been a non-Israelite, for an Israelite woman could not have been treated like the permanent property of the master who gave her as a wife to another man. In the event the Hebrew slave was content in his position and loved his master and his wife and his children, he could choose to remain a slave. To signify that he wanted to remain with his master, the master would bring him “before God” (or “before the judges” [if the plural word for “God” is not a plural of excellence but applies to human judges (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34, 35)]). With the slave standing with his ear against the door or the doorpost, the master would pierce this ear with an awl, signifying that the slave would remain permanently in his service. As the organ of hearing, the pierced ear could also have indicated that the slave would continue to listen to, respond obediently to, or remain submissive to his master. (21:3-6)

A number of modern translations interpret the words about bringing the slave “before God” to mean bringing him to the place where God is worshiped and where God would witness the piercing of the ear and the commitment the slave had voluntarily made to his master. (CEV, TEV) The expression “before God” may, however, simply denote that the act of piercing the slave’s ear would be done in the presence of God, with God being called upon to witness that the slave chose to be owned permanently. In that case, the door or doorpost could have been that of the master’s house. For the slave to be brought before the judges would denote that he was brought before them so that they could serve to witness the choice the slave had made. It would then be at that particular location where the slave’s ear would have been pierced. The Septuagint rendering supports understanding the reference to be to the judges, for it may be translated, “before the judiciary of God.” (21:6)

A Hebrew woman whom her father sold as a slave would not be released from servitude in the same way as a Hebrew man. There is a question about the significance of a master’s not having designated her if she did not please him. Numerous modern translations do not translate the Hebrew word for “not” but follow the meaning that the Septuagint rendering conveys. “If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition) “If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed.” (NIV) “If she doesn’t please the man who bought her to be his wife, he must let her be bought back.” (CEV) The Septuagint rendering may be translated, “If she does not please her master to whom she was engaged, he shall let her be redeemed.” Either her own family could redeem her or a Hebrew man who wanted her as his wife could do so. According to Targum Jonathan, her father may redeem her. The master whom she displeased could not sell her to a foreigner. By not following through in having the Hebrew woman be honorably married to him because she did not please him, her master would have dealt treacherously or faithlessly with her. (21:7, 8)

The master of the Hebrew woman had to grant her the rights of a daughter when selecting her as the wife for his son. Regardless of whether she became her master’s or his son’s wife, either one had the same three responsibilities toward her. If an additional wife was taken, the woman’s food, clothing, and marriage due could not be withheld. Any failure in this respect would grant the woman her freedom, and the master lost any right of repayment. (21:9-11)

Murder was punishable by death. If a man killed another man accidentally, it was considered an act that God allowed to happen. A place was to be set aside to which the accidental manslayer could flee. Once the Israelites were settled in the land that God had promised to give to them, six cities of refuge (Hebron, Shechem, Kedesh, Golan, Ramoth, Bezer) served this purpose. (Joshua 20:7-9; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 36, 38) Premeditated murder merited the death penalty, and a person’s taking hold of God’s alter would not save him from being put to death. The murderer was forcibly to be removed from the altar and killed. (21:12-14)

A son who viciously struck his father or his mother was to be put to death. The death penalty was imposed on kidnappers, regardless of whether the kidnapper had sold the person or still had the individual in his possession. Cursing a father or a mother constituted a solemn declaration that expressed the wish that they be dead and merited the death penalty. (21:15-17; see the Notes section.)

If during a quarrel, one of the men struck the other man with a stone or with his fist and the injured man did not die but was confined to his bed, the man who harmed him had to compensate him for earnings lost because of being unable to work and for what was needed for his recovery. The man who struck him did not have any other penalty imposed on him if the injured party was able to get up from his bed and walk about with the aid of his staff. (21:18, 19) According to Targum Jonathan, the guilty man would be “acquitted from the penalty of death.”

If a male or female slave was brutally beaten with a rod and died as a result, the responsible party was to be punished, for the severe beating indicated intent to do bodily harm that could be fatal. Apparently the judges determined whether the penalty should be death. Targum Jonathan says that the man would be “judged with the judgment of death by the sword.” In the event the slave lived for a day or two and then died, his master would not be punished. It could then not be absolutely determined whether the slave had died as a result of the beating or from some other cause. Moreover, the slave was considered as property, for he had been acquired with the payment of silver. (21:20, 21)

The life of the unborn was protected. If during a fight between men a pregnant woman (an innocent bystander) was pushed and injured and had a miscarriage, her husband could stipulate a fine that the man responsible for the harm needed to pay. The matter would be brought to the attention of judges who would determine the actual payment amount. If, on the other hand, a death or serious injury occurred, the principle of like for like would be applied. The judges, not the husband, applied the principle and determined the penalty. (21:22-25; see the Notes section.)

A provision that safeguarded male and female slaves from being seriously abused was the following: If the mistreatment led to the loss of an eye or a tooth, the slave was granted his or her freedom. Having to set a slave free would have been a significant financial loss for the master, and likely this would have deterred most masters from resorting to brutality. (21:26, 27)

A bull that gored a man or woman to death was to be killed, and meat from the animal was not to be eaten. The owner of the bull would not be held liable if the animal had not been known to gore in the past. If, however, the owner was negligent, having been previously warned about the bull that was in the habit of goring and did not keep the animal under guard, both the bull and the owner would be put to death. In the event the judges determined that the negligent owner of the bull could be exempted from the death penalty, he would have to pay whatever ransom amount for his life was required of him. The same regulations applied in case a bull gored a son or a daughter. (21:28-31)

Slaves were considered to be the property of the owner. Therefore, if a bull gored a male or female slave, the owner of the bull had to pay 30 shekels (the price of a slave) to the owner of the killed slave. The goring bull had to be stoned to death. (21:32)

A negligent man who failed to cover an open pit that he had opened or dug made himself responsible for any harm this hazard posed for domestic animals. If a bull or a donkey fell into the pit, the negligent man would receive the dead animal and had to pay “silver” (money) as compensation to the owner for his loss. (21:33, 34)

If a bull killed the bull belonging to another man, the owner of the goring bull had to sell it. He would then give half of the sale price to the owner of the dead bull. Both men also would divide the price for the dead bull, with each of them receiving an equal share. If, however, the bull was known to have been in the habit of goring and the owner had not taken measures to control the animal, the penalty was more severe. The owner had to replace the dead bull with a living bull of his own, and he received the dead animal. (21:35, 36; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In the Septuagint, the two commands relating to parents are kept together, with the words of verse 17 following those of verse 15.

Targum Jonathan says that, if the pregnant woman is killed during the fight between the men, the one responsible for her death would forfeit his life. (“You shall judge the life of the killer for the life of the woman.”) Regarding the infant if the woman is not killed, Targum Jonathan states. “The fine on account of the infant which the woman’s husband shall lay upon him [the one responsible for the miscarriage], he shall pay according to the sentence of the judges.” In the Septuagint, the rendering of verses 22 and 23 conveys a different meaning. It says that, if the infant is not fully formed (recognizable as human offspring), the man responsible for the miscarriage would have to pay a fine. In case of the death of a fully formed baby, the judges would apply the principle of like for like.

The words that follow verse 36 appear in printed Bibles either as verse 37 or as verse 1 of chapter 22. See Exodus 22:1 for comments on this verse.

Chapter 22

Deeds that concealed the evidence of theft were punished more severely than cases where the evidence readily established who had committed the theft. A thief who sold or slaughtered a stolen bull or sheep had to make compensation with five bulls for one bull and with four sheep for one sheep. If the stolen bull or sheep remained in the possession of the thief, the required compensation for a bull, a donkey, or a sheep was double for what the individual stole. (22:1, 4 [21:37; 22:3)

At night, when an intruder could not be identified, the homeowner would not be considered bloodguilty if he fatally struck a thief who had broken into his house. After sunrise, however, the thief could be identified. Therefore, the homeowner would be considered bloodguilty if he killed the thief. A thief was required to make restitution for his crime. If he had nothing with which to pay the required compensation, he would be sold for his theft and remain enslaved until the prescribed amount was paid. (22:2, 3 [22:1, 2])

A man who disregarded the property rights of another man had to compensate the injured party for the damage he caused. Letting domestic animals graze in someone else’s field or vineyard required that the guilty party make restitution with the best part of his own field or of his own vineyard. (22:5 [22:4])

Negligence relating to fire required compensating for any damage caused to someone else’s property. The individual responsible for the fire that spread to thorns and then to stacked or standing grain or a field had to make full restitution. (22:6 [22:5])

If a man gave “silver” (money) or valuable items to his fellow for safekeeping and a theft occurred in the house, the thief, when caught, had to pay double in compensation for whatever he stole. Whenever the thief could not be found, the owner of the house, where the specific items had been left for safekeeping, was required to establish his innocence, declaring before God that he had not personally put out his hand to take his fellow’s items. (22:7, 8 [22:6, 7])

If a man claimed that a domestic animal (bull, donkey, or sheep), an article of clothing, or any type of lost items in the possession of another man really belonged to him, both parties had to come “before God.” This likely meant that they had to appear before the judges who represented God. Then, evidently through the judges, God would condemn the guilty party (either the man in possession of property that did not belong to him or the man who had falsely accused the other man of having taken his property). The guilty party would be required to pay double the value of the property (either the misappropriated property or the property concerning which he had falsely accused the innocent party). (22:9 [22:8])

In an arrangement that would primarily benefit him, a man might give his fellow a donkey, a bull, a sheep, or another domestic animal to guard. If during the time of guardianship, the animal died, was injured, or was seized and no one witnessed what had happened to it, an “oath before YHWH” (doubtless in the presence of the judges who represented YHWH) would settle the case. If the one who guarded the animal swore that he had not “laid his hand on the property of his fellow,” the owner of the property was to accept the oath-bound statement and the other man was not required to make any restitution. In the event the animal was stolen, he did have to compensate the owner for the loss, for he should have been more diligent in watching the animal that had been left with him to guard. For an animal a beast of prey killed, he needed to present the evidence that the animal had been torn, but he did not have to compensate the owner for it. According to the Septuagint, he was to take the owner of the animal to the prey. (22:10-13 [22:9-12])

A man who borrowed a domestic animal from his fellow benefited himself when doing so. Therefore, when the animal was injured or died while the owner was not with it, the borrower had to compensate the owner fully for the loss. No compensation was required if the owner had arranged to receive payment for the temporary use of his animal. Besides the payment, the owner would not be entitled to any additional compensation. His having made use of the animal for hire involved a measure of risk, a risk that he had been willing to take when making the arrangement. (22:14, 15 [22:13, 14])

A man who seduced a virgin (one who was not betrothed) and had sexual relations with her was required to pay the bride price to her father and had to marry her. If the father was unwilling to have his daughter become the wife of the seducer whom he may have considered to be unfit as a marriage mate, that man still had to pay the bride price. Her value had been diminished because she had been deprived of her virginity. (22:16, 17 [22:15, 16])

Sorcery was not to be tolerated among the Israelites. No sorceress was to remain alive among the people. ( 22:18 [22:17])

The death penalty was imposed on anyone guilty of bestiality or of offering a sacrifice to any deity other than YHWH. (22:19, 20 [22:18, 19])

Compassionate treatment of disadvantaged persons was to be the law among the Israelites. Strangers or foreigners among them were to be treated fairly and not to be wronged or oppressed, for the Israelites knew what it meant to live as afflicted strangers or foreigners in Egypt. The Israelites were warned not to mistreat widows or orphans, for YHWH would hear their outcry and he would, in his due time, execute severe judgment against oppressors. Deprived of YHWH’s care and concern, the guilty ones would face circumstances that would cost them their lives and leave behind widows and orphans. (22:21-24 [22:20-23])

No Israelite was to profit from the adversity of a fellow Israelite. A poor Israelite who had to borrow money should be given an interest-free loan. While the poor Israelite may have been required to give his garment as a pledge, the creditor had to return the garment before sunset, for the poor person needed it to keep himself warm when retiring for the night. The garment would have been his only covering, serving him as his blanket. YHWH would give attention to the outcry of the poor man who was callously deprived of his garment and subjected to the cold of the night without it. YHWH is compassionate and would not leave the cruel creditor unpunished for failing to return the pledged garment. (22:25-27 [22:24-26])

The command not to revile God may be understood to mean not to range oneself up against his authority and not to dishonor him as the Supreme Sovereign. Human authority was also to be treated respectfully, with one’s not resorting to cursing rulers because of having to submit to their direction, direction that may be resented. (22:28 [22:27]) In the Septuagint, the reference is to “gods,” not to God. Possibly the use of the plural “gods” accommodated the circumstances in which the translator was living. Targum Jonathan represents the command to the Israelites as meaning not to “revile [their] judges, nor [to] curse the rabbans [teachers or masters] who are appointed rulers among [the] people.”

After being settled in the land, the Israelites were not to delay making their contribution for sacred purposes from their harvests and their presses (olive oil or wine from the juice of crushed grapes). They were to offer their firstborn sons to YHWH by redeeming them with the designated payment of silver. The male firstborn of cattle and sheep were to stay with the mothers for seven days, and then they, on the eighth day, were to be given to YHWH as a sacrifice. In the Septuagint, the donkey is included, but the firstborn of the donkey had to be redeemed, as the animal could not be offered to YHWH on the altar. (22:29, 30 [22:28, 29])

As men or people who were “holy” to YHWH, they were not to defile themselves. One way in which they could avoid defilement was to abstain from eating meat from an animal that had been torn by a predator. Flesh or meat from such torn animals was to be thrown to scavenger dogs, to be devoured. (22:31 (22:30)

Chapter 23

To assure that justice would be administered in an impartial manner, certain commands prohibited actions that would have led to corrupting the arrangements for handling disputes and other legal matters. The Israelites were not to make themselves guilty of spreading a false report or a malicious rumor. According to the Septuagint, they were not to accept a baseless report. For an Israelite to “join [his] hand” with a corrupt man to be a “malicious [an unjust (LXX)] witness” for him would have meant making a prior agreement to pervert justice or to promote violence or wrongdoing. This was prohibited. Group pressure can be a powerful force that interferes with the proper administration of justice. Therefore, the law prohibited following the crowd to commit evil or to be influenced by the crowd to pervert justice in a dispute. Although others often victimized the poor, they were not to be shown deference when they were guilty of serious wrongdoing. (23:1-3)

While it would have been wrong to treat the poor with partiality, their rights were not to be subverted in their disputes. The Israelites were to keep far away from false charges or refuse to entertain them. They were to remember that YHWH, as the ultimate Judge, would not acquit the wicked ones. Therefore, the Israelites were not to make themselves guilty of grave injustices, leading to the death of innocent or upright persons. The accepting of “gifts” or “bribes” was ruled out, for bribes can blind individuals who are responsible for administering justice and can lead to corrupt decisions that subvert the cause of persons who are in the right. (23:6-8)

Hateful or vengeful action even toward a man who had demonstrated himself to be an enemy was to be avoided. The Israelite who saw his enemy’s bull or donkey going astray was to take it back to him. If the enemy’s donkey had not been able to bear up under a heavy load and was lying down, the Israelite was to render assistance to raise the animal up. This kind act would also have reflected compassion for the overburdened donkey. The Septuagint says, “You must not pass it [the donkey] by, but you must raise it with him.” This rendering could be understood to refer to raising the animal together with its burden. (23:4, 5)

The Israelites were not to forget how they had been treated as strangers or foreigners in the land of Egypt and the affliction their ancestors endured there. Accordingly, they were not to oppress strangers or foreigners in their land, for they knew the “soul of a stranger” or how it felt to be mistreated as a foreigner. Instead, they were to treat the resident alien like a fellow Israelite, loving the person as they would love themselves. (23:9; Leviticus 19:33, 34)

The survival of a people depends on the wise use of resources, and the commands given to the Israelites, when heeded, contributed to maintaining the productivity of arable land. After sowing seed and cultivating crops for six years, the people were to let the land lie fallow in the seventh year. Whatever the fallow land produced of itself was to be designated for the poor and the wild animals, and (according to Leviticus) the owner, his servants, his hirelings, his domestic animals, and the wild animals could eat from the yield of the uncultivated land. Grapevines were not to be pruned, and the grapes from the untrimmed vines and the olives in the olive groves were not to be harvested in the seventh year but left for the needy to gather and to eat and for the wild animals to consume. (23:10, 11; Leviticus 25:2-6)

The seventh day that followed six days of laboring was to be a day of rest, providing welcome rest from work and refreshment for domestic animals (oxen or bulls) and donkeys, servants, and resident aliens. (23:12)

In the Scriptures, the names of false gods are recorded. Therefore, the command not to mention the names of false gods must refer to not mentioning them in a reverential way or in a manner that attributed existence to them. These gods and goddesses were to be regarded as something abhorrent and therefore their names should not have been heard from the mouths of the Israelites (unless it was in a demeaning way). Of necessity, parents needed to mention false deities when warning their children against engaging in idolatrous practices, and the prophets named false gods and goddesses when reproving fellow Israelites regarding their failure to worship YHWH exclusively. (23:13)

Once settled in the land, the Israelites were to observe three sacred annual festivals — the Festival of Unleavened Bread (in the month of Abib or Nisan [mid-March to mid-April), the Festival of the Harvest, the Festival of Weeks, or Pentecost (in the month of Sivan [mid-May to mid-June]), and the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Tabernacles or Booths at the conclusion of the agricultural year in the month of Ethanim or Tishri (mid-September to mid-October). All the Israelite males were required to appear before YHWH at these three festivals. Initially, the location was the tabernacle that was set up in the land of Canaan, and later the place was the temple at Jerusalem. While the men were commanded to be present for the festivals, the women could choose to be in attendance. It was a kindness on God’s part to exempt the women from obligatory attendance, as their being pregnant or having to nurse babies and to care for small children would have made it burdensome to travel a considerable distance to the designated location and then to stay for the duration of the festivals. (23:14-17)

Nothing leavened was to accompany the “blood of [YHWH’s] sacrifice,” and no fat from a festival offering was to remain until the morning of the next day. The firstfruits from the cultivated soil were to be brought into the “house of YHWH” (initially the tabernacle and later the temple that replaced it). (23:18, 19a)

From early times, the Jews have interpreted the command prohibiting the boiling of a kid of the goats in its mother’s milk to indicate that meat should not be mixed with dairy products. Targum Jonathan (thought to have been composed in the second century CE) is specific in stating that one must not “eat of flesh and milk mingled together.” Originally, the command may have reminded the Israelites that the milk that was designed to nourish the kid should not be used as a means contrary to its original purpose to preserve the animal’s life. This command may also have served to teach the Israelites compassion, for the natural and instinctive attachment of the female goat to her kid in no way agrees with the use of her milk for the total destruction of her offspring. (23:19b)

The opening word (“look”) of verse 20 introduces a new subject. YHWH (doubtless through the agency of his representative angel) informed Moses that he would be sending his angel to accompany the Israelites, guarding them and leading them to the place he had prepared for them (the Promised Land). The angel who would be with the Israelites had God’s name “in him,” indicating that he represented YHWH and possessed the full authority to act in his name. Therefore, failure to heed his authoritative words or to rebel against him would not be pardoned or left unpunished. There is a biblical basis for identifying this angel who had God’s name “in him” as having been Michael. Daniel 10:21 and 12:1 indicate that Michael had a special relationship with the Israelites, and Jude 9 refers to a dispute the archangel Michael had with the devil over the body of Moses. (23:20, 21)

For the Israelites to listen to the voice of his angel denoted heeding YHWH himself. Accordingly, YHWH’s message regarding this angel to Moses was: “If you listen attentively [literally, listening, you listen] to his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.” The angel would bring the Israelites into the land of Canaan, the land which the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, (Gergesites LXX]), Hivites, and Jebusites then inhabited, and YHWH promised to blot out these peoples. (23:22, 23)

The Israelites were forbidden to revere the deities of the peoples in the land and to engage in the abhorrent practices associated with these deities. As a people to be exclusively devoted to YHWH, the Israelites were to destroy the sacred pillars (which appear to have been phallic symbols of Baal or other false gods) in the land. Their serving YHWH exclusively would lead to his blessing their “bread” or food, their “wine” (LXX), and their “water.” Blessed with good food and an abundance of good water, the people would enjoy good health. This would fulfill YHWH’s promise to remove sickness from their midst. Women generally would not miscarry or be barren, and the people would be blessed with a long life. (23:24-26)

To enable his people to gain possession of the land he had promised to give to them, YHWH declared that he would send his terror before them (or cause the inhabitants of the land to be overwhelmed with fear), throw into confusion or panic all the people against whom they would come, and cause all their enemies to turn their backs in flight from before them. (23:27)

There is a measure of uncertainty about the meaning of the Hebrew word (tsir‘ah) relating to what YHWH would send forth to impact the inhabitants of the land he had promised to give to his people. The Septuagint rendering is the plural of sphekía (hornet or wasp), and this is also the rendering found in footnotes or in the main text of modern translations. Other possible meanings of the Hebrew word tsir‘ah that have been suggested include “terror,” “dejection,” and “discouragement.” It is questionable that “terror” or “fear” is the meaning here, for in verse 27 the word ’eymah can be specifically defined as “terror” or “fear.” Regardless of how the word tsir‘ah may be defined, it designates means that would contribute to driving out the Amorites (LXX), Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites from the land. YHWH promised not to drive them out in a single year, for this would have left too much desolation in the land and caused beasts of prey to enter the desolated regions, posing a threat to the safety of his people, particularly their young children. (23:28, 29)

Instead of effecting a swift depopulation of the land, YHWH purposed that the inhabitants of the land be driven out progressively (“little by little”) as the population of his people Israel increased. The boundaries of the land to be occupied by the Israelites extended from the Sea of Reeds (yam suph) or the Red Sea (LXX), the eastern arm of the Red Sea (now known as the Gulf of ‛Aqaba), to the Sea of the Philistines (the Mediterranean), and from the “wilderness” (the Syro-Arabian Desert east of the Promised Land and the arid Sinai Peninsula south of the land) to the “River” (the Euphrates). With YHWH’s support, the Israelites would eventually drive the native inhabitants out of the land. (23:30, 31)

After entering the Promised Land, the Israelites continued to live among many of the native inhabitants. Therefore, they were commanded to make no covenants or agreements with them nor to have anything to do with their gods. The native inhabitants were not to remain as the prominent population in the land, as close association with them could lead the Israelites astray to the point where they would begin to revere their false gods. (23:32, 33)

Chapter 24

While Moses had been on Mount Sinai, YHWH (apparently through the angel who represented him) told him that he should again come near to him. This next time, however, he was not to come alone. The others accompanying him were to be Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (two of Aaron’s sons and Moses’ nephews), and a representative group of seventy elders from among the elders of Israel. At Mount Sinai, all of them were to bow down in worship before YHWH. Only Moses had been authorized to ascend the mountain so as to approach YHWH closer. None of the men with Moses were to go beyond the location where they had stopped, and the rest of the Israelites were prohibited from ascending the mountain. (24:1, 2)

After receiving YHWH’s commands and directives, Moses descended the mountain and came to the people, relating to them “all the words of YHWH and all the regulations.” As with “one voice,” the people responded, “All the words that YHWH has spoken we will do [or obey].” Moses then made a written record of “all the words of YHWH.” When he rose from his sleep the next morning, Moses built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve pillars corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. (24:3, 4)

The young men whom Moses sent to present holocausts and bulls as communion offerings to YHWH on the newly erected altar are identified in Targum Jonathan as having been firstborn sons. This is likely, for (at that time, before the inauguration of a priesthood in the family of Aaron) priestly functions had been performed by the heads of households or by the firstborn sons in these households. From the sacrificed bulls, Moses “took half of the blood and put it in bowls,” and the other “half of the blood” he splashed “on [or against] the altar.” Then he took the “book of the covenant” (all the words of YHWH that he had previously recorded [24:4]) and read everything to the people, thereby making them aware of what their obligations were. They responded with the words, “All that YHWH has spoken we will do and heed.” Moses used blood from the bowls to splash on the people, identifying it as the “blood of the covenant that YHWH had made with [them].” With this blood, the covenant between YHWH and the Israelites was validated. (24:5-8)

Thereafter Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders approached Mount Sinai. As a people who had come into a covenant relationship with YHWH, the Israelites, through their representative elders, were then able to draw near to the mountain where he had revealed his presence. There, at the mountain, the entire group “saw,” or had a vision of, the “God of Israel.” Apparently when the men looked up, they saw, “under his feet,” what appeared to them like a “pavement of sapphire stone [a deep-blue precious stone], like the very heavens for purity.” The glory or magnificence that they beheld was like the cloudless blue sky, but they saw no form that would have given anyone the pattern for making an image of YHWH. Just what they did see of the divine glory is not stated in the account. According to the Septuagint rendering, they “saw the place where the God of Israel stood.” Although they were sinful men close to the holy God or the pure divine presence, they did not perish. YHWH did not lay his hand on these principal men of the “sons [or people] of Israel.” They, however, “saw” God, or beheld a manifestation of his glory, and had a meal in his presence. They ate and drank as persons having communion or fellowship with God as parties to the covenant that had been concluded with them and the rest of the people. Whether they had brought meat to eat from the sacrificed animals that had been offered as a communion sacrifice and wine to drink is not revealed in the account. It is likely, however, that they did. (24:9-11; see the Note section.)

YHWH summoned Moses to come to him on the mountain and to wait there until he would be given the tablets of stone on which were written the Ten Words or Ten Commandments. With the young man Joshua as his attendant, Moses prepared to make the ascent. He told the seventy elders to wait for their return and informed them that Aaron and Hur should be consulted respecting any dispute or legal case among the people. As Moses and Joshua went up on Mount Sinai, Aaron, Hur, and the seventy elders returned to their respective locations among the encamped Israelites. Apparently Joshua accompanied Moses only part way and remained at that location on the mountain. While Moses made his ascent, a cloud continued to cover the mountain, and the glory of YHWH that became visible on the mountain resembled a “devouring fire.” For six days, Moses waited for additional instructions. Then, on the seventh day, YHWH called to Moses from the midst of the cloud. Meanwhile the Israelites were able to see the “glory of YHWH” that looked like a “devouring fire” on top of Mount Sinai. Moses entered the cloud on the seventh day and stayed there “forty days and forty nights.” (24:12-18)

Note

The words of verse 11 in the Septuagint differ from those in the Hebrew text. “And of the chosen ones of Israel not as much as one was missing [or perished], and they appeared at the place of God and ate and drank.”

Chapter 25

For the construction of a tabernacle devoted to the worship of YHWH, the utensils that would be needed, and the garments for the men who would be functioning as priests, Moses was divinely directed to obtain a voluntary offering from the people. YHWH decreed that the contribution of materials would come from “every man whose heart [was] willing” or every man who in his inmost self was motivated to want to share in the offering. The items needed were gold, silver, copper or bronze, “blue” or “blueish purple” yarn, cloth, or wool; yarn, cloth, or wool dyed purple or “reddish purple”; scarlet material (double scarlet [LXX]), fine linen (twisted linen [LXX]), goats’ hair, ram skins dyed red; hyacinth-colored skins (LXX [uncertainty exists about the kind of skins the Hebrew word designates]), acacia wood (decay-resistant wood [LXX]), olive oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the incense, onyx (shóham [sardius (LXX)]) stones and precious and semi-precious stones to be placed in settings for the ephod and for the breastpiece. (25:1-7 [25:1-6]; see the Notes section.)

The sanctuary to be constructed was to be a rectangular tent-like structure, a tabernacle. It and its furnishings were to be made according to the pattern YHWH would show Moses. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews referred to this when indicating that the priestly services were conducted in a “copy of the true one [literally, true ones (probably because the tabernacle consisted of two parts)],” the real holy place where God is. (25:8, 9 [25:7, 8]; Hebrews 8:5; 9:24, 25)

The most sacred item to be fashioned was the ark of the covenant in which the two tablets containing the “Ten Words” or “Ten Commandments” (the “testimony” [25:16, 21 (25:15, 20)] were to be stored. Its measurements were to be 2.5 cubits (45 inches [c. 114 centimeters] in length, 1.5 cubits (27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]) in width, and 1.5 cubits (27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]) in height. With the exception of the cover, the ark was to be constructed of (decay-resistant [LXX]) wood (commonly considered to have been acacia wood because of its suitability for the purpose and its availability on the Sinai Peninsula) and to be overlaid inside and outside with pure gold. A beautifully fashioned border was to be designed for the top of the Ark. According to the Septuagint, this would have been a border of twisted (or braided) gold. (25:10, 11 [25:9, 10]; see the Notes section.)

To facilitate carrying the ark, it was to be equipped with four gold rings on its four corners, and poles were to be inserted in these rings. The poles were to be constructed of the same wood as the ark and overlaid with gold. According to the Hebrew text, the ark did not rest on the ground but was fashioned with “four feet” or four supports at the four corners. The Hebrew text also indicates that the rings were to be attached on the four feet, which possibly means that the rings were just above the feet. In the Septuagint, there is no mention of “feet.” It says that the rings were placed on the sides of the ark, with two being on one side and two being on the other side. Once in position in the rings, the poles were not to be removed, assuring that the ark would not be touched. (25:12-15 [25:11-14])

The cover (or propitiatory) of the ark, measuring 2.5 cubits in length and 1.5 cubits in width (45 inches [c. 114 centimeters] by 27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]), was to be fashioned of pure gold. Two cherubs of gold consisting of hammered work were to be positioned on the cover, with one cherub at one end and the other one at the other end. Their outspread wings were to be designed to overshadow the cover, and their faces were to be toward one another and looking down, evidently in an attitude of worship. Thereafter, from above the cover of the “ark of the testimony” and from between the cherubs, YHWH would communicate with Moses everything that he would then relate to the “sons [or people] of Israel.” (25:17-22 [25:16-21]; see the Notes section)

Like the “ark of the testimony,” the table for the display of the showbread was to be constructed of wood and overlaid with pure gold. The designated measurements were: 2 cubits (36 inches [c. 92 centimeters]) long, one cubit (18 inches [c. 46 centimeters] wide, and 1.5 cubits (27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]) high. A rim or border of one handbreadth (3 inches [c. 8 centimeters]) was to be beautified with gold molding (moldings of twisted or braided gold [LXX]). For carrying purposes, the table was to be designed with gold rings attached to the four corners at its four legs. Through these rings, two gold-covered wooden poles were to be positioned. Various other utensils, including the ones to be used on the table, were to be made of gold. On the table itself, the showbread was to be placed. This bread is literally named the “bread of faces,” for it would always be before the “face” or the presence of YHWH as an offering to him. (25:23-30 [25:22-29])

A pure gold lampstand of hammered work was to provide illumination in the holy compartment of the tabernacle. Three branches on each side of the central shaft, or seven branches in all, were to be equipped with lamps. Alternating knobs and flowers (possibly almond blossoms) provided the decorative elements for the central shaft and the six branches. Gold fire pans and gold snuffers or tongs were to be fashioned for the lampstand. The gold tongs may have been used to remove the burnt lampwicks that would be deposited in the gold fire pans. With its utensils and lamps, the lampstand was to be made from one gold talent (about 92 pounds troy or about 75.5 pounds avoirdupois [c. 34 kilograms]) according to the pattern Moses had been shown at the top of Mount Sinai. (25:31-40 [25:30-40]); see the Notes section.)

Notes

Considerable uncertainty exists whether the Hebrew word shóham (25:7 [25:6]) designates onyx. The Septuagint is inconsistent in how it renders this word (berýllion [beryl], ónyx, prasinos [“light green” stone], sárdion [sardius], smáragdos [“bright green” stone, probably emerald], and soóm [possibly carnelian]).

The tabernacle and its furnishings were designed to be portable. This confirms that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness and moved from one location to another location. Once they were permanently settled in the land and had an established location for the tabernacle, frequent movement ceased and portability would not have been as important as it had been initially.

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), but 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters) for a cubit (as commonly found in many reference works) is used in Werner Bible Commentary because it reduces the number of fractions involved when calculating cubit measurements in inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

The ark represented God’s presence, and so the reference to it as the “ark of the testimony” (25:22 [25:21]) could indicate that it served as a testimony or witness that God was present in the midst of the Israelites. Another significance for the designation “ark of the testimony” would be that in it the “testimony” (the two tablets of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments) was stored. The tablets served as a testimony respecting the commands the Israelites were obligated to observe, and this testimony would be a witness against them if they failed to live up to these commands. In verse 21 (20), the Septuagint refers to placing the “testimonies” or “witnesses” in the ark. This may be because there were two stone tablets.

According to the Septuagint rendering, the decorative elements for the lampstand consisted of bowls shaped like nuts or shaped like the blossoms of nut-bearing trees. It refers to the lampstand and the three arms on each side of the central shaft as designed with buds and lilies. (25:30-34 [25: 31-35])

Chapter 26

The supporting structure for the four coverings of the tabernacle consisted of wooden frames overlaid with gold. These frames were held together with five bars each. Gold rings on each frame accommodated the bars, with each bar in the middle position on the north, west, and south sides running from one end to the other end. The position of the four other bars on the three sides is not specified in the account. Each frame had two tenons that fitted into silver bases. A covering of fine twisted linen, of blue (or blueish purple), purple (reddish purple), and scarlet yarn, embroidered with cherubs was positioned first on the tabernalce framework. One embroidered cherub appears to have been visible in each frame. The covering itself consisted of two large sections, with each section being made up of five cloths. Each cloth measured 28 cubits in length and 4 cubits in width (42 feet x 6 feet [c. 12.8 meters x c. 1.8 meters]), and five of these cloths were joined together to form one large cloth. The two large cloths were joined by means of 50 gold clasps that connected the 50 loops of blue (or blueish purple) yarn on the edge of one large cloth with that of the matching 50 loops on the edge of the other large cloth. (26:1-6, 15-17, 26-29; see the Notes section.)

The second covering for the tabernacle consisted of goats’ hair. In design, this longer covering was much like that of the shorter linen covering, a covering that did not reach down to the ground by at least one cubit [18 inches [c. 46 centimeters]) on each side. The second covering consisted of two sections made from eleven cloths that measured thirty cubits by four cubits (45 feet x 6 feet [c. 13.7 meters x c. 1.8 meters] each. Five of the cloths were joined to form one large cloth, and the six remaining cloths were joined to make the other large cloth. The two large cloths were joined with 50 copper (or bronze) clasps that connected the 50 loops on the edge of one large cloth with that of the matching 50 loops on the edge of the other large cloth. Being two cubits (36 inches [c. 92 centimeters] longer than the linen covering, the second covering did hang down to the bottom of the north and south sides of the tabernacle. Next came a covering of tanned (or red) ram skins and finally another covering of skins. There is uncertainty about the material from which the fourth coverning was made. According to the Septuagint, they were hyacinth-colored skins. Although not mentioned in the account, ropes must have been attached to the last covering, and these ropes would have been securely fastened to tent pins in the ground. (26:7-14; see the Notes section.)

On both the north and the south sides, twenty wooden frames overlaid with gold were attached by means of tenons to forty silver bases, and on the west side (or rear) of the tabernacle, there were six of these frames and two silver bases under each frame. Additionally, two frames served as corners at the rear of the tabernacle, with only a half cubit (9 inches [c. 23 centimeters]) adding to the inside dimension of the structure. The individual gold-overlaid wooden frames measured 10 cubits (15 feet [c. 4.6 meters]) in length and in height, and 1.5 cubits (27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]) in width. Based on the dimensions of the frames, the inside measurements of the tabernacle would have been 30 cubits (45 feet [c. 13.7 meters] in length, 10 cubits (15 feet [c. 4.6 meters]) in width, and 10 cubits (15 feet [c. 4.6 meters]) in height. (26:15-25)

The tabernacle consisted of two sections — the Holy and the Most Holy. A fine twisted linen curtain, of blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple), and scarlet yarns, embroidered with cherubs, separated the two compartments. This curtain hung from gold hooks attached to four gold-overlaid wooden pillars or posts that were secured in four silver bases. In the Most Holy, the “ark of the testimony” was placed. The table for the showbread was in position on the north side of the Holy, and the lampstand was across from it on the opposite side. A screen at the entrance of the tabernacle was made like the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy, but it hung from gold hooks attached to five gold-overlaid wooden pillars that were secured in five copper or bronze bases. It is likely that the place where the two large cloths of the linen covering were joined with gold clasps was positioned over the pillars from which the curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy was suspended from the gold hooks. Accordingly, the Most Holy would have been a cube of 10 cubits (15 feet [c. 4.6 meters]) on each side, and the Most Holy would have measured 20 cubits (30 feet [c. 9.2 meters]) in length and 10 cubits (15 feet [c. 4.6 meters]) in width and height. (26:31-37)

According to the account, Moses had the benefit of seeing the pattern for the tabernacle and its furnishings. Therefore, he was in position to follow through on the command to have everything constructed just as he had been shown on Mount Sinai. (26:30; see the Notes section.)

Notes

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), but 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters) for a cubit (as commonly found in many reference works) is used in Werner Bible Commentary because it reduces the number of fractions involved when calculating cubit measurements in inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

The wood is commonly considered to have been acacia wood because of its suitability for the framework of the tabernacle and its availability on the Sinai Peninsula.

Verse 9 states that the sixth cloth was to be doubled over at the front of the tabernacle. This would mean that, from the top of the tabernacle, about three feet (c. 91 centimeters) of the covering would have hung down on the east or entrance side of the tabernacle. The remaining part of the covering would have added three feet (c. 91 centimeters) to the length of the material that covered the west side. (Verse 12)

The ark represented God’s presence, and so the reference to it as the “ark of the testimony” (25:22; 26:33, 34) could indicate that it served as a testimony or witness that God was present in the midst of the Israelites. Another possible significance for the designation “Ark of the Testimony” would be that in it the “testimony” (the two tablets of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments) was stored. The tablets served as a testimony respecting the commands the Israelites were obligated to observe, and this testimony would be a witness against them if they failed to live up to these commands.

Without actually having the pattern for the tabernacle and its furnishings, one cannot be sure about how everything should be portrayed visually.

Chapter 27

The altar of burnt offering was basically a hollow square box made of wood overlaid with copper or bronze. At its four corners were four horn-like projections. Four copper or bronze rings, with two on one side of the altar and two on the opposite side, were used to insert the wooden poles overlaid with copper or bronze. These poles functioned as the means for carrying the altar. A grating consisting of a copper or bronze network was positioned inside the hollow boxlike altar, which measured five cubits (7.5 feet [c. 2.3 meters]) in length, five cubits in width, and 3 cubits (4.5 feet [c 1.4 meters]) in height. Whereas Moses had been shown a pattern that provided him with the details needed to construct the altar, readers of the account now are much more limited in understanding what was recorded about the altar and how the officiating priests would have carried out their functions at the altar. (27:1-8; see the Notes section.)

The altar of burnt offering had its designated location in the courtyard around the tabernacle. This courtyard was surrounded by 5-cubit (7.5-foot [c. 2.3-meter]) high linen hangings that measured 100 cubits (150 feet [c. 45.7 meters]) on the south and north sides, and 50 cubits (75 feet [c. 23 meters]) on the west side. The 50-cubit east side had an entrance that measured 20 cubits (30 feet [c. 9 meters]) across and that had an entrance screen of fine twisted linen, seemingly embroidered with blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple), and crimson yarns. Copper or bronze pillars supported the linen hangings on the four sides of the courtyard. The hangings were suspended from silver hooks and bands (rings or hoops) attached to the pillars. Both on the north and south sides, the 20 pillars were secured in copper or bronze bases, and the 10 pillars on the west side had ten corresponding copper or bronze bases. The arrangement on the east side required three pillars for the 15-cubit (22.5-foot [c. 6.9-meter] hangings on each side of the entrance, and four pillars for supporting the 20-cubit (30-foot [c. 9-meter] entrance screen. (27:9-18)

All utensils used in the courtyard were made from copper or bronze, as were all the pegs needed for attaching the tabernacle outer covering and the courtyard hangings to the ground. (27:3, 19)

For keeping the lamps on the lampstand burning, the Israelites were to contribute pure oil from beaten olives. Aaron and his sons were the ones to set up the lampstand with its lamps in the Holy, or on the east side of the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy. The lamps were to be kept burning before YHWH from evening to morning, requiring that the Israelites provide the needed olive oil throughout their generations. (27:20, 21)

Notes

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), but 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters) for a cubit (as commonly found in many reference works) is used in Werner Bible Commentary because it reduces the number of fractions involved when calculating cubit measurements in inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

The wood is commonly considered to have been acacia wood because of its suitability for construction purposes and its availability on the Sinai Peninsula.

Verse 4 indicates that copper or bronze rings were to be attached at the four corners of the grating. This appears to have been a removable grating. The designated place for the grating was to be “halfway down the altar” below the altar ledge. (Verse 5) According to the Septuagint, the rings were to be placed under the grating of the altar, and the grating itself was to be positioned “unto the middle of the altar.”

In the descriptions, the main references are to dimensions and materials. This information is readily conveyed by means of the spoken or written word. What was visually revealed is not included in the account, and this makes it impossible to represent the tabernacle, the courtyard hangings, and the utensils and furnishings exactly as they existed many centuries ago. The absence of any detailed description of the cherubs may also have prevented the making of images for use in idolatrous practices.

Chapter 28

Aaron, the brother of Moses, and his four sons (Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar) were YHWH’s choice for serving as priests in Israel, with Aaron being appointed as the first high priest. Garments were to be made for Aaron that were more impressive than those of his sons. These garments “for glory [splendor or dignity] and for beauty” (especially beautiful attire) included items that the other priests did not wear — a sleeveless blue (or blueish purple) mantle, an ephod, a sash for the ephod, a breastpiece, and a turban to which a gold plate was fastened and on which the words “Holy to YHWH” were engraved. (28:1, 2, 4, 31, 36, 37)

Persons who were divinely endowed “with the spirit of wisdom” or who possessed the skill to do the work were the ones designated to make the holy garments in which Aaron, as a man sanctified or set apart, would serve YHWH in priestly capacity. These individuals also were to make holy garments for his four sons. These garments were worn while serving YHWH at his holy tabernacle and, therefore, were holy. The Israelites would provide the skilled workers with the gold, the blue (or blueish purple) yarn or cloth, purple (or red purple) yarn or cloth, scarlet material, and fine twisted linen which they needed to accomplish their assigned tasks. (28:3, 5)

Both Aaron and his sons were required to wear linen drawers or shorts to prevent any exposure of their private parts while serving at the tabernacle. These drawers were to cover the private parts and reach down to the thighs. Exposure of their private parts while serving at the tabernacle and at the altar would have constituted a defilement of the holy place and an affront to YHWH (the ultimate “Holy One”) at his representative place of dwelling, and this transgression would have merited death. (28:42, 43)

Over the drawers, Aaron and his sons wore linen robes that were tied around their bodies with linen sashes. Most likely each linen robe had been left in the natural state of its off-white color, for there is no mention of the cloth as having been dyed. The Exodus account does not describe the robe, but Josephus (Antiquities, III, vii, 2, 4) did include details. He wrote that the robe reached down to the feet and had sleeves that fitted closely around the arms. According to the Talmud (Yoma, 72b) the “sleeves reached as far as the palm of the hand.” The linen sash was embroidered with blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple), and scarlet yarn. (28:39, 40; 39:27, 29) Josephus (Antiquities, III, vii, 2) wrote that the sash was embroidered with flowers, had a width of “four fingers” and was “girded to the breast a little above the elbows.”

Above the long linen robe, Aaron was to wear the blue (or blueish purple) “mantle of the ephod” when entering the sanctuary to carry out his official duties. So that he could pull it over his head, the mantle had an opening at the top with a binding of woven work that would prevent it from tearing. This mantle doubtless had no sleeves. Josephus stated that the garment was “parted where the hands were to come out.” On the hem of the mantel were alternating gold bells and pomegranates made from blue (or bluish purple), purple (or reddish purple), and scarlet yarn. Josephus described this part of the attire as reaching down to the feet, and he wrote that the fringes between the bells were “like pomegranates” in color. (Antiquities, III, vii, 4) Targum Jonathan says that there were 71 bells (but 70 for chapter 39). The purpose of the bells was so that Aaron could be heard when entering the sanctuary before the “face of YHWH,” or when coming into his presence in his representative place of dwelling, and also upon leaving the sanctuary. It appears that the bells served to make an announcement so that it would be acceptable for Aaron to be in the sanctuary and, therefore, would not die as an unauthorized person. (28:31-35)

Above the blue (or blueish purple) mantle, Aaron was to wear an ephod consisting of two pieces and made from gold, blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple) and scarlet yarns and fine twisted linen. Initially, the gold was hammered into sheets and then cut into threads that could be used for beautifying the ephod along with the yarns of different colors. (39:2, 3) Josephus described the ephod as short in length and as having sleeves. (Antiquities, III, vii, 5) The ephod was designed to accommodate a breastpiece with four rows of precious and semiprecious stones that were placed in gold settings. This breastpiece was attached with gold chains from rings at the top right and left corners of the breastpiece to the gold settings of the two gem stones positioned at the top of the right and left shoulder pieces of the ephod. Two blue (or bluish purple) cords that were passed through two gold rings at the bottom corners of the breastpiece held it securely to the ephod. The ephod was tied around the body with a sash. This sash was made from the same materials as the ephod. (28:6-28; see the Notes section.)

Each one of the two gem stones on the shoulder pieces was engraved with the names of six “sons of Israel” or Jacob in birth order, with the names of the oldest “sons of Israel” on one stone and the names of the youngest sons on the other stone. This may have served to indicate that the high priest bore the responsibility for all the tribes of Israel in matters of worship and in making known YHWH’s will and purpose to his people. Based on the way the sons are listed in Genesis 29:32-30:34 and 35:16-18, the six oldest sons were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, and Naphtali; and the six youngest sons were Gad, Asher, Isaachar, Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin. The Hebrew word for the gem stone (shóham) on the two shoulder pieces has often been translated “onyx.” Indicative of the uncertainty about this rendering is the inconsistent manner in which the Hebrew word is translated in the Septuagint. (berýllion [beryl], ónyx, prásinos [“light green” stone], sárdion [sardius], smáragdos [“bright green” stone, probably emerald], and soóm [possibly carnelian]). (28:9-14; see the Notes section.)

The material for the breastpiece was to have a length of a cubit (18 inches; c. 44 centimeters) and the width of a span (9 inches; c. 22 centimeters). It was then to be folded in half to form a square of equal sides, with the folded portion forming a pocket into which the Urim and Thummim were to be placed. The Urim and Thummim may have been lots by means of which YHWH’s answer to inquiries was disclosed. Therefore, the breastpiece was also called the “breastpiece of judgment.” Aaron, as the high priest, was to “bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment upon his heart before YHWH continually.” This seems to indicate that he should highly value the divine judgment and recognize that all the people of Israel should faithfully conduct themselves in harmony therewith. Apparently to inquire of YHWH, the high priest would stand in front of the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy, and YHWH’s answer to questions for guidance would be revealed by means of the Urim and Thummim. In the Septuagint, the rendering for Urim and Thummim is “revelation” and “truth.” (28:15, 16, 29, 30)

On the breastpiece, four rows of each of the three gem stones in the respective row was engraved with the name of one of the “sons of Israel.” Likely the gem stones were positioned in the order they are named in the Exodus account (from right to left as would be the case when reading Hebrew). Targum Jonathan is specific in listing the name engraved on each stone according to the birth order that appears to be indicated in the Genesis account (Reuben, Simeon, Levi [the first row]; Judah, Dan, Naphtali [the second row]; Gad, Asher, Issachar [the third row], and Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin [the fourth row]). Positive identification of all twelve precious or semiprecious stones is not possible. Some of the renderings of the Hebrew words and the Greek words in the Septuagint are conjectural. The following are renderings of the Hebrew and Greek words for the respective rows: ruby (possibly [a red stone]), topaz, and emerald [sardius (a red stone), topaz, emerald (LXX)]), first row; torquoise or garnet (possibly), sapphire, and diamond (possibly [a very hard stone]) [carbuncle, sapphire, jasper (LXX)], second row; amber (perhaps), agate, and amethyst (perhaps) [ligurion, agate, and amethyst (LXX)], third row; beryl (possibly), onyx (possibly), and jasper [chrysolite, beryl, and onyx (LXX)], fourth row. The precious and semiprecious stones engraved with the names of the sons of Israel were on the breastpiece that the high priest wore over his heart, suggesting that he was to have heartfelt love, concern, and care for all the people of the tribes of Israel. His service for them included helping them to remain devoted to YHWH as a people obedient to his commands. (28:17-21, 29)

The linen turban of Aaron differed from the headdresses that were made for his sons. On the front of his turban only and attached to it with a blue (or blueish purple) cord was the gold plate with the engraved inscription, “Holy to YHWH.” This gold plate with its inscription served to make the offerings of the people of Israel acceptable to YHWH, for Aaron, as high priest, would be taking upon himself any guilt the people incurred respecting their holy offerings and holy gifts. (28:36-40; 29:6; 39:30) Josephus (Antiquities, III, vii, 3) described the turban as having been made of “thick swathes,” with the linen material being “doubled round many times and sewn together.” This headdress was covered with a “piece of fine linen” that extended from the upper part “down to the forehead,” hiding the “seams of the swathes.”

After the skilled weavers and other expert workers had finished making the attire for Aaron and his sons, Moses was to clothe them with the new garments and to anoint, fully empower or ordain (literally,“fill their hand”), and sanctify them (or set them apart) to serve YHWH as priests. (28:41)

Notes

Josephus wrote that the breastpiece was part of the ephod and fitted into the space that had been left empty in the middle of the breast section. According to him, the arrangement of gold rings and gold chains served to secure the breastpiece with its twelve gem stones from falling out of its place. (Antiquities, III, vii, 5)

According to Josephus (Antiquities, III, vii, 5), the gem stone with the six names of the oldest sons was on the right shoulder and the gem stone with the names of the youngest sons on the left shoulder. (28:9)

Eight of the precious and semiprecious stones mentioned in Revelation 21:19 and 20 are the same ones the Septuagint lists for the high priest’s breastpiece. They are sardius (sárdion), topaz (topázion), emerald (smáragdos), sapphire (sáppheiros but a different spelling in Revelation [sápphiros]), jasper (íaspis), amethyst (améthystos), chrysolite (chrysólithos), and beryl (berýllion, which is the diminutive form of the term appearing in Revelation [béryllos]). (Exodus 28:17-20; 36:17-20)

Shortly before the Israelites left Egypt, they obtained gold and silver from the Egyptians, and it must have been at this time that they also acquired precious and semiprecious stones. In view of the extensive trade in which the Egyptians engaged, many of the people doubtless owned gem stones.

In Rahlfs’ printed text of the Septuagint, the words of verses 23 through 28 concerning the breastpiece are missing.

Chapter 29

To sanctify Aaron and his sons (or to set them apart) to serve YHWH as priests, an unblemished young bull and two unblemished rams were to be slaughtered. For the installation, Moses also needed to have unleavened baked items made from fine wheat flour, with olive oil being used for certain designated items. In a (“reed” [LXX]) basked, he was to bring the baked items and also to lead the bull and the two rams to the completed “tent of meeting,” “tent of the testimony” (LXX), or tabernacle. To the entrance of the tent or tabernacle, he was to conduct Aaron and his sons. After washing Aaron and his sons with water (or possibly meaning directing them to do so), Moses was to clothe Aaron in the priestly attire that had been made for him and to anoint him, pouring the anointing oil on his head. It does not seem likely that the oil would have been poured on the turban and so it first must have been removed before the act of anointing. (29:1-7; Leviticus 8:2-9, 12; see the Notes section.)

After Aaron’s sons had been dressed in their priestly attire, they and their father were to place their hands upon the head of the young bull that had been led to the tent of meeting. This indicated that they acknowledged the sacrifice as being for them and needing to be made because they were sinners. At the entrance of the tent of meeting, Moses was to slaughter the bull “before the face of YHWH” or in his presence. He was to take part of the bull’s blood and, with his finger, apply it to the four horns of the altar. The rest of the blood Moses was to pour out at the base of the altar. Since the “horn” is a symbol of power, the application of blood to the horns of the altar could signify that the atoning power of the sacrifices had its basis in the blood. The pouring out of the blood at the base of the altar could indicate that blood constituted the foundation of the sacrificial arrangement. Moreover, the use of the blood in this manner would have served to cleanse it from the defilement that was brought upon it by the sins of Aaron and his sons. Like all the other people of the tribes of Israel, they were still sinners, and sin causes defilement. (29:8-12; Leviticus 8:13-15; compare Haggai 2:12-14; Hebrews 9:22, 23.)

Fat was considered to be the choicest or the best part of the slaughtered bull. Therefore, all of it was designated to be offered to YHWH. As a sin offering for Aaron and his sons, the entire carcass of the bull was to be burned outside the camp, with nothing but the fat consumed on the altar. (29:13, 14; Leviticus 8:16, 17)

One of the rams was to be offered as a holocaust or a whole burnt offering. Aaron and his sons were to place their hands on the ram’s head, indicating that the offering was for them with reference to their installation to serve as priests. Although the holocaust was not a sin offering, the sacrifice did not exclude the aspect of sin, as evident from the divinely required manner in which the ram’s blood was to be used. Likely with hyssop, Moses was to splash blood against the four sides of the altar, thereby cleansing it from any defilement associated with sin. Accordingly, when Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the head of the ram, they may also have been acknowledging their own sinful state. After the ram was slaughtered, cut into sections for placement on the altar, and its entrails and legs were washed, it thus was properly prepared to be offered as a holocaust to YHWH. (29:15-18; Leviticus 8:18-21)

As in the case of the first ram, Aaron and his sons were to place their hands on the head of the second ram. A portion of the blood of this second ram was to be applied to Aaron’s right ear, right thumb, and the big toe of his right foot. This was also to be done to each one of his four sons. Blood was the means used for cleansing from defilement or sin and for sanctifying or setting apart as holy what was thus cleansed. (Compare Leviticus 16:18, 19; Hebrews 9:22.) Therefore, the application of the blood on the right ear, right thumb, and right big toe must have constituted a cleansing from sin and a sanctifying of all the faculties of Aaron and his sons so that they might acceptably serve as priests. With cleansed ears, they were to be attentive and obedient to God’s commands. Their cleansed hands were to be ready for faithfully carrying out their priestly duties and doing God’s will. In their walk or their conduct, they needed to be exemplary as persons directing their “feet” in a way that honored YHWH. (29:19, 20; Leviticus 8:22-24)

Moses again was to splash blood against all four sides of the altar, cleansing it from any defilement. He also was to take some of the blood that was on the altar and some of the anointing oil and to sprinkle this (likely with hyssop) on Aaron and his attire and on his sons and their attire, thus sanctifying them and their garments or setting them and their garments apart as holy and not tainted with sin. Seemingly, to indicate that Aaron and his sons were being empowered or authorized to serve as priests, Moses was to “fill their hands” literally. He was to place on the open palms of Aaron and his sons the fatty parts and the right thigh (shoulder [LXX]) of the ram along with baked items that had previously been put in a basket. It appears that Aaron and his sons moved their arms back and forth as if presenting an offering before YHWH. Viewed from this standpoint, the offering was a wave offering. The Septuagint, however, does not convey this thought. It indicates that these items were set apart as a separate offering. Numerous modern translations have opted for another meaning of the Hebrew verb nuph — “lift up” instead of “wave.” “Put all these [items] in the hands of Aaron and his sons to be lifted up as a special offering to the LORD.” (NLT) “Then they [Aaron and his sons] will lift it all up to show that it is dedicated to me.” (CEV) “All these things you shall put into the hands of Aaron and his sons, so that they may raise them as an elevated offering before the LORD.” (NAB) “Place all these on the palms of Aaron and his sons, and offer them as an elevation offering before the LORD.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) Thereafter Moses was to take all the items from the hands of Aaron and his sons and place them on the altar, to be consumed in addition to the rest of the sections of the ram that had been placed on the altar as a whole burnt offering. (29:21-25; Leviticus 8:25-28, 30; see the Notes section.)

The breast of the ram was to be the designated portion for Moses. Regarding the breast, the Hebrew verb nuph is used, suggesting that Moses may have waved it back and forth before YHWH as if presenting it as a wave offering. According to another meaning of nuph, however, this was an “elevation offering.” (29:26; Leviticus 8:29)

In the future, the breast and the thigh (shoulder [LXX]) of the ram was to be the priestly share from the offerings of well-being or the communion sacrifices that the “sons [or people] of Israel” would present. The special garments Aaron would wear were to be passed to his “sons” or descendants who would succeed him and be anointed as high priests while clothed with these garments. These future high priests were to wear the special attire in which they were anointed for seven days while performing their services in the “tent of meeting,” the tabernacle, or the “holy place.” (29:27-30)

The narration of the Exodus account returns to the then-present, setting forth divine directives with which Aaron and his sons were required to comply regarding their appointment to the priesthood. At the entrance of the “tent of meeting,” they were to eat meat from the ram (meat boiled in a holy place or a place free from any defilement) and bread that previously had been placed in a basket. They were to eat the items that had been used to make atonement for them, with which items their hands had been filled to indicate their having been empowered or authorized to serve as priests, and by means of which items they had been sanctified or set apart as holy to serve YHWH as his priests. Any of the meat or bread that remained until the morning was to be burned and not eaten because it had been sanctified. (29:31-34; Leviticus 8:31, 32)

The installation procedure for Aaron and his sons was to take seven days. On each one of these days, Moses was commanded to offer a bull as a sin offering to make atonement, apparently for Aaron and his sons. A sin offering was also required to make atonement for the altar, cleansing it from any defilement. This altar would be anointed, or designated for its purpose, and sanctified (or set apart) for sacred use as the furnishing on which acceptable sacrifices could be offered. Seven days were to be allotted to make atonement for the altar and to sanctify it or to make it holy. As a most holy (literally, “holy of holies”) altar, it communicated holiness to whatever touched it. Each day two one-year-old lambs were to be offered on the altar, one in the morning and the other one in the evening. Along with the first lamb, the other items to be offered were a tenth measure of flour, probably a tenth of an ephah (2 dry quarts; 2.2 liters), mixed with a fourth of a hin (possibly about 1 quart [c. 1 liter]) of oil from beaten olives, and a fourth of a hin of wine as a libation. The arrangement for offering the second lamb in the evening was to be the same. From the time the priesthood began to function, two year-old lambs were to be offered every day. (29:35-41)

At the entrance of the “tent of meeting,” YHWH would reveal his directives and judgments to his people. His glory, or his presence with his people, would sanctify the “tent of meeting” or make it holy. Besides sanctifying the “tent of meeting” and the “altar” for their sacred functions, YHWH also purposed to sanctify Aaron and his sons to serve him as priests. In a representative way, YHWH would reside among the “sons [or people] of Israel.” In view of what he would do, the people of Israel would know YHWH as their God who had brought them out of the land of Egypt so that he would be the One to dwell among them. According to the Septuagint, God’s purpose was for him to be the God of the Israelites and for them to call upon him, praying to him and looking to him for help and guidance. (29:42-46)

Notes

In verse 4, the Septuagint uses the expression “tent of the testimony” or “tent of witness.” It was at the tabernacle where the two tablets containing the “Ten Words” or “Ten Commandments” were stored in the ark of the covenant. The tablets served as a testimony respecting the commands the Israelites were obligated to observe, and this testimony would have been a witness against them if they failed to live up to these commands. Moreover, the “tent” with the ark of the covenant functioned as a witness that YHWH was dwelling representatively with his people.

In verse 6, the reference to the “holy crown” or “holy diadem” appear to be to the gold plate with the engraved inscription, “Holy to YHWH.” The Septuagint supports this, for it reads, “the [thin] plate, the sanctified” one. Josephus, however, referred to the diadem as an addition to the headdress. “Above [it] there was another, with swathes of blue embroidered, and round it was a golden crown polished, of three rows, one above another; out of which arose a cup of gold.” He wrote that this “cup” resembled a certain herb which he then described in greater detail for those who had never seen the herb. (Antiquities, III, vii, 6)

As at the present time, fat-tailed sheep must have been common in northern Africa, including Egypt. Their tails may weigh ten pounds (c. 4.5 kilograms) or more. In verse 22, the Septuagint, however, does not mention the fat of the ram’s tail as one of the fatty pieces to be offered.

Chapter 30

The altar of incense and its two carrying poles were to be constructed of (decay-resistant [LXX]) wood (commonly considered to have been acacia wood because of its suitability for the purpose and its availability on the Sinai Peninsula) and then overlaid with gold. Two gold rings on opposite sides of the altar just below the molding or border at its top were to be made for holding the poles. The altar was to be designed with a horn at each of its four corners, and the designated dimensions of the altar were to be one cubit (18 inches [c. 46 centimeters]) wide on each side and two cubits (36 inches [c. 92 centimeters]) high. Upon completion, the altar of incense was to be placed in front of the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy. (30:1-6)

As high priest, Aaron had the responsibility to burn incense on the altar of incense at the time that he prepared the seven lamps to continue providing light in the Holy of the tabernacle. Then, when again preparing the lamps in the evening, he was to burn incense on the altar. This altar was to be used exclusively for burning the specially formulated incense and was never to be used for offering any other incense or any type of sacrifice or libation. Annually, evidently because of having come into contact with priests who were sinners, atonement was to be made for the altar of incense. This was to be done by applying the “blood of the sin offering” to the horns of the altar. Since “horns” represented power, the application of blood to the horns of the altar could signify that the atoning power had its basis in the blood of the sin offering. (30:7-10)

Instead of referring to additional instructions regarding furnishings for the tabernacle, the Exodus account continues with matters pertaining to the taking of a census of men from the age of 20 and upward. So that the people would not be plagued, each man was to pay half a shekel as an offering to YHWH to atone for his life. The payment was to be made “according to the shekel of the holy place” or the sanctuary, suggesting that it was to be based on the standard weight at the tabernacle. Average weights of ancient shekels indicate that a half shekel would have been about 0.2 ounce avoirdupois (c. 0.1835 ounce troy; c. 5.7 grams). The equivalent of one shekel (c. 0.4 ounce avoirdupois, c. 0.367 ounce troy, 11.4 grams) was twenty gerahs, with one gerah weighing about 0.02 ounce avoirdupois (c. 0.01835 ounce troy; c. 0.57 gram). All men were required to pay the same amount, indicating that, whether rich or poor, all of them had the same value from YHWH’s standpoint. The payment served as a contribution for the support of the tabernacle. (30:11-16; see the Notes section.)

At this point, the subject matter returns to items essential for the tabernacle and the priestly services there. For washing their hands and feet, the priests were to be provided with a copper or bronze basin that was filled with water and was to be positioned between the “tent of meeting” or the tabernacle and the altar of burnt offering. Before Aaron or his sons (and later their descendants) entered the tabernacle or carried out their priestly services at the altar, they were to wash. The seriousness of washing as required was emphasized with the words, “and [that] they may not die.” (30:17-21)

A specially formulated oil (consisting of myrrh, cinnamon, aromatic cane, cassia, and a “hin” [possibly about 4 quarts or 4 liters] of olive oil) was to be used for anointing the “tent of meeting,” the “ark of the testimony,” the table for the showbread and all its utensils, the lampstand and its utensils, the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, the copper basin and its base, and the priests. All of the items anointed with this anointing oil became holy (or were set apart for their sacred purpose), and anyone touching them would become holy. The duplication and use by or for anyone else was designated as a serious offense, requiring that the transgressor be “cut off [destroyed (LXX)] from his people.” (30:22-33; see the Notes section.)

Likewise, no one was permitted to make the incense that was to be used exclusively in the sanctuary and that was burned on the altar of incense. The penalty was for the individual to be “cut off [destroyed] from his people.” Ingredients for this incense (stacte, onycha, galbanum, and pure frankincense in equal proportion) are mentioned in the Exodus account, but it is not possible presently to establish the source for the ingredients that the Israelites used. Based on what Josephus wrote, additional ingredients appear to have been added in later years. “The altar of incense, by its thirteen kinds of sweet-smelling spices with which the sea replenished it [or which were derived from the sea], signified that God is the possessor of all things that are both in the uninhabitable and habitable parts of the earth and that they are all to be dedicated tohis use.” (War, V, v, 5) A portion of the incense was to be placed “before the testimony in the tent of meeting” or where the altar of incense was located in front of the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy. It was there where YHWH is quoted as saying that he would meet Moses. (30:34-38; see the Notes section regarding verses 6 and 36.)

Notes

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), but 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters) for a cubit (as commonly found in many reference works) is used in Werner Bible Commentary because it reduces the number of fractions involved when calculating cubit measurements in inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

From above the cover of the “ark of the testimony”and from between the cherubs on the cover, YHWH purposed to “meet” Moses and to make known to him everything that needed to be related to the “sons [or people] of Israel.” According to the Septuagint, God would be “known” to Moses there. The ark represented God’s presence, and so the reference to it as the “ark of the testimony” could indicate that it served as a testimony or witness that God was present in the midst of the Israelites. Another significance for the designation “ark of the testimony” could be that in it the “testimony” (the two tablets of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments) was stored. The tablets served as a testimony respecting the commands the Israelites were obligated to observe, and this testimony would be a witness against them if they failed to live up to these commands. (25:22; 30:6, 36)

In the Septuagint (30:13), the required payment for each man at the time a census would be taken is expressed in terms of the then-existing coinage. The payment was half a didrachma (or one drachma), and there were 20 obols to one didrachma.

In verse 23, the Hebrew text includes amounts of 500 and 250 without mentioning that the weight is the shekel, but the Septuagint does include the transliteration of the Hebrew word “shekel.” In connection with cassia, however, verse 24 of the Hebrew text does indicate that the weight should be “according to the shekel of the holy place.” This is the same expression found in verse 13. Based on the shekel weight of 11.4 grams, 500 shekels of myrrh weighed about 12.6 pounds (c. 5.7 kilograms), as did 500 shekels of cassia; and 250 shekels of cinnamon weighed about 6.3 pounds (c. 2.85 kilograms), as did 250 shekels of aromatic cane.

Chapter 31

YHWH revealed to Moses that Bezalel (son of Uri and the grandson of Hur) of the tribe of Judah was to be the chief artisan for constructing the tabernacle and its furnishings, and his assistant was to be Oholiab (son of Ahisamach) of the tribe of Dan. Apparently Bezalel possessed the ability to perform the essential tasks, but this ability must have been enhanced through the operation of God’s spirit upon him. YHWH is quoted as telling Moses, “I have filled him with the spirit of God, with ability and with understanding and with knowledge and with all craft.” Accordingly, Bezalel was equipped to perform everything that was needed for working with gold, silver, copper or bronze, for cutting gem stones, for making settings for precious and semi-precious stones, and for carving wood. Bezalel and Oholiab, however, were not the only artisans. Other skilled workers were also to be involved in constructing everything regarding which YHWH had instructed Moses. “In the heart” of these persons (literally, “all wise ones of heart”), YHWH had placed the ability, suggesting that their exceptional skills for the work had been divinely granted to them. As the chief artisan, Bezalel appears to have been entrusted with the primary responsibility to direct the work that had to be done. (31:1-6)

The “tent of meeting” or tabernacle and all its furnishings needed to be constructed. Other major projects were the making of the ark of the testimony, the table for the showbread, the lampstand and all of its utensils, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering, and the basin and its base. Skills in weaving, embroidering, and sewing were required to produce the garments for Aaron and his sons. Two substances needing to be produced were the anointing oil and the incense. (31:7-11; see the Note section regarding the “testimony.”)

YHWH’s final instructions to Moses before his descent from Mount Sinai focused on the importance of observing the sabbaths for generations to come. The Sabbath itself was a sign between YHWH and the people of Israel, indicating that he had santified or set them apart as his own people. It was a “holy day,” specifically designated as a day of rest and refreshment for everyone, including domestic animals. For anyone to violate the Sabbath, refusing to observe it, would have constituted rebellion against YHWH, for he had instituted it for his people. Such rebellion was a capital offense, punishable by “cutting off” (being destroyed [LXX]) or having the death penalty inflicted. No work was to be done on that day, for that would have desecrated it as a day of rest and refreshment. Through Sabbath observance, the people would have been imitating YHWH, for he completed the creation of heaven (the celestial dome), earth (or land), and sea and everything “in them” (or all creation relating to the sphere in which humans live) in six days and rested on the seventh day, looking upon the completed creative work as “good” and finding joy in what he had brought into existence during six creative days. YHWH blessed the seventh day when pronouncing what had been accomplished as good and sanctifying it or setting it apart as a sacred day of rest. (31:11-17)

After he had received all the instructions, Moses was given the two tablets of stone on which the “Ten Words” or “Ten Commandments” were written. The writing is attributed to the finger of God, revealing that the written text had God as its source and came to be in recorded form through the operation of his power. (31:18)

Note

The ark represented God’s presence, and so the reference to it as the “ark of the testimony” could indicate that it served as a testimony or witness that God was present in the midst of the Israelites. Another significance for the designation “ark of the testimony” could be that in it the “testimony” (the two tablets of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments) was stored. The tablets served as a testimony respecting the commands the Israelites were obligated to observe, and this testimony would be a witness against them if they failed to live up to these commands.

Chapter 32

After considerable time had passed and Moses had not returned from Mount Sinai, the people seem to have become impatient. Apparently through certain representatives, they requested or demanded that Aaron make “gods” for them to lead them, for they did not know what had happened to Moses, the man who had brought them out of Egypt. Aaron told them to bring to him the gold rings on the ears of their wives, sons, and daughters. Perhaps he reasoned that they might not be willing to part with their ornaments. If this was a stalling measure, it failed in dissuading the people from desiring to have a tangible representation of gods or of a deity because of then not having Moses with them as their visible leader. The people brought the gold earrings to Aaron, and he used the gold to construct the image of a calf, probably a young bull, and said to the people, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” (32:1-4; see the Notes section.)

While in Egypt, the Israelites had become contaminated with the idolatrous practices of the Egyptians who associated their deities with a great variety of animals, including cows and bulls. (Psalm 106:19-21; Ezekiel 20:7, 8; Acts 7:39-41) The people must have regarded the image of the calf as representing YHWH, for Aaron, after erecting an altar before the idol, announced that there would be a festival to YHWH the next day. Early in the morning of that day, the Israelites began to offer burnt offerings and sacrifices of well-being or communion sacrifices. They sat down to eat meat from the sacrificed animals and drank, getting up thereafter to enjoy themselves in playing or merriment, probably wild dancing. (32:5, 6)

By engaging in idolatry in total disregard for YHWH’s command, the Israelites ceased to be his people. This may be why YHWH is quoted as telling Moses, “Go down, for your [not my] people have corrupted themselves.” After thus distancing himself from the Israelites, he also identified them as a “stiff-necked” or stubborn people. YHWH then granted Moses an opportunity to choose to act as a mediator for the Israelites, saying to him, “Let me be [or allow me], that my wrath may blaze against them and that I may consume them. And of you, I will make a great nation.” (32:7-10; see the Notes section.)

In response, Moses pleaded for his people on the basis that the Egyptians would wrongly conclude that YHWH, with evil purpose, had led them into the mountainous region to destroy them. He also made his appeal on the basis of the oath-bound promise YHWH had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel or Jacob, that their seed or descendants would become numerous and receive the land of Canaan as their inheritance. YHWH thereafter “repented of the evil” (or the punishment of annihilation he had threatened to bring upon the Israelites). This “repentance” was not a change of mind respecting an established predetermined purpose, for YHWH had granted Moses an opportunity to express himself about the outpouring of wrath against the Israelites and Moses had done so. (32:11-14)

When Moses descended from Mount Sinai, he carried in his hands the “two [stone (LXX)] tablets of the testimony” or the tablets on which the “Ten Words” or “Ten Commandments” were written on both surfaces. These tablets are identified as the “work of God” and the writing on them as the “writing of God.” (32:15, 16)

After meeting Joshua where Moses had left him much earlier at the time he continued his ascent on Mount Sinai, both men heard the sound of shouting among the Israelites. Joshua concluded that it was the “sound of war in the camp.” Moses, however, explained that it was not the sound of chanting over triumph or the sound of chanting over defeat but the “sound of chanting” or singing. The Septuagint rendering could be understood to indicate that it was the sound of singing under the influence of wine. (32:17, 18)

When Moses came close enough to the Israelite camp to see the golden calf and the people dancing, he became furious to the point of throwing down the two tablets he was carrying and breaking them at the foot of the mountain. He seized the golden calf, burned it, pulverized all that remained, scattered the particles upon the water, apparently of a nearby stream, and made the “sons [or people] of Israel” drink the water in which the residue of the golden calf floated. In effect, Moses made them drink the idol that they had treated as their god. In view of what he did with the golden calf, it could not have been fashioned from solid gold. It probably was constructed from wood and then overlaid with gold. Otherwise, Moses could not have burned it, for gold does not burn and would not have mixed with water. Even small particles of gold would have sunk to the bottom. Wood, however, would have been reduced to charcoal, leaving only tiny bits of gold on the charcoal after the burned image had been pulverized. Moses may well have had the assistance of others in destroying the golden calf, but everything would have taken place at his direction. (32:19, 20)

In view of his brother Aaron’s failing to restrain the people from engaging in idolatry, Moses asked him, “What did this people do to you that you have brought a great sin upon them?” Aaron was fully aware that he had permitted himself to cooperate in carrying out a very serious sinful act and could see that his brother was angry with him. Therefore, he addressed his brother respectfully as his “lord” and appealed to him not to let his anger blaze against him. Aaron’s next words reveal that he had succumbed to the pressure of the people, for he said to his brother, “You know the people that they are set on evil.” He related their demand for him to make “gods” for them to lead them, for they did not know what had become of Moses who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. Aaron, however, minimized his own role, telling Moses that, into the fire, he tossed the gold the people had brought to him at his request, and the calf came out. Obviously, the idol could not have fashioned itself in the fire, and Aaron would have known that his brother would not accept such a lame excuse. (32:21-24; see the Notes section.)

Moses saw that the people were out of control, exercising no restraint on their actions, for Aaron had allowed them to become persons who were out of control. The Hebrew wording that expresses the result from the lack of all restraint may be translated, “to their ridicule [or shame] among those rising up against them.” Those “rising up” could designate the enemies who knew that YHWH was the God of the Israelites. Therefore, when the Israelites acted without restraint in a rebellious way against him, they, as persons who despised their own God, made themselves objects of ridicule to or dishonored themselves before their foes. It is also possible that the “ones rising up” were persons who opposed the idolaters, and the idolaters were the ones who resorted to mockery against them or tried to shame them. (32:25) Modern translations make various meanings more explicit than is the Hebrew text. “They were a menace to any who might oppose them.” (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) “They mocked anyone who opposed them.” (NLT, footnote) “And now they had made fools of themselves in front of their enemies.” (CEV) “Aaron had laid them open to the secret malice of their enemies.” (REB) “Moses saw that the people were running wild because Aaron had lost control — to the secret delight of their foes.” (NAB)

Moses positioned himself at the entrance of the camp and called out, “Whoever [is] for YHWH, to me [or to my side].” All the “sons of Levi,” men of the tribe to which Moses belonged, assembled themselves around him. He declared to them the word of “YHWH, the God of Israel,” saying, “Every man place his sword on his thigh [or side], go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.” This could not have been a command to engage in indiscriminate slaughter, for then even those with the weapons would have faced the possibility of death at the hands of fellow Levites. Targum Jonathan is specific in identifying those to be killed as “wicked workers of strange worship” or the chief promoters of idolatry. According to the Exodus account, the Levites did what had been conveyed to them through Moses, and about 3,000 men were slain on that day. (32:26-28)

Moses told the Levites to “fill their hand” for YHWH on that day (or empower themselves as persons set apart for his service), for they had cleared out of Israel serious transgressors, acting against men who were close to them (son and brother) or fellow members of the people of Israel. With the defiled members of the nation having been killed, YHWH could bestow his blessing. This did not mean that the rest of the nation was guiltless, and Moses reminded the people that they had committed a “great sin.” He, however, intended to ascend Mount Sinai to see whether he could obtain YHWH’s forgiveness for their sin. Before YHWH, Moses acknowledged that the people had gravely sinned when they made a “god of gold” for themselves. Moses’ desire was that the people would be granted forgiveness. If they were not pardoned for their sin, he even offered himself as the one to have his name blotted out of the book that YHWH had written. This “book” refers to YHWH’s record of all those whom he regards as approved persons. (32:29-32; see the Notes section.)

YHWH’s response to Moses made it clear that only those who had sinned against him would be blotted out of his book. He then instructed Moses to lead the Israelites to their final destination (the land of Canaan, the Promised Land). YHWH’s angel would go before Moses, guiding him on the way. Nevertheless, YHWH purposed to “visit” punishment upon the people for their sin. The Exodus account adds that YHWH sent a plague upon the people for their grave sin respecting the golden calf, but it provides no details about the nature of this plague. (32:33-35)

Notes

In verse 2, the Septuagint does not include a reference to the sons as having earrings.

Although Aaron is represented as responsible for making the golden calf (verse 4), he likely did not perform all the work but directed that it be done.

The Septuagint does not contain the words (verse 9) about the people being stiff-necked.

Apparently to excuse what Aaron did, Targum Jonathan adds information that is not based on the Exodus account. It says that he was afraid because Hur had been slain in front of him, suggesting that Hur strongly resisted the demands of the people and lost his life as a result.

Targum Jonathan does not attribute the fashioning of the golden calf to Aaron, but states that Satan entered into the gold which Aaron had cast into the fire, and the representation of a calf then came out.

The wording of verse 29 in the Septuagint may be understood to mean that the Levites had “filled” their hand on the “son” or “brother” when executing the men who were primarily responsible for the idolatry related to the golden calf.

Chapter 33

To Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, YHWH had given his oath-bound promise that their “seed” or descendants would come to possess the land of Canaan. He instructed Moses to depart and to lead his people to that land, assuring him that he would send his angel before him. According to the Hebrew text, YHWH would dispossess the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, (Gergesites [LXX]), Hivites, and Jebusites who were then living in the land. The Septuagint, however, indicates that the angel would do this. Whether the action is attributed to YHWH or to his representative angel does not affect the basic thought that the Israelites would not be left on their own to drive out the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, a land “flowing with milk and honey.” The Israelites would have an abundance of milk from the cows and goats that would be feeding on lush pasturage. Besides wild honey from bees, the people would also have much honey or syrup from fruits. Whereas his representative angel would accompany the Israelites, YHWH declared that he would not be in the midst of the people because they were stiff-necked or stubborn and, therefore, the possibility existed that he would destroy them on their way to Canaan. (33:1-3)

Upon hearing YHWH’s severe words that Moses related to them, the people began to mourn and, as an outward manifestation of their mourning, stripped off their ornaments. They did this in obedience to what Moses had told them about what they should do. Apparently based on their response, YHWH determined what he should do with the people. Seemingly, from the time of their departure from Mount Horeb or Mount Sinai, the people did not wear their ornaments. A number of modern translations are more specific in conveying this significance than is the Hebrew text. “So from the time they left Mount Sinai, the Israelites wore no more jewelry or fine clothes.” (NLT) “And after leaving Mount Sinai, they stopped wearing fancy jewelry.” (CEV) “So after they left Mount Sinai, the people of Israel no longer wore jewelry.” (GNT) The Septuagint, however, could be understood to indicate that it was at Mount Horeb that the people removed their ornamentation and their robes. Another possible meaning of the Septuagint rendering is that the people did this after they left Mount Horeb. (33:4-6)

It may be, because YHWH had not as yet forgiven the people, that Moses removed his tent some distance away from the area where the Israelites were encamped. This tent came to be known as the “Tent of Meeting [Tent of Testimony (LXX)],” for it was to this tent that the Israelites went to seek YHWH to find out what his decisions and will were. They did so through Moses who had direct communication with YHWH’s representative angel. This was visible to all the people, for the pillar or column of cloud would descend and stand in front of the entrance of the tent when Moses entered. Whenever the people saw Moses going to the tent, they would rise and stand at the entrance of their respective tents, watching until he entered his tent. When the pillar or column of cloud would descend and stand at the tent entrance, the people arose and bowed low at the entrance of their own tents. Apparently this was because the column of cloud was a tangible evidence of the divine presence. In view of the direct two-way communication Moses had with YHWH’s representative angel at the times the column of cloud stood before the tent entrance, the Exodus account says that YHWH used to speak to Moses face to face as does a man when conversing with his friend. (33:7-11a)

Whenever Moses would leave his tent to go to the encampment of the Israelites, Joshua would remain at the tent. He likely did this to prevent anyone else from entering it. (33:11b)

YHWH had told Moses to lead the people to the land of Canaan and had informed him that he would have his angel go before him. Therefore, Moses raised the matter about not having been told about whom YHWH would be sending. This was even though YHWH had told him, “I know you by name and you have also found favor in my eyes” or my sight. The words “know you by name” indicate that YHWH knew Moses well or knew him like someone would know a close friend. Based on his having found favor in YHWH’s eyes or sight, Moses appealed to him to show him “his way,” revealing himself more fully to him and making it possible for him to “know” YHWH (or to have a more intimate knowledge of him as a person) and to continue experiencing his favor. At the same time, Moses interceded for the Israelites, petitioning YHWH to consider that the nation of Israel was his people. (33:12, 13)

YHWH is quoted as responding with the words, “My face [I (LXX) or my presence] will go [before you (LXX)], and I will give you rest.” For Moses, rest would signify being freed from the distressing burden that had resulted from the unfaithfulness of the Israelites and its having incurred YHWH’s wrath. Ultimately, rest would come when he arrived with the people at the place of rest, the land YHWH had promised to their forefathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) as the future possession of their descendants. Targum Jonathan interprets the words as a directive for Moses to wait until God’s displeasure had ceased, with rest being granted to him afterward. Both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, however, seem to indicate that Moses and his people would experience manifestations of God’s presence during their journey to the land of Canaan. It appears that Moses desired more assurances of YHWH’s continued presence with his people and therefore asked that he not lead them away from Mount Sinai unless his “face” or presence accompanied them (if his wrath did not go away from them [Targum Jonathan]). Moses made his plea because of desiring the assurance that the Israelites again had YHWH’s favor and that they were his unique people among all the peoples of the earth. Moses seemingly felt that he could only have absolute confidence respecting this if YHWH’s presence continued to be with them, providing help, guidance, and protection. YHWH’s response to Moses was that his request would be granted, for he had gained his favor and was known to him “by name” (known well as his faithful servant or friend). (33:14-17)

In view of the repeated assurances that he had been given, Moses desired an even closer relationship with YHWH, prompting him to appeal to him to show him his “glory,” the fullness of his majestic being. In response, YHWH told Moses that he would make all his “goodness” pass before him or reveal to him the attributes that distinguished him as the source of all that is good. Moses would hear the proclamation of the unique name (YHWH) that summed up all that he is — the true God who grants favor to whom he chooses to grant favor and who shows mercy to whom he chooses to show mercy. Moses, however, would not see the face of YHWH, for no man of flesh would be able to see the face of the God who is spirit, or experience the revelation of the complete glory, and live. Even a partial revelation of this glory (represented by being able to see only the back) required that Moses initially had to be shielded “in a cleft of the rock” or crag where he would be standing and that God’s “hand” would be covering him until he passed by. (33:18-23; see the Notes section.)

Notes

After quoting God as saying that the Israelites were a “stiff-necked people,” the Septuagint in verse 5 continues, “Watch that I do not strike you with another plague and annihilate you.” Whereas the Hebrew text only refers to the directive for the people to take off their ornaments, the Septuagint adds that they should also remove the “robes of [their] glory” or their attractive garments, with the possible implication being that they should replace them with sackcloth.

In verse 19, the Hebrew text literally reads “will proclaim by name YHWH.” The Septuagint, however, says “my name,” which is the rendering found in many modern translations. Unlike the deities that other nations worshiped and which had been named by them, the true God revealed himself by his own name. Accordingly, neither the name itself nor its correct pronunciation came from a human source.

As evident from other texts in the book of Exodus (3:2-6), YHWH spoke to Moses by means of his representative angel. Therefore, through this angel, Moses received communication, including the glorious manifestation that required for him to be shielded. In this respect, Targum Jonathan is specific in its interpretation about YHWH’s glory passing by. It says, “I will make the host of angels who stand and minister before me to pass by.”

Chapter 34

YHWH instructed Moses to ascend Mount Sinai after he had hewn out two tablets of stone like the ones he had broken. On the new tablets, YHWH indicated that he again would write the “Ten Words” or “Ten Commandments.” No man was to make the ascent with Moses, and no domestic animals from the flocks or herds were to pasture before the mountain. (34:1-3)

Early in the morning, Moses, carrying the two tablets he had hewn out, started his ascent on Mount Sinai. YHWH then descended upon the mountain in a cloud, stood there (apparently by means of his representative angel) with Moses, “and proclaimed the name of YHWH.” This proclamation was not limited to saying, “YHWH, YHWH.” Additionally, he revealed himself as the God in possession of certain prominent attributes. He is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, great in kindness or enduring love, and [in] truth [faithfulness or trustworthiness], preserving enduring love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and by no means exempting” (literally, to exempt, he will not exempt) the guilty, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons and the sons’ sons to the third and the fourth generation.” Although YHWH does not hold back from punishing those who choose to disregard his commands and defy him, he identified himself more prominently with his willingness to forgive wrongdoing and to be merciful and not quick to be aroused to anger. If at all possible, he chooses to show kindness or enduring love to thousands. Nevertheless, he does visit with punishment the “iniquity” of fathers upon their (“rebellious” [Targum Jonathan]) “sons” or children to the third and the fourth generation. Offspring or descendants of fathers who demonstrated their hatred for YHWH when practicing what was repugnant to him would be inclined to follow the bad example of their forebears and would suffer the consequences for their own sinful course. (34:4-7)

In response to this proclamation, Moses hurried to reverentially bow his head to the ground, probably dropping to his knees and prostrating himself in worship. Based on having found favor in YHWH’s eyes or sight, Moses pleaded with him to “go in the midst” of the people even though they had proved themselves to be stiff-necked or stubborn. He did not exclude himself from the people but petitioned YHWH, “Pardon our iniquity and our sin and take us for your inheritance [or as belonging to you].” (34:8, 9)

The covenant or agreement that YHWH purposed to make with all of Moses’ people was the following: He promised to perform marvels such as had not occurred previously in all the earth and in any nation. All of Moses’ people would see the work of YHWH, for he would be performing something awe-inspiring. (34:10)

Entrance into the land of Canaan was certain for the people of Israel, but they needed to obey YHWH’s directives about taking possession of the land. Although YHWH promised that he would drive out the inhabitants of the land (the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzzites, Hivites, [Gergesites (LXX)], and Jebusites), the Israelites were commanded not to conclude any covenants, agreements, or alliances with the inhabitants of the land so as not to be ensnared into adopting their ways. They were to tear down their altars, break their sacred pillars (which appear to have been phallic symbols of Baal or other false gods), and cut down their Asherim (possibly carved poles that represented a female deity like Asherah). As the only true God, YHWH rightly required that his people be devoted to him alone as their God and not to prostrate themselves before the images of the deities that other nations worshiped. He would not tolerate any deviation from worship that was acceptable to him. From that perspective, he was a jealous God. His being jealous, or his tolerating no rival deities, is linked to his name or to everything that his name represents him to be. (34:11-14)

The idolatrous practices of the inhabitants of Canaan are designated as harlotry. Therefore, for the Israelites to form alliances with them would have exposed them to joining them in sacrificing to their deities and eating from the meat that had been offered in sacrifice. As the Israelites were in a covenant relationship with YHWH (a relationship comparable to that of a wife to her husband), involvement in idolatrous practices would have consituted prostitution or gross unfaithfulness to their God. Any intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land was also forbidden, as it posed a threat to remaining exclusively devoted to YHWH. The Israelites had no basis for making any image of their God. Accordingly, for the Israelites to make any image of any other god would have been an affront to him and was prohibited. (34:15-17)

The Israelites could demonstrate their love for YHWH by observing his commands in matters of worship. In the month of Abib or Nisan (mid-March to mid-April), they were to celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread that served to commemorate their hurried departure from Egypt as a liberated people. As their firstborn had been spared when his angel struck down the firstborn of the Egyptians, the firstborn really belonged to YHWH. Therefore, the firstborn male offspring of cows, sheep, and goats were to be offered in sacrifice. Donkeys were unclean animals and could not be sacrificed. Their firstborn had to be redeemed with a lamb that could be offered up on the altar at the tabernacle. If the donkey was not redeemed, its neck was to be broken. It being YHWH’s property, no one was entitled to use it. This requirement doubtless also served to restrain the Israelites from failing to redeem the firstborn of donkeys, for it would have meant loss of potenitally valuable beasts of burden. The firstborn sons were to be redeemed by making a payment of five silver shekels at the tabernacle and later at the temple. (34:18-20; Numbers 18:15, 16; see the Notes section.)

Nothing was allowed to interfere with sabbath observance. Whereas plowing and harvesting needed to be done in a timely manner, these agricultural operations were not permitted, but the seventh day was to be preserved as a sacred day of rest. (34:21)

Besides the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Israelites were to observe two other sacred annual festivals — the Festival of Weeks or Pentecost (in the month of Sivan [mid-May to mid-June], which coincided with the wheat harvest), and the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Tabernacles or Booths at the conclusion of the agricultural year in the month of Ethanim or Tishri (mid-September to mid-October). All the Israelite males were required to appear before YHWH at these three festivals. Initially, the location was the tabernacle that was set up in the land of Canaan, and later the place was the temple at Jerusalem. While the men were commanded to be present for the festivals, the women could choose to be in attendance. It was a kindness on God’s part to exempt the women from obligatory attendance, as their being pregnant or having to nurse babies and to care for small children would have made it burdensome to travel a considerable distance to the designated location and then to stay for the duration of the festivals. (34:22, 23)

To leave their lands unprotected during the time they traveled to and from the location where they would stay for the duration of the three annual festivals, the men needed to trust YHWH to safeguard their property. Besides assuring them that he would assist them to drive out the nations from the land of Canaan and expand the borders of their territory, YHWH promised that, while they were away to be present for the three festivals, no man would desire their land. (34:24)

Nothing leavened was to accompany the offering of the blood of a sacrificial victim, and the meat from the Passover lamb or goat was not to be left over until morning. (34:25)

After the Israelites would be residing in the land of Canaan, they were to bring the choice firstfruits from their land to the tabernacle (the “house of YHWH [their] God”) as an offering. Their doing this would show their appreciation for his blessing on their agricultural labors. (34:26a)

From early times, the Jews have interpreted the command prohibiting the boiling of a kid of the goats in its mother’s milk to indicate that meat should not be mixed with dairy products. Targum Jonathan (thought to have been composed in the second century CE) is specific in stating that one must not “eat of flesh and milk mingled together.” Originally, the command may have reminded the Israelites that the milk that was designed to nourish the kid should not be used as a means contrary to its original purpose to preserve the animal’s life. This command may also have served to teach the Israelites compassion, for the natural and instinctive attachment of the female goat to her kid in no way agrees with the use of her milk for the total destruction of her offspring. (34:26b)

YHWH instructed Moses to write down the “words” or commandments he had spoken to him, for they were the basis on which he was concluding a covenant or solemn agreement with Moses and his people Israel. (34:27)

It was during a period of forty days and forty nights that Moses received all the commandments that the Israelites were to obey. He neither ate nor drank there on Mount Sinai as YHWH, by means of his representative angel, communicated with him. Based on verse 1 of this chapter, YHWH (his representative angel) wrote the “Ten Words” or “Ten Commandments” on the two stone tablets that Moses had hewn out. The “Ten Words” are identified as the “words of the covenant,” probably meaning the most significant part of the covenant or agreement with the people of Israel. (34:28)

Thereafter Moses descended Mount Sinai with the two stone tablets. He was unaware that his face emitted rays from having been in the glorious divine presence for forty days and nights and having experienced direct communication with the angel who represented YHWH. When Aaron and other Israelites saw the changed appearance of Moses’ face, they were afraid to approach him. It was not until Moses called out to them to come that Aaron and the leaders or chieftains of the people made their approach. After Moses spoke to Aaron and the chieftains, the other “sons” (or people) of Israel drew near, and he related to all of them what YHWH had spoken to him on Mount Sinai. (34:29-32)

Apparently Moses was informed that his face emitted rays, for this was unknown to him when he descended from Mount Sinai. Therefore, “he put a veil on his face.” Centuries later, in his letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul referred to this and indicated that Moses veiled his face to prevent the people from gazing “to the end [of the glory]” that would fade or vanish. Whenever he communicated with YHWH (his representative angel), Moses removed the veil. His face would again emit rays. Therefore, when he conveyed the words of YHWH to the people, Moses again veiled his face. (34:33-35; see the Notes section.)

Notes

In verse 20, the Septuagint indicates that, if a firstborn draft animal was not redeemed with a sheep, the the owner had to pay a price. There is no reference to breaking the neck of the animal. Possibly the translater, in the time he lived, understood the redemption price to have been a stipulated amount of money and chose to translate the Hebrew text according to what had become the practice outside the land of Israel in much later centuries.

Paul’s words in his second letter to the Corinthians suggest that, while Moses addressed the people, the rays emitted from his face would begin to fade and then vanish. The veil, however, prevented them from seeing the change in the appearance of Moses’ face. Then, as a result of communicating with YHWH at other times, Moses’ face would shine again. It appears that Paul’s mention of the passing glory (2 Corinthians 3:7, 10, 11) was intended to illustrate that the law covenant, like Moses’ shining face, was not permanent. This aspect is what neither the Israelites in the time of Moses nor in the apostle’s own time understood. (2 Corinthians 3:14)

Chapter 35

After assembling the entire congregation of the “sons [or people] of Israel,” Moses related to them everything that YHWH had commanded them to do. A significant command required of them to observe the Sabbath, keeping it as a sacred day of rest. No work was permitted on that day, not even lighting a fire. The penalty for disobedience was death. Apparently this severe penalty assured that all hirelings, slaves, and even domestic animals would not fail to benefit from a day of rest. (35:1-3)

A temporary command that allowed the Israelites to show their heartfelt appreciation for YHWH and their devotion to him pertained to their voluntarily contributing materials for the tabernacle, its utensils and furnishings, materials for the garments of the priests, olive oil, and ingredients for the incense and anointing oil. This command was really an invitation for all those who were “generous of heart” or who were motivated in their inmost selves to make an offering. The needed materials were: gold, silver, copper or bronze; blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple), and scarlet material or yarn; fine twisted linen, goats’ hair, tanned (or red) rams’ skins, other animal skins (táchash [“hyacinth-colored skins” (LXX)]), acacia wood (decay-resistant wood [LXX]), olive oil for the lamps on the lampstand, spices for the anointing oil and for the incense, and precious and semiprecious stones for the ephod and for the breastpiece. (35:4-9; see the Notes section.)

The reference to “everyone wise of heart” applies to men who had the skills to construct the tabernacle, its furnishings and utensils, and garments for the priests. The following were all the items that had to be made in keeping with YHWH’s commands: the tabernacle with its frames, coverings, hooks, bars, pillars, and bases; the ark of the covenant with its carrying poles, the curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy, the table for the showbread with its carrying poles and all the utensils for the table, the showbread, the lampstand with its utensils and lamps, the oil for the lamps, the altar of incense with its carrying poles, the anointing oil, the fragrant incense, the screen for the entrance of the tabernacle, the altar of burnt offering with its copper or bronze grating and its carrying poles, all the altar utensils, the basin to be filled with the water the priests needed for washing, the base of the basin, the hangings of the courtyard and its pillars and bases or sockets, the screen for the entrance of the courtyard, the pegs to which the outer tabernacle covering and the courtyard hangings would be attached by cords, these cords, and the garments for Aaron and his sons when performing their priestly service. (35:10-19)

After the people left Moses’ presence, they decided what they could contribute. All the people who were stirred in their hearts or their inmost selves and whose “spirit” or impelling motivation moved them brought YHWH’s offering to be used for the “tent of meeting” or tabernacle and its services and for the priestly garments. According to the Hebrew text, both men and women came, bringing various kinds of gold ornaments. The Septuagint, however, indicates that the men brought ornaments from the women or from their wives. Additionally, the men brought blue (blueish purple), purple (reddish purple), and scarlet material or yarn, fine linen, goats’ hair, tanned or red rams’ skins, and other animal skins (táchash), silver, copper or bronze, and acacia wood. (35:20-24)

Skilled (literally, “wise of heart”) women did the spinning and brought the products of their work (blue [blueish purple], purple [reddish purple], and scarlet material or yarns, fine linen, and spun goats’ hair). The leaders of the people brought the precious and semiprecious stones to be used for the ephod and the breastpiece of Aaron the high priest. They also contributed spices for the anointing oil and the fragrant incense, and oil (olive oil) for the lamps on the lampstand. (35:25-28)

All the men and women were moved from the “heart” or from their inmost selves to make a contribution of materials for the work that YHWH, “by the hand” or through the agency of Moses, had commanded to be done. Everyone contributed of their own free will. (35:29)

Moses told the “sons [or people] of Israel” that YHWH had designated Bezalel the son of Uri and grandson of Hur of the tribe of Judah to be the chief artisan. Although Bezalel possessed the required skills for working in gold, silver, copper or bronze, for cutting gem stones to be placed in settings, for carving in wood, and for doing embroidery and weaving, YHWH, by means of his spirit, enhanced these skills. Oholiab the son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan likewise had his skills divinely enhanced to work alongside Bezalel. Both men had been divinely equipped to give directions or to teach others to share in the construction and design work. (35:30-35)

Notes

The wood mentioned in verses 7 and 24 is commonly considered to have been acacia wood because of its suitability for the framework of the tabernacle as well as for other furnishings and its availability on the Sinai Peninsula.

In verses 9 and 27, the Hebrew word for the gem stone (shóham) has often been translated “onyx.” Indicative of the uncertainty about this rendering is the inconsistent manner in which the Hebrew word is translated in the Septuagint. (berýllion [beryl], ónyx, prásinos [“light green” stone], sárdion [sardius], smáragdos [“bright green” stone, probably emerald], and soóm [possibly carnelian]).

There is uncertainty about the specific animal skin the Hebrew word táchash (in verse 23) designates.

Chapter 36

For a man to be “wise of heart” means that he is in possession of valuable skills. The craftsmen Bezalel, Oholiab, and other artisans could be described in this way, especially since YHWH, by means of his spirit, had enhanced their abilities, granting them the wisdom and understanding to be able to construct the sanctuary or tabernacle according to the pattern he had provided to Moses. Besides possessing the required skills, the craftsmen were motivated in their inmost selves (their “heart”) to participate in the work that needed to be done. Along with Bezalel and Oholiab, these were the skilled workers whom Moses summoned and to whom he gave everything that the “sons [or people] of Israel” had voluntarily contributed. Every morning the people continued coming to bring their contributions until they had brought much more than was actually needed. Upon learning from the men doing the work about what had happened, Moses proclaimed throughout the camp of Israel that the men and the women should stop bringing more contributions for the work. (36:1-7)

For the supporting structure of the tabernacle, the skilled artisans made a covering of fine twisted linen, of blue (or blueish purple), purple (red purple), and scarlet yarn, embroidered with cherubs. The covering itself consisted of two large sections, with each section being made up of five cloths. Each cloth measured 28 cubits in length and 4 cubits in width (42 feet x 6 feet [c. 12.8 meters x c. 1.8 meters]), and five of these cloths were joined together to form one large cloth. The two large cloths were joined by means of 50 gold clasps that connected the 50 loops of blue (or blueish purple) yarn on the edge of one large cloth with that of the matching 50 loops on the edge of the other large cloth. (36:8-13 [37:1, 2, LXX]; see the Notes section.)

The second covering for the tabernacle consisted of goats’ hair. In design, this longer covering was much like that of the shorter linen covering, a covering that did not reach down to the ground by at least one cubit [18 inches [c. 46 centimeters]) on each side. The second covering consisted of two sections made from eleven cloths, with each one of the eleven cloths measuring thirty cubits by four cubits (45 feet x 6 feet [c. 13.7 meters x c. 1.8 meters]). Five of the cloths were joined to form one large cloth, and the six remaining cloths were joined to make the other large cloth. The two large cloths were joined with 50 copper (or bronze) clasps that connected the 50 loops on the edge of one large cloth with that of the matching 50 loops on the edge of the other large cloth. Being two cubits (36 inches [c. 92 centimeters]) longer than the linen covering, the second covering did hang down to the bottom of the north and south sides of the tabernacle. Next came a covering of tanned (or red) rams’ skins and finally another covering of skins. There is uncertainty about the material from which the fourth covering was made. According to the Septuagint rendering of Exodus 26:14, they were hyacinth-colored skins. Although not mentioned in the account, ropes must have been attached to the last covering, and these ropes would have been securely fastened to tent pins in the ground. (36:14-19; see the Notes section.)

The supporting structure for the four coverings of the tabernacle consisted of wooden frames overlaid with gold. Each frame measured 10 cubits (15 feet [c. 4.6 meters) in length and in height, and 1.5 cubits (27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]) in width. On both the north and the south sides, twenty frames were attached by means of tenons to forty silver bases or sockets, and on the west side (or rear) of the tabernacle, there were six of these frames and two silver bases or sockets under each frame. Additionally, two frames served as corners at the rear of the tabernacle, with only a half cubit (9 inches [c. 23 centimeters]) adding to the inside dimension of the structure. Both of these frames also had two tenons that fitted into silver bases or sockets. The frames were held together with five bars each. Gold rings on each frame accommodated the bars, with each bar in the middle position on the north, west, and south sides running from one end to the other end. The position of the four other bars on the three sides is not specified in the account. (36:20-34 [38:18-21, LXX]; see the Notes section.)

The tabernacle consisted of two sections — the Holy and the Most Holy. A fine twisted linen curtain, of blue (or blueish purple), purple (or red purple), and scarlet yarn, embroidered with cherubs, separated the two compartments. This curtain hung from gold hooks attached to four gold-overlaid wooden pillars or posts that were secured in four silver bases or sockets. A screen at the entrance of the tabernacle was made like the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy, but it hung from gold hooks attached to five gold-overlaid wooden pillars that were secured in five copper or bronze bases or sockets. (36:35-38 [37:3-6, LXX])

Notes

For the contents of this chapter, compare the commands for tabernacle construction set forth in Exodus chapter 26.

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), but 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters) for a cubit (as commonly found in many reference works) is used in Werner Bible Commentary because it reduces the number of fractions involved when calculating cubit measurements in inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

The wood used for the frames is commonly considered to have been acacia wood because of its suitability for the framework of the tabernacle and its availability on the Sinai Peninsula.

In the Septuagint, the arrangement of the text differs significantly from that of the Masoretic Text,

Chapter 37

According to the pattern Moses had been shown on Mount Sinai, Bezalel constructed the ark of the covenant. It consisted of a rectangular (decay-resistant [LXX]) wooden chest that measured 2.5 cubits (45 inches [c. 114 centimeters] in length, 1.5 cubits (27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]) in width, and 1.5 cubits (27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]) in height. Both the inside and the outside of the ark was overlaid with pure gold. At the top, Bezalel made a beautiful border. (37:1, 2 [38:1, 2, LXX]; see the Notes section.)

Bezalel cast four gold rings, attaching two of these to one side of the ark and the other two to the other side. He positioned carrying poles in these rings. The poles had been made of the same wood as the ark and were overlaid with gold. According to the Hebrew text, the ark did not rest on the ground but was fashioned with “four feet” or four supports at the four corners. The Hebrew text also indicates that the rings were to be attached on the four feet, which possibly means that the rings were just above the feet. In the Septuagint, however, there is no reference to “feet.” (37:3-5 [38:3, 4, LXX])

Bezalel fashioned the cover (or propitiatory) of the ark from pure gold. It measured 2.5 cubits in length and 1.5 cubits in width (45 inches [c. 114 centimeters] by 27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]). On the cover, he placed two cherubs of gold consisting of hammered work, with one cherub at one end and the other one at the other end. Their outspread wings overshadowed the cover, and their faces were toward one another and looked down, evidently in an attitude of worship. (37:6-9 [38:5-8, LXX])

Bezalel constructed the table for the display of the showbread from wood and overlaid it with pure gold. This table was 2 cubits (36 inches [c. 92 centimeters]) long, one cubit (18 inches [c. 46 centimeters] wide, and 1.5 cubits (27 inches [c. 69 centimeters]) high. Gold molding beautified the rim or border that measured one handbreadth (3 inches [c. 8 centimeters]). Bezalel attached a gold ring to each one of the four corners at the four legs of the table, positioning two gold-covered wooden poles through these rings. He made various other gold utensils, including the ones to be used on the table. (37:10-16 [38:9-12)

With hammered work, Bezalel made a pure gold lampstand and all of its parts. One lamp was positioned on top of the central shaft and on top of the three branches on each of its sides. Alternating knobs and flowers (possibly almond blossoms) provided the decorative elements for the central shaft and the six branches. Bezalel fashioned gold fire pans and gold snuffers or tongs for the lampstand. The gold tongs may have been used to remove the burnt lampwicks that would be deposited in the gold fire pans. With its utensils and lamps, the lampstand was to be made from one gold talent (about 92 pounds troy or about 75.5 pounds avoirdupois [c. 34 kilograms]). (37:17-24 [38:13-17, LXX])

Bezalel constructed the altar of incense and its two carrying poles from (decay-resistant [LXX]) wood and overlaid it with gold. He made two gold rings on opposite sides of the altar just below the molding or border at its top for inserting the carrying poles. The altar was designed with a horn at each of its four corners, and the altar dimensions were one cubit (18 inches [c. 46 centimeters]) in width on each side and two cubits (36 inches [c. 92 centimeters]) in height. For use at the altar of incense, Bezalel made pure incense with specific spices. He also made the anointing oil with which Aaron and his sons were anointed as priests. (37:25-29 [38:25, LXX])

Notes

Although all the construction of the furnishings for the tabernacle is ascribed to Bezalel, he doubtless had the assistance of other skilled craftsmen who worked under his direction.

Exodus 25:10-40 and 30:1-5 contain YHWH’s directions to Moses regarding the construction of the ark of the covenant, the table for the showbread, the lampstand, and the altar of incense. Chapter 37 narrates how Bezalel (or how he with the assistance of other skilled artisans) did the work exactly according to the pattern that had been provided to Moses.

The wood used is commonly considered to have been acacia wood because of its suitability for the purpose it would serve and its availability on the Sinai Peninsula.

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), but 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters) for a cubit (as commonly found in many reference works) is used in Werner Bible Commentary because it reduces the number of fractions involved when calculating cubit measurements in inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

The arrangement of the text in the Septuagint differs from that of the Masoretic Text.

Chapter 38

The altar of burnt offering that Bezalel constructed (doubtless with the assistance of other skilled men who worked under his direction) was basically a hollow square box made of wood overlaid with copper or bronze. This altar measured five cubits (7.5 feet [c. 2.3 meters]) in length, five cubits in width, and 3 cubits (4.5 feet [c 1.4 meters]) in height. At its four corners were four horn-like projections. Four copper or bronze rings, with two on one side of the altar and two on the opposite side, were used to insert the wooden poles overlaid with copper or bronze. These poles functioned as the means for carrying the altar. A grating consisting of a copper or bronze network was positioned inside the hollow boxlike altar. The four copper or bronze rings were attached to the corners of the grating. Bezalel was also involved in making various copper or bronze utensils for use at the altar — pots, shovels, bowls or basins, forks or meat hooks, and fire pans. (38:1-7; compare 27:1-8 and see the Notes section.)

The altar of burnt offering had its designated location in the courtyard around the tabernacle. At the entrance to this courtyard, certain women appear to have been given services to perform, and they apparently contributed their copper or bronze mirrors. These mirrors provided enough copper or bronze to fashion a basin and its base. The priests could wash their hands and feet with the water in this basin that was located in the courtyard. (38:8)

For the courtyard, linen hangings had to be made. These hangings, with a height of 5 cubits (7.5 feet [c. 2.3 meters]), measured 100 cubits (150 feet [c. 45.7 meters]) on the south and north sides, and 50 cubits (75 feet [less than 23 meters]) on the west side. The 50-cubit east side had an entrance that measured 20 cubits (30 feet [c. 9 meters]) across and that had an entrance screen of fine twisted linen embroidered with blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple), and crimson yarns. Copper or bronze pillars supported the linen hangings on the four sides of the courtyard. The hangings were suspended from silver hooks and bands (rings or hoops) attached to the pillars. Both on the north and south sides, the 20 pillars were secured in copper or bronze bases, and the 10 pillars on the west side had ten corresponding copper or bronze bases. The arrangement on the east side required three pillars for the 15-cubit (22.5-foot [c. 6.9-meter] hangings on each side of the entrance, and four pillars for supporting the 20-cubit (30-foot [c. 9-meter] entrance screen. All the pegs needed for attaching the tabernacle outer covering and the courtyard hangings to the ground were made of copper or bronze. (38:9-20; compare 27:9-18.)

The Levites who would be using the various utensils to carry out their tasks in the courtyard served under the direction of Ithamar the son of Aaron the high priest. (38:21)

Bezalel the son of Uri and grandson of Ur of the tribe of Judah was responsible for the construction of everything according to the instructions that Moses had received from YHWH. Oholiab the son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan worked along with Bezalel. He was a skilled craftsman, designer, and embroiderer, an expert in using blue (or blueish purple), purple (reddish purple), and scarlet yarn or material and fine twisted linen. (38:22, 23)

The gold the people contributed for the construction of the sanctuary amounted to 29 talents and 730 shekels (approximately 2,208 pounds avoirdupois [c. 1000 kilograms]) “by the shekel of the holy place.” The reference to the “holy place” or sanctuary suggests that the shekel was based on the standard weight at the tabernacle. (38:24 [39:1, LXX]; see the Notes section.)

The contributed silver came to 100 talents and 1,775 shekels (approximately 7,595 pounds avoirdupois [c. 3440 kilograms]) At the time of the census, each man who was 20 years of age or older paid half a shekel. This payment corresponded to the “shekel of the holy place” or the sanctuary, suggesting that it was based on the standard weight at the tabernacle. Average weights of ancient shekels indicate that a half shekel or a bekah would have weighed about 0.2 ounce avoirdupois (c. 0.1835 ounce troy; c. 5.7 grams). The number of men who paid a half shekel is listed as having been 603,550. (38:25, 26 [39:2, 3, LXX]; regarding the number 603,550, see the introductory section to Gleanings from Exodus and the Notes section.)

Most of the silver was used to cast the bases or sockets for the frames of the tabernacle and the pillars from which the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy was suspended. Each one of the 100 bases or sockets was made from one talent of silver. From the 1,775 shekels of silver, hooks were made for the pillars and an overlay for their tops, and bands were fashioned around the pillars. (38:27, 28 [39:4, 5, LXX])

The amount of copper or bronze the people contributed came to 70 talents and 2,400 shekels (approximately 5,345 pounds avoirdupois [c. 2,421 kilograms]). This metal was used for the bases or sockets that supported the pillars from which the hangings of the courtyard were suspended. Other pillars requiring the copper or bronze bases or sockets were the ones at the entrance of the “tent of meeting” or the tabernacle and at the entrance of the courtyard. Additionally, the wooden framework of the altar was overlaid with copper or bronze, and the grating of the altar was made from this metal, as were all of the altar utensils. Pegs made from copper provided the means for attaching the courtyard hangings and the uppermost tabernacle covering to the ground (38:29-31 [39:7-10, LXX]; see the Notes section.)

Notes

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), but 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters) for a cubit (as commonly found in many reference works) is used in Werner Bible Commentary because it reduces the number of fractions involved when calculating cubit measurements in inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

The wood is commonly considered to have been acacia wood because of its suitability for the framework and furnishings of the tabernacle and its availability on the Sinai Peninsula.

Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus agrees with the Masoretic Text that the amount of gold shekels was 730. According to another Septuagint reading, the number is 720. (38:24 [39:1, LXX])

Calculations are based on a talent weight of 34.2 kilograms and 75.5 pounds avoirdupois, and a shekel weight of 11.4 grams and 0.403 ounce avoirdupois.

The Septuagint translator did not transliterate the Hebrew designation bekah (a half shekel) but chose to express the value as a coin (the drachma) that was in use during his time. (38:26 [39:2, LXX])

Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and the Masoretic Text are in agreement in stating the number of copper shekels to have been 2,400. Another reading of the Septuagint, however, is 1,500 shekels. The reference to 470 talents of copper or bronze in Codex Alexandrinus is definitely an error. (38:29 [39:7, LXX])

The arrangement of the text in the Septuagint differs from that of the Masoretic Text.

Chapter 39

Persons who possessed the required skill made the beautiful garments in which Aaron was to serve YHWH as high priest in the “holy place” or tabernacle. The people of Israel voluntarily contributed the gold, the blue (or blueish purple) yarn or cloth, purple (or red purple) yarn or cloth, scarlet material, and the fine twisted linen that the skilled workers needed to accomplish their assigned tasks according to what YHWH had commanded Moses. (39:1 [36:8, LXX]; compare 28:1-3.)

From the contributed material, the skilled workers made an ephod consisting of two pieces and used gold threads, blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple) and scarlet yarn, and fine twisted linen. Initially, they hammered the gold into sheets and then cut them into threads that, along with yarn of different colors, were used to beautify the ephod. Josephus described the ephod as short in length and as having sleeves. (Antiquities, III, vii, 5) The ephod was tied around the body with a sash. This sash was made from the same materials as the ephod. Each one of the two gem stones (shóham) on the shoulder pieces of the ephod was engraved with the names of six “sons of Israel” or Jacob. Apparently on the basis of the engraved names, the two stones were “stones of remembrance” as the high priest came into the presence of YHWH, bearing the responsibility for all the tribes of Israel in matters of worship and in making known YHWH’s will and purpose to his people. (39:2-7 [36:9-14, LXX]; compare 28:6-12 and see the Notes section.)

The ephod was designed to accommodate a breastpiece that, like the ephod, was made with gold threads, blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple) and scarlet yarn, and fine twisted linen. This breastpiece consisted of material with a length of a cubit (18 inches; c. 44 centimeters) and a width of a span (9 inches; c. 22 cenitmeters). The material was folded over to form a square of equal sides. (39:8, 9 [36:15, 16, LXX]; compare 28:15, 16 and see the Notes section.)

On the breastpiece, four rows of each of the three gem stones in the respective row was engraved with the name of one of the “sons of Israel.” Likely the gem stones were positioned in the order they are named in the Exodus account (from right to left as would be the case when reading Hebrew). Targum Jonathan is specific in listing the name engraved on each stone according to the birth order that appears to be indicated in Genesis 29:32-30:34 and 35:16-18 (Reuben, Simeon, Levi [the first row]; Judah, Dan, Naphtali [the second row]; Gad, Asher, Issachar [the third row], and Zebulun, Joseph, and Benjamin [the fourth row]). Positive identification of all twelve precious or semiprecious stones is not possible. Some of the renderings of the Hebrew words and the Greek words in the Septuagint are conjectural. The following are renderings of the Hebrew and Greek words for the respective rows: ruby (possibly [a red stone]), topaz, and emerald [sardius (a red stone), topaz, emerald (LXX)]), first row; torquoise or garnet (possibly), sapphire, and diamond (possibly [a very hard stone]) [carbuncle, sapphire, jasper (LXX)], second row; amber (perhaps), agate, and amethyst (perhaps) [legurion, agate, and amethyst (LXX)], third row; beryl (possibly), onyx (possibly [shóham]), and jasper [chrysolite, beryl, and onyx (LXX)], fourth row. (39:10-14 [36:17-21, LXX]; compare 28:17-21 and see the Notes section.)

The breastpiece was attached with gold chains from rings at the top right and left corners of the breastpiece to two gem stones [shóham] positioned in gold settings at the top of the right and left shoulder pieces of the ephod. Two blue (or bluish purple) cords that were passed through two gold rings at the bottom corners of the breastpiece held it securely to the ephod. (39:15-21 [36:22-29, LXX]; compare 28:13, 14, 22-28 and see the Notes section.)

The blue (or blueish purple) “mantle of the ephod” likely had no sleeves. So that Aaron could pull it over his head, the mantle had an opening at the top with a binding of woven work that would prevent tearing. On the hem of this mantel were alternating gold bells and pomegranates made from blue (or bluish purple), purple (or reddish purple), and scarlet yarn. (39:22-26 [36:30-34, LXX]; compare 28:31-35.) Josephus described this part of the attire as reaching down to the feet, and he wrote that the fringes between the bells were “like pomegranates” in color. (Antiquities, III, vii, 4) Targum Jonathan indicates that there were 70 bells (71 in chapter 28).

The skilled workers made linen robes, headdresses, and drawers or shorts for Aaron and his sons. For the girdle or sash of each robe, they used fine twisted linen and blue (or blueish purple), purple (or reddish purple), and scarlet yarn. The linen turban of Aaron differed from the headdresses of his sons. On the front of his turban only and attached to it with a blue (or blueish purple) cord was the gold plate with the engraved inscription, “Holy to YHWH.” (39:27-31 36:35-40, LXX]; compare 28:36-42.) Josephus (Antiquities, III, vii, 3) described the turban as having been made of “thick swathes,” with the linen material being “doubled round many times and sewn together.” This headdress was covered with a “piece of fine linen” that extended from the upper part “down to the forehead,” hiding the “seams of the swathes.”

Everything for the tabernacle and the items and utensils associated with it was made according to “all that YHWH had commanded Moses.” Probably the skilled workers brought the parts of the tabernacle and everything else that they had made (the furnishings, the clasps, the frames for the tabernacle structure, the bars, the pillars, and the bases or sockets; the covering of tanned [or red] rams’skins, the covering of other skins [táchash], the curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy, the ark of the testimony, its carrying poles, and its cover or lid with the two cherubs; the table for the showbread, all its utensils, and the showbread; the lampstand, its seven lamps, all utensils for the lampstand, and the oil for the lamps; the gold altar of incense, the anointing oil, the incense, the curtain for the entrance of the tabernacle, the copper [or bronze] altar, its copper [or bronze] grating, carrying poles, and all its utensils; the basin for washing and its base; the hangings for the courtyard and its pillars and bases or sockets; the curtain for the entrance of the courtyard, the cords for the hangings, the pegs for securing the hangings to the ground; all the implements for the service at the tabernacle, the garments to be worn by those serving at the tabernacle; the holy garments for Aaron and the garments for his sons). Upon making his inspection of everything, Moses determined that everything had been accomplished according to what YHWH had commanded. Apparently he recognized that what had been made matched the pattern that had been shown to him on Mount Sinai. Moses then blessed the people for what they had done. (39:32-43 [39:11, 14-23, LXX]; 25:40; see the Notes section.)

Notes

The arrangement of the text in the Septuagint differs from that of the Masoretic Text.

There is archaeological evidence for a cubit of approximately 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), but 18 inches (c. 46 centimeters) for a cubit (as commonly found in many reference works) is used in Werner Bible Commentary because it reduces the number of fractions involved when calculating cubit measurements in inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

The Hebrew word for the gem stone (shóham) on the two shoulder pieces and in the fourth row of the breastpiece has often been translated “onyx.” (Verses 6 and 13) Indicative of the uncertainty about this rendering is the inconsistent manner in which the Hebrew word is translated in the Septuagint. (berýllion [beryl], ónyx, prasinos [“light green” stone], sárdion [sardius], smáragdos [“bright green” stone, probably emerald], and soóm [possibly carnelian]).

Uncertainty exists about the specific animal skin the Hebrew word táchash (in verse 34) designates. Although Josephus included transliterated Hebrew words and explanatory comments in his writings (Antiquities, III, vii, 1-5), he did not transliterate táchash but appears to have accepted the Septuagint rendering (hyacinth or blue). Regarding the curtains or tent cloths that were joined to form the topmost covering of the tabernacle, he wrote: “Great was the surprise of those who viewed the curtains at a distance, for they seemed not at all to differ from the color of the sky.” (Antiquities, III, vi, 4)

The ark represented God’s presence, and so the reference to it as the “ark of the testimony” (verse 35) could indicate that it served as a testimony or witness that God was present in the midst of the Israelites. Another significance for the designation “ark of the testimony” could be that in it the “testimony” (the two tablets of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments) was stored. The tablets served as a testimony respecting the commands the Israelites were obligated to observe, and this testimony would be a witness against them if they failed to live up to these commands.

Chapter 40

On the first day of the first month (Abib or Nisan [mid-March to mid-April), YHWH directed Moses to set up the tabernacle. This was nearly one year after the Israelites had departed from Egypt as a free people. Everything for the tabernacle and the services there had been completed to the specifications YHWH had given to Moses and the visual representations of all parts of the tabernacle and its furnishings that he had shown to him on Mount Sinai. (40:1, 2; 25:40) According to Josephus, the entire project was finished in seven months. (Antiquities, III, viii, 4)

Verses 3 through 15 set forth YHWH’s directive to Moses about setting up everything that had been constructed in the erected tabernacle with its courtyard. The ark of the testimony was to be placed in the Most Holy and screened from view with the curtain that separated the the Most Holy from the Holy. In the Holy, Moses was to position the table with the showbread. After placing the lampstand in the Holy, Moses was to light its lamps. Before the ark of the testimony (or just in front of the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy), Moses was to place the golden altar of incense. At the entrance of the tabernacle, Moses was to hang the curtain that prevented anyone in the courtyard to see the inside of the tabernacle. In the courtyard, the designated position for the altar of burnt offering was before the entrance to the tabernacle, and the basin that needed to be filled with water was to be placed between the tabernacle and the altar. Although the tabernacle had been set up before the furnishings were to be brought inside, the hangings for the courtyard, as well as the curtain that served as a screen at the entrance of the courtyard, still needed to be put in position. (40:3-8; see the Notes section.)

YHWH directed Moses to anoint the tabernacle and its furnishings inside and, in the courtyard, the altar of burnt offering and the water basin and its base. This anointing would serve to sanctify everything or set it apart as holy to YHWH. Moses was to bring Aaron and his sons to the tabernacle and wash them with water. It may be that this is to be understood to mean that Aaron and his sons washed as Moses directed them. After being dressed in his priestly attire, Aaron was to be anointed and thus sanctified as holy in the service of YHWH as high priest. Moses also was to anoint his sons to serve as priests after they were dressed in their priestly garments. (40:9-15)

Verses 16 through 33 relate that Moses did everything “according to all that YHWH had commanded him.” Again the carrying out of YHWH’s command is dated — the “first month [Abib or Nisan (mid-March to mid-April)] in the second year [after Israel’s departure from Egypt], on the first day of the month.” Whereas to work is attributed to Moses, he either accomplished the tasks with the assistance of skilled workers or directed them to complete the needed tasks. To set up the tabernacle, the silver bases or sockets were put in position, the tenons of the frames were inserted therein, the bars were used to join and secure the frames of the tabernacle, and the pillars were set up. From these pillars were hung the curtain at the tabernacle entrance and the one separating the Holy from the Most Holy. Upon the erected framework of the tabernacle, Moses had the covering with the representations of cherubs placed and thereafter the other covering. (40:16-19; see the Notes section.)

Moses put the “testimony,” or the two tablets containing the “Ten Words” or “Ten Commandments,” into the ark, positioned the gold-overlaid carrying poles in the gold rings on each side of the ark, and placed the cover with the two cherubs on the ark. After bringing the ark into the tabernacle, Moses hung the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy. In the Holy, he placed the table for the showbread on the north side and put the showbread on it. On the south side of the Holy, Moses set up the lampstand and lighted its lamps. In front of the curtain that separated the Holy from the Most Holy, he set up the gold altar of incense and burned incense thereon. Moses hung the curtain at the tabernacle entrance. In the courtyard, he then set up the altat of burnt offering and presented sacrifices upon it; put the basin in position and filled it with water so that he, Aaron, and his sons could wash their hands and their feet. Finally, Moses put all the hangings of the courtyard in position and hung the curtain at the entrance of the court. (40:20-33; see the Notes section.)

YHWH’s acceptance of the tabernacle as his representative place of dwelling became visibly apparent when the cloud covered it and the “glory of YHWH” filled it. On account of this development, Moses then could not enter the tabernacle. From that time onward, YHWH’s guidance of the people of Israel through the wilderness was revealed by means of the cloud. Whenever the cloud lifted, the Israelites would break camp and set out on their journey. As long as the cloud remained over the tabernacle, the people would stay where they had encamped. Both during the day and the night, the cloud could be seen, for at night it proved to be like a fire. (40:34-38; see the Notes section regarding what Josephus wrote about the cloud.)

Notes

In the Septuagint, the text for verses 7 and 8 is missing. Therefore, verse 7 in the Septuagint contains the text of verse 9, and the numbering of the verses changes accordingly. The numbering of the verses in the Septuagint changes again after verse 27 (in the Hebrew text, but 25 in the Septuagint text). The Septuagint does not include the text of verses 28, 30, 32, and 32.

Chapter 40, by means of repetition, emphasizes that Moses did everything as YHWH had commanded him. Repeatedly, one finds the phrase “as YHWH had commanded Moses.” (Verses 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32)

In his Antiquities (III, viii, 5), Josephus wrote: “God showed himself pleased with the work of the Hebrews and did not permit their labors to be in vain; nor did he disdain to make use of what they had made, but he came and sojourned with them and pitched his tabernacle in the holy house. And in the following manner did he come to it: The sky was clear, but there was a mist over the tabernacle only, encompassing it, but not with such a very deep and thick cloud as is seen in the winter season, nor yet in so thin a one as men might be able to discern anything through it; but from it there dropped a sweet dew, and such a one as showed the presence of God to those who desired and believed it.”

Regarding the construction of the tabernacle and its furnishings, the Exodus account often repeats information. It records YHWH’s instructions to Moses and then how these were carried out and, finally, YHWH’s commands for setting up the tabernacle and its furnishings and how Moses did everything that he had been directed to do. It appears inconceivable that this kind of information would have been recorded centuries after the tabernacle was no longer in use. The relevance of material that includes so much repetition would not have existed in later centuries. Therefore, one may rightly conclude that the record in Exodus originated when it was most relevant to the Israelites and that it reflects the time when they were in the wilderness in the vicinity of Mount Sinai.

Jesus Christ, God’s Unique Son

In the first century, numerous written accounts about the life and activity of Jesus Christ existed. (Luke 1:1-4) Only four of these gained the acceptance of the community of believers and were preserved throughout the centuries by copying and recopying. Although the writers do not identify themselves by name, the four accounts have been attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, provided information about what was commonly believed regarding the accounts that became part of the recognized Scriptures. He quoted Origen (c. 185 to c. 254 CE) as accepting the tradition that there were only four authentic evangels, the first being written by the former tax collector Matthew, the second by Mark (as Peter instructed him), the third by Luke, and the last one by John.

The earliest comments identifying Peter as the primary source of Mark’s account come from Papias (c. 60 to c. 135 CE), who also said of Matthew (as quoted by Eusebius) that he “collected the words [lógia] in the Hebrew language.” The comments of Papias regarding Matthew, however, are not specific enough to identify the apostle as the writer of the evangel.

Only Luke’s account, in being directed to Theophilus, provides a possible clue respecting the time it was written. According to Acts 1:1, Theophilus had received the first book about what Jesus did. The Acts account ends with the statement that Paul lived for two years in Rome under house arrest. If Acts was written shortly thereafter, the evangel would have been composed before 61 CE. For the most part, the various dates suggested for the four evangels are nothing more than conjectures, based chiefly on opinions respecting Jesus’ words about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Fragmentary papyrus manuscripts (P66 [thought to date from the second century] and P75 [believed to date from late in the second century or early in the third century]) contain the following superscription for the account traditionally attributed to the apostle John, “evangel according to John” (euangelion kata ioannen [P66]; euangelion kata ioanen [P75]). At the end of the third Gospel, P75 (one of the oldest extant manuscripts of this evangel) reads, “evangel according to Luke” (euangelion kata loukan).

Luke’s Prologue (1:1-4)

In his prologue, Luke indicates that the many then-existing narratives were based on what eyewitnesses had handed down. As for his own account, Luke carefully investigated everything and then wrote down the information in orderly sequence. His objective was to establish for Theophilus, whom he called “most excellent,” the certainty of the teaching that had been imparted to him orally. The designation “most excellent” may indicate that Theophilus occupied a high position or was held in high esteem. (Luke 1:1-4)

The Unanimous Testimony of All Four Accounts

All four accounts are unanimous in identifying Jesus as the unique Son of God. Comparatively brief as the evangels are, they have provided millions of believers throughout the centuries the basis for their faith in Jesus Christ and have had a significant influence on their lives. The consideration that follows combines the information from all four accounts and presents it, with some exceptions, in chronological order.

The Word (John 1:1-5)

In the Septuagint, the opening two words of Genesis are the same as in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1 (en arché [“in (the) beginning”]). The first chapter of Genesis portrays creative works as progressively coming into existence in response to what God says. This direct link of God’s speaking to the coming into existence of the creation appears to be preserved in the designation “the Word.” The reference to the Son as “the Word” suggests that God communicated through him and by means of him brought into existence the realities of his expressed will and purpose.

“In the beginning the Word was.” Before the countless ages that had passed since the universe came into existence the Word already “was” with the Father. The prophecy of Micah about Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem similarly pointed to his prehuman existence as reaching back to the infinite past. The Septuagint text of Micah 5:2 reads, hai éxodoi autoú ap’ archés ex hemerón aiónos (his goings forth [are] from [the] beginning, from [the] days of eternity.)

“The Word was with God [literally, the God].” In this case, the Greek preposition prós (“with”) may be regarded as indicating an interrelationship. “God” (theós) appears in the emphatic position as the opening term of the next statement. As the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), being “in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and his very “imprint” (Hebrews 1:3), the Word is identified as theós, the only single Greek term that can adequately describe his nature. In the Greek text, the Word’s being distinct from the Father is evident from the absence of the definite article. (See the Notes section for an illustration of the structure of John 1:1.)

From the infinite past, the Word and God proved to be in a close mutual relationship. This aspect is revealed in his being with God in the beginning or prior to the start of creation. (John 1:2)

Everything came into existence through the Word. Apart from him, not a single creation came to be. (John 1:3)

Depending on the punctuation, life was in the Word or life came to be “in” or through the Word. The text could be understood to mean that the Word possessed life-giving power or that he imparted life to the creation. In the case of humans, this “life” was more than mere existence; it was “light,” or a life inseparably associated with an inner light that made moral decisions possible. That inner light or faculty of conscience is so powerful that it continues to shine in a morally corrupt world of darkness. Although surrounded by darkness, this light has not been extinguished. (John 1:4, 5)

Note: To illustrate the way theós, as applying to the Word is used, the following sentence preserves the order of the Greek words and substitutes “child” and “male”: In [the] beginning was the child, and the child was with the male, and male was the child.

Before John’s Ministry Started

Gabriel’s Announcement of John’s Birth (Luke 1:5-25)

Aged priest Zechariah and his barren wife Elizabeth, also in the line of descent from Israel’s first high priest Aaron, lived uprightly and blamelessly, conscientiously observing God’s commands set forth in the Mosaic law. In the culture of that time, their childlessness would have been stigmatized, with many considering it to be a sign of divine disfavor. (Luke 1:5-7)

As a member of the division of the priestly division of Abijah, Zechariah carried out his duties during his designated period of service. Centuries earlier, King David had arranged for 24 divisions of priests. The division of Abijah was the eighth of the 24 divisions. (1 Chronicles 24:3-10) Each division served for one week every six months, with the entire priesthood being present for the annual festivals.

It was then toward the close of Herod the Great’s long reign over Judea. One day, during the period of his priestly service, Zechariah was chosen by lot to enter the temple to offer the incense. According to the Mishnah (Tamid 5:2), the superintendent or officer of the temple invited priests who had not shared in this service before to cast lots. Twice each day, in the morning and in the evening, a priest would burn incense on the alter inside the holy of the temple. (Compare Exodus 30:7, 8.) When he did so, no one else would be inside the sanctuary. The account does not indicate whether Zechariah entered the sanctuary in the morning or in the evening. If the Mishnah reflects the procedure then followed, Zechariah would have shared in this honorable service for the first time in his life. Outside, the assembled worshipers prayed while he officiated in the sanctuary. (Luke 1:8-10)

The sight of an angel on the right side of the altar of incense startled Zechariah and made him apprehensive. “Fear not,” the angel reassured him, and added that his prayer had been answered. (Luke 1:11-13) It is not likely that this would have been a personal prayer for a son. In his capacity as priest, Zechariah would more likely have prayed for the “redemption of Jerusalem” or the deliverance the coming of the Messiah would bring about and which godly Israelites eagerly awaited. (Compare Luke 2:38.)

The angel related the joyful news that Zechariah’s wife Elizabeth would bear a son, to be named John. This son would be a source of great joy to him and to many others. John would be great before God. As one specially chosen, he was not to drink wine or any other intoxicants. From birth, he would be filled with holy spirit. His role would be to cause many Israelites to change their ways and to return to God. The dynamic energizing spirit and power in evidence on the earlier prophet Elijah would be at work in John. He would turn the “hearts of fathers to children and the disobedient to the understanding of the upright, to prepare a people for the Lord.” (Luke 1:13-17)

The angel’s words indicated that John’s activity would lead many to a major transformation of their lives, involving the “heart” or the deep inner self. The focus would be on the restoration of proper relationships, which would start with the family and extend to fellow Israelites. Ultimately and most importantly, the people needed to come into a right relationship with God. John would be urging his people to cease being disobedient to the Almighty and start acting in harmony with the understanding or wisdom that distinguishes upright persons. All responding properly would thus be made ready for the Lord, the promised Messiah.

As a priest, aged Zechariah would have been well-acquainted with the history of his people and that long-barren women like Sarah, Rebekah, the wife of Manoah, Hannah, and the hospitable woman of Shunem did become mothers. Moreover, he found himself in God’s temple and heard the promise from an angel, a reliable messenger. Yet, Zechariah’s response was not one of joyous acceptance with unwavering faith. His words reflected doubt, “How am I to know this? For I am old and my wife is advanced in days.” (Luke 1:18)

The angel replied with words of strong reproof. “I am Gabriel, who stands before God, and I was sent to speak to you and announce these glad tidings to you. And, see! you will be silent and unable to speak until the day these things occur, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.” (Luke 1:19, 20) Especially because of what he knew and the unique circumstances, Zechariah had a sound basis for believing the message conveyed to him. His doubting merited correction and discipline.

The interchange with Gabriel resulted in Zechariah’s being in the sanctuary much longer than was customary. So the assembled worshipers began to wonder about the delay. For Zechariah, confirmation of Gabriel’s words followed immediately. On coming out of the temple, he could not speak. His inability to vocalize the priestly blessing, coupled with the signs he made (likely with his hands, head and lips), made the people realize that he had seen a vision. (Luke 1:21, 22)

Zechariah completed his period of service and returned home, unable to speak about his experience to Elizabeth. (Luke 1:23) Based on what happened later, he probably communicated with her by signs and in writing. (Compare Luke 1:62, 63.)

After Elizabeth became pregnant, she remained in seclusion for five months. When it would have been clear to observers that the reproach of barrenness had been removed from her, she resumed her usual routine in the community. (Luke 1:24, 25)

Gabriel’s Announcement to Mary (Luke 1:26-38)

In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary. She lived in Nazareth, a city of Galilee, and was engaged to Joseph from the royal house of David. (Luke 1:26, 27) Through the prophet Nathan, David had been divinely promised that his royal line would continue in existence, and this provided the basis for the Messianic hope, the coming of a king greater than David. (2 Samuel 7:8-16; compare Acts 2:30, 31.)

According to the literal reading of the Greek text, the angel greeted her with the words, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord [is] with you.” (See the Notes section for additional comments.) To be addressed as exceedingly favored and having God’s attentive care greatly perplexed Mary, causing her to wonder just what this greeting signified. Gabriel reassured her with the words, “fear not,” informed her of having found favor with God, and then told her that she would give birth to a son, to be named Jesus. This son would be great, “be called Son of the Most High,” receive from God the throne or royal authority of his ancestor David, and “reign over the house of Jacob forever.” His kingdom would never come to an end. (Luke 1:28-33)

Unlike Zechariah who responded to Gabriel’s announcement with doubt, Mary only raised the question as to how this would come about as she was unmarried and not intimate with a man. The angel explained to her that this would be made possible through the operation of holy spirit or the “power of the Most High.” Because the conception would result from the mighty working of divine power, the son to be born would be “called holy, [the] Son of God.” (Luke 1:34, 35)

It may well be that, for the first time, Mary learned from Gabriel that her relative Elizabeth, who had long been barren, was in the sixth month of her pregnancy and would give birth to a son. Elizabeth’s pregnancy, as Gabriel indicated, proved that nothing would be impossible with God. (Luke 1:36, 37)

Mary’s response proved to be one of remarkable faith. No virgin had ever conceived through the direct working of God’s mighty power, and she must have known that she would never be able to convince others of having maintained her virginity. Yet, with full trust in the Most High and his care for her and the son to be born, she declared her willingness to be God’s servant, letting everything take place according to what Gabriel had told her. At that point, the angel departed. (Luke 1:38)

Notes:

See http://bibleplaces.com/nazareth.htm for pictures of and comments about Nazareth.

As a greeting, the Greek term chaíro (“rejoice”) expressed an implied wish for the happiness or well-being of the person being addressed. It functioned much like the Hebrew shalóm (“peace”), which also conveyed the thought of well-being, and may have been the expression Gabriel used.

Jesus’ future kingship is described in a way that accommodated common Messianic expectations. The reality, although including an everlasting rule over the “house of Jacob” or Israel, is far grander. Mary, however, would not at that time have been able to grasp a description in terms unfamiliar to her. (Luke 1:32, 33)

In Luke 1:35, “holy spirit” and “power of the Most High” are parallel expressions, as are also the words “come upon” and “overshadow.” It should be noted that Mary would not have understood Gabriel’s words to mean anything other than what she knew about God’s spirit from the “holy writings” that were read in the synagogue. Those “holy writings” confirm that “holy spirit” is God’s power, dynamically at work in a holy or pure way for the accomplishment of his will.

Mary Visits Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-56)

It appears that Gabriel’s words about Elizabeth prompted Mary to undertake the long trip to Judea without delay, hurrying to see her relative. A day’s journey would have been about 20 miles, and so it may have taken Mary about four days to reach the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth in a city located in the mountainous region of Judea. When Mary entered their home and greeted Elizabeth, the infant in her womb leaped. (Luke 1:39-41) This confirmed the angel Gabriel’s words that John would be filled with holy spirit from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:15) His joyous leaping, under the apparent impulse of holy spirit, served to acknowledge the superiority of the son to whom Mary would give birth.

Guided by holy spirit, Elizabeth, in a loud voice, pronounced her young relative Mary as blessed among women and the “fruit of her womb” as blessed. “How can I be so favored,” Elizabeth continued, “that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” It had been her unborn baby’s joyous leaping when she heard Mary’s greeting that revealed to Elizabeth that her relative’s son would be her Lord, the Messiah whom all godly Israelites eagerly awaited. Elizabeth acknowledged Mary (unlike her husband Zechariah who had doubted) as having believed and called her fortunate, happy, blessed or in a desirable state of felicity, for everything that God had spoken by means of Gabriel would take place. (Luke 1:41-45)

Mary’s expressions of thanksgiving and praise parallel thoughts in the Psalms and in the words of Samuel’s mother Hannah. (1 Samuel 2:1-10; also see the Notes section for comparison purposes.) “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked upon the lowliness of his slave. For, see! from now on all generations will call me fortunate, for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy [is] his name. And his mercy [is] from generation to generation to those fearing him. He has displayed might with his arm. He has scattered those arrogant in the reasoning of their heart. He has brought down sovereigns from thrones and exalted the lowly. Hungry ones he has filled with good things, and the wealthy he has sent away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, having remembered mercy, just as he promised to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his seed forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)

Mary’s “soul” or she herself exalted or glorified her God. Her “spirit” or the motivating and energizing force of her inner life was filled with boundless joy on account of God to whom she looked as the savior or deliverer of his people from their distress. Humbly she acknowledged herself as his slave, expressing her appreciation for his having looked upon her with favor. Because of the son to whom she would give birth, people from all generations to come would recognize that she had been granted an exceedingly fortunate, blessed, or happy state. In view of developments involving her yet unborn son, the Mighty One had performed great or incomprehensibly astounding things for her. God’s name or he himself is “holy” or pure in the ultimate sense. Those having reverential regard for him in every generation would experience his mercy or compassionate concern and care.

It appears that Mary discerned that divine power would be prominently in evidence through the son to whom she would give birth and therefore mentioned the powerful working of God’s “arm” or might. Through the exercise of divine power, a tremendous reversal would take place. Those haughty in the thoughts of their hearts or in the reasoning and intentions of their inmost selves would be scattered, as are those who suffer defeat in battle. Rulers would be unseated, whereas the lowly would be exalted. Hungry ones would be fully satisfied, but those who had everything would come to have nothing. God’s people, those whom he recognized as his servant Israel, would experience his mercy in fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and to his offspring.

For three months, Mary stayed with Elizabeth. As Mary is not referred to as being present immediately after the birth of John, this suggests that she left shortly before that joyous event. Possibly because of being able to join a group of travelers, she departed for her home prior to John’s birth. (Luke 1:56)

Notes:

The Scriptural record provides no information about Mary’s family. Nothing is said about whether her parents or only her mother or father were still alive and with whom she lived in Nazareth. According to tradition dating from the second century, her mother was Anna, Elizabeth’s sister, and her father was Joachim. On account of the many fantastic elements in accounts like the Protevangelium Jacobi (Protevangelium of James), it is impossible to determine which parts (if any) preserve a reliable tradition. This would include the statement that Mary was sixteen years old at the time she visited Elizabeth.

Considering the possible dangers lone travelers faced, Mary may have traveled in the company of others. It seems less likely that she would have done so by herself, especially since numerous opportunities existed for joining others as they made their way to Jerusalem in Judea. Throughout the course of the year, families from Nazareth and other cities and towns of Galilee would make the long trip to the temple there, to offer the sacrifices prescribed by the law.

The visit with Elizabeth made it possible for Mary to express her joy and faith to someone who best understood her feelings. It also provided her with an opportunity to assist Elizabeth during the more difficult part of her pregnancy.

The parallels in the language of Mary’s expressions and parts of 1 Samuel and Psalms are more apparent when compared with the reading of the Septuagint. For this purpose, the Greek is here provided in transliterated form (followed by an English translation).

1 Samuel 1:11: epiplépses epí tén tapeínosin tés doúles sou (“you would look upon the lowliness of your slave”)

Luke 1:48: epéplepsen epí tén tapeínosin tés doúles sou (“he has looked upon the lowliness of his slave”)

Psalm 111:9 (110:9, LXX): hágion kaí phoberón tó ónoma autoú (“holy and fear-inspiring [is] his name”)

Luke 1:49: hágion tó ónoma autoú (“holy [is] his name”)

Psalm 103:17 (102:17, LXX): tó dé éleos tou kyríou apó toú aiónos kaí héos tou aiónos epí toús phobouménous autón (“but the mercy of the Lord [is] from age to age upon those fearing him”)

Luke 1:50: kaí tó éleos autoú eis geneás kaí geneás toís phobouménous autón (“and his mercy [is] from generation to generation to those fearing him”)

Psalm 89:10 (88:11, LXX): en to brachíoni tés dynámeós sou dieskórpisas toús echthroús sou (“with the arm of your strength, you scattered your enemies”)

Luke 1:51: epoíesen krátos en brachíoni autoú, dieskórpisen hyperephánous dianoía kardías autón (“He has displayed might with his arm. He has scattered those arrogant in the reasoning of their heart.”)

Psalm 107:9 (106:9, LXX): psychén peinósan enéplesen agathón (“hungry souls he has filled with good things”)

Luke 1:53: peinóntas enéplesen agathón (“hungry ones he has filled with good things”)

John’s Birth and His Father’s Prophetic Words (Luke 1:57-79)

When news about Elizabeth’s giving birth to a son reached her neighbors and relatives, they rejoiced with her and recognized that God had shown her great mercy. On the eighth day, as the law required, the baby was circumcised, and those present for the occasion wanted the boy to be named Zechariah after his father. Elizabeth objected, insisting that he would be called “John” (meaning “YHWH has been gracious”). They responded that no one among her relatives had that name and then motioned to the father to find out from him what the boy’s name should be. Zechariah indicated his desire to be given a tablet and then wrote, “John is his name.” This amazed all of them. (Luke 1:57-63)

At this point, Zechariah was again able to speak and blessed God. (Luke 1:64) Filled with holy spirit, he prophesied, saying: “Blessed [be the] Lord, the God of Israel, because he has looked upon and effected deliverance for his people. And he has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his servant, just as he spoke from of old through the mouth of his holy prophets [about] salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all those hating us; to extend [the] mercy [promised] to our ancestors and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he swore to our ancestor Abraham, to grant us to serve fearlessly in purity and uprightness before him all our days [upon] being rescued from the hand of our enemies.” (Luke 1:67-75)

Zechariah’s words focused on the deliverance God, through the promised Messiah, would bring about for Israel. Mary’s unborn child would prove to be the “horn” in the royal line of David. The expression “horn” pointed to the power he would have to effect the deliverance the ancient Hebrew prophets foretold. That deliverance would be an expression of divine mercy or compassion and a fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham that contained the promise of liberation from oppression. Whereas the promise to Abraham included the future rescue of the Israelites from enslavement in Egypt (which rescue, in fulfillment of the covenant promise, had occurred centuries earlier), the oath-bound covenant continued in effect and thus provided a basis for hope in other divine acts of deliverance. (Genesis 15:13-16) Just as Israel’s rescue from Egypt made it possible for the people to serve their God without fear, the liberation to come through the Messiah would likewise grant those being freed the opportunity to serve God fearlessly in purity and uprightness all the days of their life. As the son born to Mary, Jesus, the Son of God, later revealed, he would free humans from slavery to sin and the enemy death. (John 8:21-23, 34-36) While Zechariah expressed the thought of deliverance in terms characteristic of the ancient Hebrew prophets, his words harmonized fully with the far grander salvation the Son of God would bring about.

Zechariah then pointed to the role his son would fill. John would be a “prophet of the Most High,” going before the Lord, the promised Messiah, to prepare his ways or to ready people for his appearance. John would do this by imparting knowledge to the Israelites about salvation made possible through the forgiveness of their sins. Zechariah continued, “Because of the tender mercy of our God, dawn from on high will come upon us, to shine upon those sitting in darkness and the shadow of death [and] to guide our feet into the path of peace.” On account of God’s great compassion, a new day would dawn with the arrival of the promised Messiah, dispelling the gloom and intense darkness that seemed to eclipse all hope. Guided by the light his coming would bring, those who chose to walk in that light would find themselves on the “path of peace” or would be conducting themselves in a way that would promote their eternal well-being as persons enjoying peace with God. (Luke 1:76-79)

Upon hearing about (or witnessing) developments at the time John was circumcised, neighbors were filled with a reverential fear, and others in the mountainous region of Judea started to talk about these things. The news regarding John made a deep impression, causing people to wonder, “What really will this boy come to be?” God’s hand or the operation of divine power was with the child. (Luke 1:65, 66)

Joseph’s Response to Mary’s Pregnancy (Matthew 1:18-25)

Matthew’s account passes over in silence about how and when Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant through the operation of holy spirit. An engagement required a woman to remain chaste, and unfaithfulness to her future husband constituted adultery. Moreover, the engagement was just as binding as marriage and could only be terminated by giving the woman a divorce certificate that would allow her to marry another man. Therefore, Joseph faced a serious dilemma on account of Mary’s pregnancy prior to their being united in marriage. To all appearances, she had been unfaithful, and the truthful explanation Mary may have given him could not be verified. While miracles had occurred in the past, nothing of this nature had ever taken place. (Matthew 1:18)

Being righteous or a man who wanted to do what is right, Joseph did not want to expose Mary to public shame. So he considered divorcing her secretly, perhaps in the presence of two witnesses. Then, in a dream, an angel appeared to him and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for what is conceived in her is through holy spirit. And she will give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:19-21)

Upon awakening from his dream, Joseph followed through on the angelic direction and took Mary as his wife but had no intimate relations with her until she gave birth to the son whom he called Jesus. (Matthew 1:24, 25)

Mary’s pregnancy fulfilled the words of the prophet Isaiah (7:14), “Behold! The virgin will conceive and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name ‘Immanuel,’ which means, ‘With us [is] God.’” (Matthew 1:22, 23; see the Notes section for a detailed consideration of Isaiah’s prophecy and its relation to the foretold Messiah.)

Notes:

The name “Jesus” means “YHWH is salvation” and so pointed to his role as God’s means for salvation or deliverance from sin. As the angel explained, this is the name the child should be given because he would “save his people from their sins.”

With the exception of different forms of the verb for “call,” the wording of Isaiah 7:14 in extant Septuagint manuscripts is the same as in Matthew 1:23. The Masoretic Text refers to the woman who would give birth as ‘almáh (a young woman who may be either a wife or a virgin). In the Septuagint and in Matthew 1:23, the corresponding term is parthénos, (“virgin”). By reason of her engagement, Mary already belonged to Joseph as his “young woman” and was also a virgin. The more specific Greek term reflected the precise circumstances that uniquely applied in Mary’s case. Knowing Jesus to be the Son of God whose life as a human came about through the direct operation of holy spirit and not the usual process of procreation, Matthew recognized that the words of Isaiah 7:14 matched exactly what had occurred in Jesus’ case and could therefore refer to them as having been fulfilled.

Isaiah’s prophecy does, however, also relate to the situation existing in his time. The Syrian king Rezin formed an alliance with Israelite king Pekah. Both were intent on overthrowing King Ahaz, replacing him with the son of Tabeel. Upon coming to know about this conspiracy, Ahaz and his subjects gave way to fear. YHWH directed Isaiah to take his son Shear-jashub to meet Ahaz. The message for the king was that he should not lose courage, for the attempt to dethrone him would fail. (Isaiah 7:1-9)

Ahaz was invited to ask for a confirmatory sign, but the faithless king refused to do so. Nevertheless, through Isaiah, YHWH did announce a sign: “The maiden [is] pregnant and is bearing a son, and she will call his name Immanuel.” Before this boy would be able to discriminate between good and bad, the threat from the kingdoms of Israel and Syria would have ceased to exist, and he would be eating curds and honey. The kingdom of Judah, however, would be subjected to Assyrian aggression. (Isaiah 7:10-17)

Historically, the conquest of Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III brought an end to the threat of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Syria. The Syrian capital Damascus fell to the Assyrian forces, and King Rezin was killed. The Assyrians invaded the Israelite territories of Gilead, Galilee, and Naphtali, taking many of the inhabitants into exile. The kingdom of Judah also suffered from Assyrian invasion. (2 Kings 15:29; 16:9; 1 Chronicles 5:6, 26; 2 Chronicles 28:20) This may explain why the boy Immanuel is spoken of as eating curds and honey. Assyrian campaigns disrupted the usual agricultural operations, forcing many in the kingdom of Judah to subsist largely on wild honey and dairy products. (Isaiah 7:20-25)

The identity of the maiden and her child in the time of Isaiah is unknown, and this aspect more readily served the purpose of pointing forward to the birth of the promised Messiah, Jesus. As the direct representative of his Father, Jesus lived up to the name “Immanuel,” meaning “with us [is] God.” In the person of his unique Son, God was indeed with his people.

Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-20)

While Quirinius governed Syria, Caesar Augustus (who ruled from 27 BCE to 14 CE) ordered a census, which required Joseph (as a descendant in the royal line of David) and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, David’s city. In Bethlehem, Mary gave birth to Jesus, swaddled him, and placed him in a feeding trough for animals. (Luke 2:1-7)

At the time of Jesus’ birth, shepherds were still living out in the field at night, watching over their flocks. That night, an angel appeared to them and divine “glory” or brilliant light shone around them. Great fear then gripped the shepherds. After reassuring them with the words, “fear not,” the angel continued, “I am announcing to you glad tidings of great joy that will be for all the people, for today was born a savior, who is Christ the Lord, in David’s city. And this [is] the sign for you: You will find a swaddled infant lying in a manger.” Suddenly, a multitude of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory in the heights to God and upon earth peace among men of good will.” (The expression “men of good will” designates persons toward whom God’s good will or favor is directed.) Whereas the angels were moved to express joyous praise respecting God’s arrangement for salvation through his Son, many humans have not responded with joy and gratitude even though they, and not the angels, are the intended beneficiaries. (Luke 2:8-13)

After the angels left, departing into heaven, the shepherds hurried to Bethlehem. There they saw Mary, Joseph, and the infant lying in a manger. The shepherds related what had been revealed to them about the child. (Luke 2:15-17) Upon returning to their flocks, they glorified and praised God for all they had been told and had been privileged to see. (Luke 2:20)

“All who heard” the words of the shepherds were filled with wonderment. In Mary’s case, the words made a deep and lasting impression. She treasured them, and they were expressions on which she pondered in her “heart” or in her inmost self. (Luke 2:18, 19) The reference to “all who heard” would not be limited to Joseph and Mary and likely is to be understood as meaning all with whom the shepherds, on other occasions, shared what they had seen and heard.

Notes:

Based on the biblical account, the census was taken while Herod the Great reigned. Existing historical references to Quirinius from the final part of Herod the Great’s reign, however, do not provide the specifics needed for establishing in what capacity Quirinius may have governed Syria before Jesus’ birth.

The Greek word in Luke 2:7 is katályma, which often has been translated “inn.” In the parable about the compassionate Samaritan, where the reference definitely is to an inn, the Greek term is pandocheíon. (Luke 10:34) The term katályma, in other contexts, designates a “guest room” (Mark 14:14; Luke 22:11) and basically denotes a “lodging place.” Therefore, Joseph and Mary may actually have been accommodated in a very modest home where the guest room was already occupied. In such a humble home, animals would have been kept in the courtyard, with a manger being a hollow place in a stone platform above the courtyard. On the platform itself, people could be accommodated.

According to ancient tradition dating back to the second century, Jesus was born in a cave. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho (78), wrote that when Joseph could not find lodging in Bethlehem “he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village.” No reliable evidence exists for confirming this frequently repeated tradition.

Bethlehem is situated about 2,500 feet above sea level. During the rainy season in winter, low temperatures at night may sometimes drop to the freezing point. Wintertime, therefore, would not fit the circumstance of shepherds keeping watch over their flocks at night. If Daniel 9:27 is correctly understood to foretell Christ’ death in the middle of a seven-year week (although there is no general agreement about the application of the Daniel passage), this would mean that his ministry lasted three and a half years. Since Jesus died in the spring, this would place his birth in the fall.

See http://bibleplaces.com/bethlehem.htm for pictures of and comments about Bethlehem.

Genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38)

The genealogy in Matthew and the one in Luke establish that Jesus Christ is a descendant of David, with Matthew’s list having an introduction specifically identifying Jesus Christ, as “son of David, son of Abraham.” While of particular significance to Jews who expected the Messiah to come in the royal line of David, this aspect would have been of lesser concern to non-Jews. Apparently with non-Jews in mind, Luke traced the genealogy back to the beginning of the human race. For the most part, the names from Adam through Abraham (appearing in the reverse order in Luke) are the same as those found in Genesis 5:3-32 and 1 Chronicles 1:1-4, 24-27. The names are Greek transliterations, and the spellings in extant manuscripts of Luke’s account and the Septuagint text do vary at times.

In the extant text of Luke 3:36, 37, the name “Cainan” appears twice, as a son (or descendant) of Enosh and also as a son (or descendant) of Arpachshad (Arphaxad). The inclusion of Cainan between Arpachshad (Arphaxad) and Shelah (Sala, the Greek spelling in LXX and Luke) agrees with the Septuagint (but not the Masoretic Text) listing in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12, 13.

From Abraham to David, extant manuscripts of Matthew and Luke, for the most part, have the same names with the same Greek spellings. (See the Notes section for variations in manuscript readings.)

After David, Matthew traces the lineage through Solomon, whereas Luke does so through David’s son Nathan. (2 Samuel 5:13, 14; 1 Chronicles 3:5) Both Matthew and Luke include Shealtiel and Zerubbabel but then immediately diverge. While Matthew lists Jechoniah (Jeconiah, Jehoiachin) as the son of Shealtiel, Luke lists Neri. The absence of any reference to Neri in the biblical record makes it impossible to determine precisely how he was related to Shealtiel.

Already in ancient times, the significant difference in the two genealogies was recognized as problematic. Julius Africanus (170-245) concluded that levirate marriage was involved, with Joseph being the offspring of a man having the same mother as the deceased brother but a different father. If Jacob was indeed the deceased brother, Joseph would have been the natural son of Heli but the legal son of Jacob. A possible explanation from a later period is that Matthew traced the lineage through Joseph, whereas Luke did so through Heli, the father of Mary.

Both possible explanations for the difference in the genealogies have their defenders and their detractors. Whereas the conjecture of Julius Africanus requires extraordinary circumstances (the same mother but different fathers for two brothers), it reveals that he knew of no tradition identifying Heli as Mary’s father. The second-century “Protevangelium of James” speaks of her father as having been Joachim.

Only Matthew includes women in the genealogy. Tamar, a Canaanitess, tricked her father-in-law Judah into having relations with her because he did not make his son Shelah available for levirate marriage. (Genesis 38:6-19) Rahab, a Canaanitess of Jericho and a prostitute, hid the two Israelite spies and secured their safety. On account of her act of faith based on what she had heard about YHWH’s dealings with his people, Rahab and her relatives did not lose their lives. She later married Salmon (Salman, Sala) of the tribe of Judah. (Joshua 2:1-21; 6:22-25; 1 Chronicles 2:11) Widowed Ruth the Moabitess accompanied her widowed mother-in-law Naomi from Moab to Judah, declaring her oath-bound determination to remain with her, to worship YHWH, and to be part of his people. Through the arrangement of levirate marriage, she came to be the wife of Boaz. (Ruth 1:15-17; 4:9-12) Bath-sheba with whom King David had an adulterous relationship and whose husband he arranged to have killed in battle to cover up his sin is not mentioned by name. She is referred to as “the one of Uriah,” thus, in effect, representing David as raising up offspring for the loyal Hittite warrior whose death he had plotted. (2 Samuel 11:2-17) The mention of these women in the genealogy provides indirect evidence for the trustworthiness of the biblical record about the royal line. It is inconceivable that anyone would have invented this kind of information.

The genealogy in Matthew is arranged in three segments of fourteen generations — from Abraham to David (14 names), from David to the Babylonian exile (14 names, starting with David and ending with Josiah), from the Babylonian exile until the Messiah (14 names, starting with Jechoniah [Jeconiah, Jehoiachin] who was taken into Babylonian exile and ending with Jesus). This arrangement may have been designed to function as a memory aid. (Matthew 1:17) Although not including all the preserved names in the royal line (Ahaziah, Jehoash [Joash], Amaziah, and Jehoiakim are omitted), the genealogy is sufficient to establish that Jesus can be identified as “son of David, son of Abraham.”

The omission of Ahaziah, his son Jehoash (Joash), and his grandson Amaziah may be significant. Ahaziah was the son of King Jehoram and Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. The notoriously evil conduct of Ahab and Jezebel led to divine condemnation of the entire house of Ahab. Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah and father of Jehoiachin (Jechoniah, Jeconiah), may have been omitted on account of his abominable record of corruption and bloodshed.

Notes:

Greek spelling variations for names include the following: Iáred (Genesis 5:15-20; 1 Chronicles 1:2, LXX) and Iáret (Luke 3:37); Salmán (Ruth 4:20, LXX), Salmón (1 Chronicles 2:11, LXX; Matthew 1:4, 5), and Salá (1 Chronicles 1:24, LXX; Luke 3:32, 35); Bóos (Ruth 4:21; 1 Chronicles 2:11, 12; LXX; Luke 3:32) and Boés (Matthew 1:5); Obéd (Ruth 4:21, 22; 1 Chronicles 2:12, LXX) and Iobéd (Matthew 1:5; Luke 3:32); Asa (1 Chronicles 3:10, LXX) and Asáph (Matthew 1:8).

For Luke 3:33, there are various manuscript readings, including “[son] of Amminadab, of Admin, of Arni, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Adam, of Admin, of Arni, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Aminadam, of Aram, of Almei, of Arni, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Amminadab, of Admin, of Aram, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Aram, of Amminadab, of Armin, of Arnin, of Hezron of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Aminadam, of Joram, of Aram, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah”; “[son] of Amminadab, of Aram, of Joram, of Hezron, of Perez, of Judah.” “Admin” and “Arni,” the two names often appearing in manuscripts of Luke, are missing from 1 Chronicles. In Matthew’s genealogy “Aram” (Ram) is the name between Hezron and Amminadab.

Joseph and Mary Fulfill the Requirements of the Law (Luke 2:21-38)

On the eighth day, the infant was circumcised. Joseph and Mary, in keeping with divine direction conveyed through the angel Gabriel to Mary and later through an angel in a dream to Joseph, named the boy Jesus. (2:21)

According to the Mosaic law, a woman remained in a state of ceremonial uncleanness for seven days after the birth of a boy. After the completion of an additional 33-day purification period, the woman was required to present a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. If she could not afford a lamb, she could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons. (Leviticus 12:1-8)

After the completion of the purification period, Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem to present the infant Jesus at the temple. By presenting him there to the Most High, they fulfilled the legal requirement designating every firstborn male as holy to God. (Exodus 13:2, 12, 15) Mary availed herself of the provision allowing her to offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons. (Leviticus 12:8) This reveals that Joseph and Mary had limited means and that the magi had not as yet come to Bethlehem. The costly gifts of the magi would have provided Mary with the needed resources to offer a year-old lamb. (Luke 2:22-24)

While Joseph and Mary were at the temple, upright Simeon came up to them. This reverential resident of Jerusalem eagerly looked forward to the time when consolation would come to Israel through the promised Messiah. By means of God’s spirit, he had received a revelation that he would live to see the Messiah or “Christ of the Lord.” Under the impulse of God’s spirit, he had come to the temple and approached Joseph and Mary. Taking Jesus into his arms, he praised God and said, “Now, Sovereign Lord, according to your word, you are letting your slave go in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all the peoples — a light for revelation to the nations and a glory for your people Israel.” (Luke 2:25-32)

Having seen the one who would grow up to reveal himself as the promised Messiah, Simeon felt that he could die in peace, content that his earnest desire respecting Israel would be fulfilled. His prophetic words of thanksgiving indicated that the arrival of the Messiah would benefit people of other nations. The Messiah would serve as a “light for revelation to the nations,” showing how people could be rescued from their state of darkness, a sad condition without God and hope and an empty life spent in ignorance and sin. (Compare Isaiah 42:6, 7; Ephesians 2:12; 4:17, 18; 5:7-12; Titus 3:3; 1 Peter 1:14, 18, 19.) As the one through whom all the divine promises would be fulfilled (including liberation from sin and death), the Messiah would be a glory to Israel. For the Israelites, having him come from their midst would be an unparalleled noble distinction. Years later, Jesus said to a Samaritan woman, “Salvation is from the Jews,” for he, as the promised Messiah, was an Israelite according to the flesh. (John 4:22)

Upon hearing Simeon’s words about Jesus, Joseph and Mary could not help but be amazed. (Luke 2:33) Simeon blessed them and then directed his words to Mary. Her son would cause the rising and falling of many in Israel. This indicated that there would be those who would accept him, while others would reject him. All who responded in faith, accepting him as the promised Messiah, would rise from their low estate as sinners to enjoy the dignity of reconciled children of God. All who persisted in unbelief would fall, losing out on everything, including their imagined status as being privileged “sons of Abraham.” Jesus would be a sign against whom hateful talk would be directed. By what he would say and do, he would be God’s sign to the people (as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites and Isaiah and his sons proved to be signs to Israel). (Isaiah 8:18; Luke 11:30) Because of the suffering Jesus would experience, the effect would be like that of a sword run through the “soul” of Mary or through her herself. The impact Jesus would have on others and their response would expose the thoughts of many hearts or would reveal people’s inmost selves. (Luke 4:34, 35)

Eighty-four-year-old Anna, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, also approached Joseph and Mary. Evidently filled with gratitude for having been able to see the infant, she gave thanks to God. Anna, after seven years of marriage, had been widowed and remained single for the rest of her life. She spent her time at the temple, rendering service during the day and the night. This godly woman fasted and persisted in intense prayer. After having seen Joseph and Mary with the infant, she spoke about the boy to all who were awaiting Jerusalem’s deliverance. Anna did not indiscriminately broadcast the joyous news about the coming deliverer who had been born but shared the information with those who, like her, had looked forward to the coming of the Messiah and the liberation he would bring about. (Luke 2:36-38) In view of the kind of ruler Herod the Great had revealed himself to be, she must have been aware that he and others would not welcome this news.

Notes:

The words of Luke 2:23, “every male opening a womb should be called holy to the Lord” is not an exact quotation but accurately expresses the regulation as set forth in Exodus (13:2, 12, 15).

In Luke 2:24, the words regarding “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” convey the same meaning as in the extant text of Leviticus 12:8 in the Septuagint, but the words are not identical.

Arrival of the Magi (Matthew 2:1-12)

Close to the end of Herod the Great’s rule, magi (astrologers) arrived in Jerusalem. While in their own land, situated a considerable distance to the east, they had seen a star that caused them to conclude that the king of the Jews had been born. They seemingly thought that this would have been known in Jerusalem, prompting their inquiry about the location of the newborn king. Their purpose for wanting to see him was to prostrate themselves before him, acknowledging him as king and presenting him with precious gifts befitting one who would eventually reign. (Matthew 2:1, 2)

News about their arrival and inquiry greatly disturbed Herod and the general populace of Jerusalem. Herod called for the chief priests and Jewish scribes to assemble and then asked them where the “anointed one” (the Christ) would be born. Based on the prophecy of Micah (5:1[2]), they answered, “Bethlehem of Judah.” (Matthew 2:3-6)

Thereafter Herod arranged a secret meeting with the magi and found out from them just when they had seen the star. It would appear that he wanted to raise no suspicion about his real intent and so sent them to Bethlehem unaccompanied by anyone from his court. He requested that they carefully search for the newborn king and, upon finding him, report back to him, as he, too, wanted to prostrate himself before him. (Matthew 2:7, 8)

Upon starting out for Bethlehem, the magi again saw the star they had seen earlier and were overjoyed. The star went ahead of them, leading them on their way. Then, in Bethlehem, based on the position of the star in relation to the houses, the magi located the home where the child was, entered, saw him with his mother Mary, prostrated themselves before him, and presented gold, incense, and myrrh as gifts. Warned in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi returned to their own country by another route. (Matthew 2:9-12)

Notes:

The inhabitants of Jerusalem must have known how seriously Herod viewed any possible threat to his rule, and this may be the reason for their alarm about the inquiry of the magi.

The quotation from the prophecy of Micah departs considerably from the extant text of the Septuagint (which reflects the wording of the Masoretic Text) but preserves the basic thought. The Septuagint reads, “And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, few are you to be among the thousands of Judah. From you will come forth to me the one to become ruler in Israel.” Matthew 2:6 says, “And you, Bethlehem, [in the] land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you will come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.”

Reference works, based on the way the comments of Josephus are commonly interpreted, usually place the death of Herod in 4 BCE. This date appears to be too early to fit Luke’s account about the start of John’s proclamation of repentance and the baptism of Jesus. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, who succeeded Augustus Caesar in 14 CE, John began to serve as a prophet. At the time of his baptism by John, Jesus was “about thirty years old.” (Luke 3:1-3, 21-23) A 4 BCE date for Herod’s death would place Jesus’ birth approximately two years earlier (c. 6 BCE), raising a question regarding his being “about thirty years of age” in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (28/29 CE). A commonly proposed solution is to interpret the “fifteenth year of Tiberius” to mean the fifteenth year from the start of his coregency with Augustus Caesar (or between 11 CE and 13 CE instead of 14 CE).

Josephus (Antiquities, XVII, viii, 1; War, I, xxxiii, 8) indicates that Herod the Great ruled for 34 years after the execution of Antigonus and 37 years after the Romans had made him king. He also refers to an eclipse of the moon taking place shortly before Herod’s death. (Antiquities, XVII, vi, 4) A partial eclipse of the moon did occur on March 13, 4 BCE (Julian calendar). Because this eclipse was partial, some favor 5 BCE as the year in which Herod died. In that year two total eclipses occurred, one on March 23 (Julian calendar) and the other on September 15 (Julian calendar). Not until January 9 (Julian calendar) of 1 BCE did another total eclipse of the moon take place, and the year 1 BCE would more closely agree with Jesus’ having been about 30 years of age at the time of his baptism (after John began his activity in the fifteenth year of Tiberius or in 28/29 CE, according to the usual reckoning).

On September 2, 31 BCE, the forces of Octavius (later Augustus Caesar ) defeated those of Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius) in a naval battle near Actium in Greece. (Antiquities, XV, v, 2) Josephus places this event in the seventh year of Herod’s reign. When counted from the time Herod ruled after the death of Antigonus, six full years and some months of his reign had passed, with about 28 years of a 34-year rule remaining or with about 31 years of a 37-year rule remaining. Those who favor the 4 BCE date for Herod’s death start the count from the year 37 BCE, which they take to be the beginning of the 34-year rule. The minority view is that the Romans appointed Herod as king late in 39 BCE and that his first official regnal year began in 38 BCE and ended in the month of Elul (August/September) of 37 BCE. When Herod’s reign as a Roman appointee is counted as starting in the year 38/37 BCE, this would support the 1 BCE date for Herod’s death.

According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, iv, 6), Philip the tetrarch, the son of Herod by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, died after a 37-year rule in the twentieth year of Tiberias’ reign, which would have been 33/34 CE. This would harmonize with a date of 4 BCE for Herod’s death. But there are editions of the Antiquities dating from before 1700 that read “twenty-second year of Tiberius,” supporting the 1 BCE date for the death of Herod.

The chronological references in the writings of Josephus regarding Archelaus and Antipas are usually understood as supporting the 4 BCE date for Herod’s death. In 6 CE, Augustus Caesar banished Archelaus after a rule of about nine or ten years. (Antiquities, XVII, xiii, 2; War, II, vii, 3; Cassius Dio, LV, 27, 6) Antipas, based on numismatic evidence, ruled 43 years. His rule ended in the second year of Caligula (Gaius Caesar) or in 38/39 CE. Caligula, on the basis of letters from Agrippa, banished Antipas for requesting to be elevated from tetrarch to king. (Antiquities, XVIII, vii, 2; War, II, ix, 6) In connection with Archelaus and Antipas, arguments in support of the 1 BCE date for Herod’s death primarily rest on assumptions about a coregency for Archelaus and antedating for Antipas.

In the extant text of Josephus, acknowledged mistakes and inconsistencies in the way he dates events exist. For example, according to his Antiquities (XIV, ix, 2), Herod was made governor of Galilee at the age of 15, but 25 is regarded as having been the correct age. In Antiquities (XVII, xiii, 2), Josephus indicates that Archelaus was banished in the tenth year of his rule, but, in War (II, vii, 3), he says that it was in the ninth year. Consequently, without clear corroborative evidence from other sources, one simply cannot be certain about various dates.

A definitive answer respecting the year of Jesus’ birth is not possible, and conflicting views will doubtless continue to be advocated. As the prime focus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is on Jesus’ activity after his baptism, there is no pressing need for seeking a definitive solution about the year of his birth.

Throughout the centuries, many have been troubled by the account about the magi. The Israelites were directed to have nothing to do with astrological observations and other means used by surrounding nations in attempts to predict future events. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12; compare Isaiah 47:13, 14; Jeremiah 27:9, 10; 29:8, 9.) Although Matthew was not moved to do so, many have felt the need to explain that astrology is wrong and have even concluded that the appearance of the “star” and the subsequent arrival of the magi in Jerusalem figured in a satanic plot to bring about Jesus’ death as a child. Divine intervention only came to prevent the magi from returning to Herod. In cases where God is perceived as being far away from the magi, nothing about them is regarded in a positive light.

When, however, a person looks upon this account as an evidence that God can lead sincere seekers to a noble goal and make allowances for their seriously flawed views, the account takes on a very different meaning. Whatever partial knowledge the magi may have had about the significance of the birth of a future king of the Jews, they acted on it. The child they planned to acknowledge as king and for whom the precious gifts were intended would not then have been able to favor them in any special way. Their only reward would have been finding the object of their quest, a quest, which, on the basis of their limited knowledge, deserved considerable effort.

May it, therefore, not be that the account serves to show that God is not far away from any member of the human family? Our heavenly Father did not prevent the magi from finding his Son, acknowledging him as king, and leaving their precious gifts, and what God allows is his work. May we not rightly conclude that sincere seekers (regardless of how very wrong some of their views may be) can find Christ and the heavenly Father through him and be favorably received?

Numerous traditions arose in the centuries that passed about the magi, with their being designated as three kings (probably based on the three gifts). Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar are the names by which they came to be known in the West. In the East and Ethiopia, they came to be called Hor, Karsudan, and Basanater. Among the Armenians, they were Kagbha, Badadakharida, and Badadilma. In Syria, they came to be known as Larvandad, Gushnasaph, and Hormisdas. None of these traditional names have any historical support. Matthew’s account reveals nothing about how many undertook the journey nor is any clue provided about their identity or their land of origin. Still, the absence of specifics has not prevented numerous conjectures from being made about them even in recent times.

The Flight to Egypt and Herod’s Rage (Matthew 2:13, 14, 16-18)

After the departure of the magi, an angel warned Joseph in a dream that Herod had determined to kill the child and directed that he, Mary, and the boy flee to Egypt. Without delay, Joseph obeyed. While it was still night, the family started on their journey. Under the cover of darkness, their departure would have gone unnoticed. (Matthew 2:13, 14)

Realizing that the magi had not complied with his request to return with a report about the child and that his objective had been foiled, Herod became enraged and ordered the slaying of all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were under the age of two. Basing his order on the time he had ascertained from the magi, he determined the age bracket of those he wanted to be killed. (Matthew 2:16)

The population of Bethlehem and its environs would have been comparatively small, and the number of boys killed may have been around twenty. So, if it had not been mentioned in Matthew’s account, the event (considering the other atrocities committed during Herod’s reign) would not have been of such monumental significance as to have been preserved in history.

For the mothers who lost their sons in this brutal manner, the grief and pain would have been indescribable. Their bitter experience paralleled that of the people of the kingdom of Judah when the conquering Babylonians ripped them from their land and took them into exile. At that time, in Ramah, Rachel (the mother of Benjamin [whose descendants formed a significant part of the population], possibly representing the people as a whole) wept profusely. Situated in the territory of Benjamin, Ramah may have been the place where the Babylonians assembled captives to be slaughtered or exiled, giving rise to lamentation. Likewise, the bereaved mothers in and around Bethlehem must have wept bitterly, fulfilling the words recorded in the book of Jeremiah (31:15; 38:15, LXX), “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and much lamenting; Rachel weeping for her children, and she does not want to be comforted, for they are not.” (Matthew 2:17, 18)

Notes:

The costly gifts of the magi would have provided the family with funds to sustain them in Egypt. Additionally, they would have been able to be among fellow Jews. The city of Alexandria, for example, had a large Jewish population.

It may be noted that, on account of rulers, the life of Moses and that of Jesus were threatened while they were helpless little ones. In both cases, parental action played a role in their preservation. (Exodus 2:1-9)

Though differing from the Greek text of Matthew 2:18, the extant Septuagint rendering of Jeremiah 31:15 (38:15) conveys the same thought. The Septuagint reads, “A voice was heard in Ramah, of mourning and of wailing and of lamenting. Rachel did not want to cease weeping for her sons, because they are not.”

The words of the Scriptures to which Matthew referred as having been fulfilled are found in a specific historical setting. In the case of Jesus, they precisely described developments associated with his life and so were fulfilled. They took on a fullness of meaning they did not have in all the centuries that had passed since they were first committed to writing.

Herod’s order to kill the boys aged two years and under reflects his response to any threat to his reign and the continuance of rulership in his line of descent. According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVII, II, 4), certain Pharisees predicted that “God had decreed that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it.” Upon learning about this, Herod “slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused ... He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold.”

Departure From Egypt and Residence in Nazareth (Matthew 2:15, 19-23; Luke 2:39-52)

Joseph remained in Egypt with the family until the death of Herod. As God considered Israel collectively as his “son” and called him out of Egypt, so he also called his unique Son out of Egypt. In the case of Jesus, the words of Hosea 11:1 (“Out of Egypt I called my son”) applied in a direct way and thus were fulfilled. (Matthew 2:15)

Upon Herod’s death, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream, telling him to return to the land of Israel with the child and his mother, for those seeking the life of the boy were dead. Joseph heeded this directive, but news that Archelaus ruled over Judea instead of Herod made Joseph fearful. In a dream, he received a warning that confirmed the validity of his fear, prompting him to head for Galilee with his family and to settle in the city of Nazareth. (Matthew 2:19-23)

The name “Nazareth” appears to incorporate the Hebrew word nétser, meaning “sprout.” Possibly this is the basis for Matthew’s statement (2:23) that Jesus’ being called a Nazarene fulfilled the words of the prophets, as they foretold the coming Messianic “sprout” (Isaiah 11:1; see also Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12, where a different Hebrew word tsémach also signifies “branch” or “sprout.”)

The Scriptural record reveals little about Jesus’ early life in Nazareth. In time, he came to have brothers (James, Joses [Joseph], Judas, and Simon) and sisters. (Mark 6:3) As he grew older, he gave evidence of being very wise and having God’s favor. (Luke 2:39, 40)

Evidence of Jesus’ remarkable wisdom is revealed by an incident narrated in Luke’s account. Joseph and Mary customarily attended the festival of the Passover in Jerusalem. When Jesus was twelve years old and the family probably included other children, he stayed behind in the city at the time his parents left. Likely occupied with caring for the smaller children, they assumed that he was among relatives or friends. When, however, they had completed a day’s journey and he did not join them, they became concerned and began to look for him. Not finding him in the company of fellow travelers, they returned to Jerusalem. After three days, they located him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening and asking questions. The understanding his words and answers revealed amazed everyone who heard him speak. His parents were astonished when seeing him in this setting. (Luke 2:41-48)

Mary voiced her motherly concern, “Child, why did you do this to us? See, your father and I have been greatly worried, looking for you.” Knowing that God was his real Father, Jesus was surprised that it did not occur to them that he would be in the temple. He replied, “Why did you look for me? Did you not know that I must be in the [house] of my Father?” Joseph and Mary, though, did not grasp the significance of Jesus’ reference to his heavenly Father. Still, his words did make a deep impression on Mary, and she treasured them in her heart or in her deep inner self, likely reflecting on what he may have meant. (Luke 2:48-51)

In the intervening years, Jesus conducted himself as an obedient son and learned the carpenter trade from Joseph. As he grew physically, he gained the favorable recognition of those with whom he interacted, and others could see him as person upon whom God’s favor rested. (Luke 2:51, 52)

Notes:

In the extant text of the Septuagint, Hosea 11:1 reads, “Out of Egypt I called his children.” Matthew’s quotation, however, agrees with the Masoretic Text (“Out of Egypt I called my son”).

Not long after the military force that had been in Herod’s service proclaimed Archelaus as king (Antiquities, XVII, viii, 2), the Jews assaulted a regiment of soldiers he had sent to quell unrest stemming from his refusal to grant earlier requests. Thereupon he sent his whole army to the temple area, with orders to kill. The military force then slew 3,000 men. (Antiquities, XVII, ix, 3) Possibly news of this event reached Egypt, contributing to Joseph’s initial fear about taking up residence in territory under the rule of Archelaus.

John’s Preparatory Activity

The “Light” Is About to Appear (John 1:6-13; Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18)

Steeped in idolatry, worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, the world in the first century CE was in darkness, the darkness of moral degradation and superstition. Having lived and labored in many of the major cities then existing, the Roman citizen Paul possessed firsthand knowledge about the greatness of that darkness and described humans who chose to suppress the voice of conscience. “They were filled with all [manner] of unrighteousness, depravity, covetousness, viciousness, envy, murder, discord, treachery, [being] ill-tempered, detractors, defamers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, devoid of natural affection, merciless.” (Romans 1:29-31)

Into this world of darkness, the “light,” in the person of God’s unique Son, was about to come, effecting liberation for all who chose to accept it. Among earth’s inhabitants, only the Jews and those who had come to believe the message contained in their sacred writings were acquainted with the true God. In keeping with the promises contained in those sacred writings, the Most High raised up a prophet to prepare his people for the arrival of the “light.” This prophet was John, the son of the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. John testified concerning the light, leading others to respond in faith. The “true light” would impart “light” to all men or people everywhere, providing enlightenment about his Father and how to enter into an abiding relationship with him as his approved children. (John 1:6-9)

In the person of God’s Son, the “light” was about to make an entrance into the world of mankind, the world to which he was not new. Through him, the human family had come into existence. Therefore, humans should have recognized him as one with whom they had a relationship, but they did not. He came to his own people, the only people who professed belief in his Father, but the majority did not accept him. In the case of those who did respond in faith, he made it possible for them to become God’s children. Their newness of life or new birth could not be attributed to “blood” (a particular line of descent), “flesh” (natural procreation), or the “will of man” (adoption). They were born “from God.” (John 1:9-13)

John, after having spent some time in the wilderness, began his public activity in the vicinity of the Jordan River. (Luke 1:80) At the end of the third decade of the first century CE, during the reign of Tiberius, he called upon his fellow Israelites to repent of their sins and, in expression of their repentance, to be baptized by him. (See the Notes section for the names of other ruling authorities at that time.) In keeping with the seriousness of his message, John lived an austere life in the wilderness. His diet consisted of wild honey and locusts (insects that were clean according to the terms of the Mosaic law and provided him with food high in protein). John’s garment probably consisted of camel hide still covered with the hair, and his belt likely was just a strip of leather. (Matthew 3:1-4; Mark 1:4, 6; Luke 3:1-4) Another possibility is that the garment was made from rough cloth woven from long camel’s hair.

John’s preparatory activity for the arrival of God’s Son fulfilled the words recorded in Malachi (3:1) and Isaiah (40:3-5): “Look! I am sending my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.” (Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27; see the Commentary section for Malachi 3:1.) “A voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.” (Matthew 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4) “Every ravine will be filled, and every mountain and hill leveled, and curves will be straightened and uneven places [made] into smooth ways. And all flesh will behold the salvation of God.” (Luke 3:5, 6)

As the foretold messenger, John cleared the way before God’s Son by preparing fellow Israelites to accept him. Initially, John appears to have proclaimed the message about “baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins” in settlements along the Jordan. (Luke 3:3) Emphasizing that the promised Messiah, the king in the royal line of David, was about to appear on the scene, John declared, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” (Matthew 3:2) Then as news about his activity began to spread, people from Judea, the region along the Jordan, and the city of Jerusalem started coming to him in increasing numbers and were baptized after confessing their sins. (Matthew 3:5, 6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:7) This suggests that John remained in a specific area for a time.

Among those who came were Pharisees and Sadducees to whom John directed strong denunciatory words, as they were not rightly motivated. “Offspring of vipers, who has shown you how to escape from the wrath to come? Then produce fruit befitting repentance. And do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham [as our] father.’ For I say to you, From these stones [the ones they could see and to which John may have pointed], God is able to raise up children for Abraham. Already the ax lies at the root of the trees [to cut them down]. Therefore, every tree not producing good fruit will be cut down and tossed into the fire.” (Matthew 3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9) While they imagined that the merits of Abraham guaranteed God’s favor, John made it clear that this was not the case. What counted was genuine repentance and not natural descent from the patriarch. The Most High did not depend on natural descent for there to be offspring for Abraham.

In response to John’s proclamation, people asked, “What should we do?” His replies indicated that fruit befitting repentance involved treating others in a compassionate and just manner. “Let the one who has two garments share with the one who has none, and the one with food let him do likewise.” To tax collectors, he said, “Do not ask for more than the required rate.” They were not to enrich themselves by dishonest means. He admonished soldiers serving in the Jewish force not to resort to extortion or to accuse others falsely, but to be satisfied with their provisions. They were not to use their position to exact payment under false pretenses and thus procure unjust gain for themselves. (Luke 3:10-14)

The people were in expectation of Messiah’s coming and wondered whether John might not possibly be the one. He made it clear to them that he was not the Messiah, identifying this coming one as being stronger than he was. John revealed that the coming one would possess such greatness that he would not consider himself deserving of rendering the menial task reserved for slaves — stooping down to loosen the strap of his sandal. While he baptized with water, the coming one would baptize with “holy spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7, 8; Luke 3:15, 16)

Persons whom John baptized with water were immersed in that element, as were utensils for cleansing purposes. (Mark 7:4) Similarly, those whom the Messiah would baptize with holy spirit would experience the powerful working of God as persons immersed in the element of the spirit. They would be “clothed” with power from the Most High, being energized or motivated to conduct themselves in a divinely approved manner and to carry out God’s will. (Luke 24:49)

Baptism with “fire” appears to denote a fiery judgment to befall those who refused to repent, for John added, “The winnowing shovel [is] in his hand to clear his threshing floor and gather the wheat into his storehouse, but the chaff he will burn in unquenchable fire.” Also in other ways, John exhorted those who came to him as he proclaimed the glad tidings about the coming Messiah. (Luke 3:17, 18; Matthew 3:12)

Notes:

Mark’s account starts with John’s activity as a prophet, linking it to the beginning of the glad tidings about Jesus Christ, God’s Son. (Mark 1:1) This is appropriate, for it was then that the preparation for Messiah’s arrival began, and the opportunity opened up for repentant ones to share in the privileges and blessings that would follow.

Pilate, an appointee of Tiberius, governed Judea for ten years. Herod (Antipas) held the position of tetrarch of Galilee. His brother Philip (whom Josephus calls Herod; the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem) was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitus. Both regions were located northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Lysanias the tetrarch ruled Abilene. An inscription found at Abila (anciently the principal city of Abilene) appears to mention this Lysanias and identifies him as a tetrarch. Abilene designated a territory to the northwest of Damascus. Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, held the actual office of high priest, which years earlier Annas had occupied and who as ex-high priest continued to wield great authority. (Luke 3:1, 2)

The extant text of Isaiah 40:3-5 in the Septuagint differs somewhat from the quotations in Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3 and Luke 3:4-6. Where Matthew’s, Mark’s, and Luke’s quotations say “his paths,” the Septuagint reading is, “the paths of our God.” The Septuagint adds “all” before “the curves” (Luke 3:5) and then continues, “and the uneven places into level places [pedía, also meaning ‘plains’ or ‘fields’]. And the glory of the Lord will be seen, and all flesh will behold the salvation of God.”

The Isaiah passage appears in a setting of comfort for Jerusalem, with the way being prepared for the Most High to lead his people back from exile. As then, return to divine favor required that the Israelites repent. Accordingly, John’s proclamation in the wilderness of Judea proved to be the very message conveyed by the voice of one crying in the wilderness (mentioned in Isaiah’s prophecy). In connection with the return from Babylonian exile, no literal voice was heard in the wilderness. So, in a more complete sense, John fulfilled the role of the one crying out.

It may be noted that the Hebrew words for “stone” (’éven) and “son” or “child” (ben) suggest a play on words in John’s statement about raising up children for Abraham from stones. (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8)

The Baptism of Jesus and His Time in the Wilderness (Matthew 3:13-4:11; Mark 1:9-13; Luke 3:21-23; 4:1-13)

Jesus was now about thirty years of age. The people of Nazareth knew him as the carpenter and regarded him as the son of the carpenter Joseph. (Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22) At the time, Joseph does not appear to have been alive, for he is never mentioned as being with Mary on any subsequent occasion. The other children, considering their later expressions of unbelief, may have known nothing about Jesus’ miraculous birth. (John 7:3-5) After their return to Nazareth, Joseph and Mary may wisely have chosen not to share this information with anyone. It would not have benefited their daughters and their sons James, Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon. The children would have been burdened with knowledge that could have given rise to serious problems and imposed upon them the obligation never to talk about this aspect of Jesus’ life. No outsider hearing about the miraculous birth would have believed it and, considering the then-existing political situation, any hint of Messianic claims posed a grave danger.

The Scriptural record does not reveal what John may have known about his relative Jesus or whether their paths crossed in earlier years. Zechariah and Elizabeth, as godly parents, are more likely to have waited on the Most High to reveal his purpose respecting their son and Jesus, not focusing their son’s attention on developments surrounding his birth and that of Mary’s son.

For Jesus, his life as a carpenter was about to end. Departing from Nazareth in Galilee, he headed for the location along the Jordan River where John was baptizing. Jesus had no sins to confess, but he identified himself with the sinful people who responded to John’s proclamation. The preserved record is silent about why John objected to baptizing Jesus, saying, “I need to have you baptize me, and you are coming to me?” Jesus indicated that it was proper for the baptism to take place, making it possible for both of them “to fulfill all righteousness.” John would have been acting in his divinely granted capacity as the one to prepare the way for the Messiah, and Jesus, in identifying himself with the sinful people, declared his acceptance of his Father’s will for him to die for sinners. (Hebrews 10:5-10) Jesus’ words persuaded John to consent, and he baptized him. (Matthew 3:13-15; Mark 1:9)

Upon being raised out of the water of the Jordan, Jesus prayed. He and John then saw the heavens, the sky, or the celestial dome part (as if ripped open) and God’s spirit made visible “in bodily form like a dove” descending upon him. From the opened sky above came God’s voice, acknowledging Jesus as his beloved Son with whom he was well pleased. (Matthew 3:16, 17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21, 22)

Earlier, God had revealed to John how he would be able to identify the coming one who would baptize with holy spirit. It would be one upon whom the spirit would descend and remain. Having witnessed this in the case of Jesus, John could testify concerning him, “This is the Son of God.” Not until he had this undeniable confirmation did John truly know who Jesus was. (John 1:32-34)

Notes:

Regarding the descent of the spirit, the accounts are slightly different (“descending like a dove [and] coming upon him” [Matthew 3:16 (a number of ancient manuscripts do not include “and”]; “descending like a dove into him” [Mark 1:10; numerous manuscripts read “upon him”]; “bodily shape like a dove upon him” [Luke 3:22]; “the spirit descending and remaining upon him” [John 1:33]). The manner of the descent in a form like a dove from the opened celestial vault proved that the spirit had come upon Jesus from his Father. For a time this “bodily form like a dove” remained on Jesus and then vanished, entering “into” him (according to the reading of fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and other ancient manuscripts of Mark’s account).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not identical in the way they word God’s expression about his Son. This is understandable, as the words were not originally spoken in Greek. It should be noted, however, that the same message is preserved in all three accounts.

Tempted by the Devil

Under the impelling power of God’s spirit, Jesus went into an isolated area in the wilderness of Judea, where wild animals made their home. (Mark 1:12, 13) Since Jesus was moved by the holy spirit to go and then stay in the wilderness, his being there was his Father’s will. Moreover, the harsh circumstances in an inhospitable environment provided the devil with an opportunity to tempt Jesus. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12, 13; Luke 4:1)

The preserved accounts do not reveal the manner in which the devil approached Jesus and how the scenes changed from the wilderness to other locations. A possible clue is the reference to the very high mountain from which the devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. (Matthew 4:8) No mountain on earth could have provided a vantage point from which the splendor of all the then-existing kingdoms could be seen. This suggests that Jesus did not leave the wilderness but, by means of a vision, was transported to the top of a high mountain and earlier to the temple in Jerusalem.

After a period of 40 days without food, Jesus experienced intense hunger and must have felt very weak. At what would have been an extremely vulnerable point from a physical standpoint for him, the devil made his approach. “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” (Matthew 4:2, 3; Luke 4:2, 3, where the singular “this stone” appears)

Jesus knew that it was not his Father’s will to use miraculous powers to satisfy the cravings of his fleshly organism. The performance of a miracle was not an option open to other humans and so would have been a misuse of divinely granted power. It would have shown a lack of faith in his Father as the one who could provide for him and sustain him. His Father, by means of his spirit, had willed for him to be in the wilderness, and his Father would also indicate when it was time to leave. Obedience to his Father would require humble submission to his will regardless of how distressing the circumstances might be, trusting fully in his love and care.

The Israelites, upon leaving Egypt, failed in this respect, complaining that Moses and Aaron had brought them into the wilderness to die of starvation. (Exodus 16:3) They thus showed lack of faith in God’s ability to provide for them despite having seen his intervention in effecting their liberation from Egypt.

Jesus refused to entertain the devil’s proposal. In rejecting it, he quoted from the book of Deuteronomy (8:3), “Not from bread alone does man live, but upon every word coming from God’s mouth.” (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4) Jesus chose trustingly to depend on his Father and to be sustained by whatever his Father’s expressed word would provide. In the case of the Israelites, manna was God’s provision, making it clear to them that man does not live on bread alone (or on the usual food that was then not available to them).

Jesus had expressed his total reliance on his Father, and the devil countered with the suggestion that Jesus demonstrate that unqualified trust. The devil brought him to the “holy city,” Jerusalem, positioning him on the summit of the temple, and then quoted Psalm 91:11, 12, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and upon [their] hands they will carry you, that you never should strike your foot against a stone.’” (Matthew 4:5, 6; Luke 4:9-11)

Had Jesus come floating down from the pinnacle of the temple, the multitude in the temple courts would have been amazed and would doubtless have accepted this spectacular sign as an indication of the arrival of their promised Messiah. This, however, was not God’s will. For Jesus to leap from the top of the temple would have been deliberately placing himself in a life-threatening situation and demanding that his Father come to the rescue to enable him to make a showy impression before onlookers. It would not have been an act of faith but a sinful testing of God.

Again, quoting from the book of Deuteronomy (6:16), Jesus replied, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” (Matthew 4:7; Luke 4:12) Unlike the Israelites who yielded to temptation and put God to the test in the wilderness, Jesus stood firm in his refusal to do so. In the case of the Israelites, they quarreled with Moses about the lack of water, complaining that they, along with their children and livestock, would die of thirst. They tested God when saying, “Is YHWH among us or not?” (Exodus 17:3-7) The question implied that the Most High should do something if he was really among them. In effect, they challenged God to act. Similarly, for Jesus to have cast himself from the summit of the temple would have constituted a faithless demand expressed in rash action, a demand that his Father reveal his presence by saving him from the danger he had deliberately created for himself.

Next, from atop a very high mountain, the devil, in an instant, showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. This glory or splendor could have included the impressive buildings and the luxurious surroundings of those exercising ruling authority. It would have been a display designed to captivate the faculty of sight, creating a desire for all that came to view. The devil expressed his willingness to give everything to Jesus for just one gesture. All that the devil asked of Jesus was that he prostrate himself before him, thereby acknowledging that the kingdoms of the world had been given to him and that he could give everything to anyone he wished. Instead of having to follow a path of humiliation and suffering, Jesus could have everything by engaging in just one simple act of prostration. In reality, though, the devil did not have legitimate claim to anything but exercised rebel authority. Jesus rejected the devil’s offer with the words from Deuteronomy (6:13), “The Lord your God you should worship [Or: To the Lord your God you shall prostrate yourself], and him alone you should serve.” God alone is the source of all rightful authority, and he alone is worthy of worship and service. Otherwise, no one has the right to ask for even one display of the kind of submission that would suggest being in possession of more than creature status. (Matthew 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8)

The devil departed from Jesus, but this would not be the end of his future attacks. He would be watching for another time to assail God’s Son. (Luke 4:13)

After the devil left, angels came to minister to Jesus. Part of that ministering doubtless included providing food and water for him, enabling him to have the strength needed to make his way out of the wilderness. (Matthew 4:11; Mark 1:13; compare 1 Kings 19:5-8.) In view of the course on which Jesus was now about to embark among the Israelites and its eventual outcome in rejection and a shameful death, the angels may also have strengthened him with words of encouragement. (Compare Luke 22:43.)

Notes:

With reference to the strong impulse God’s spirit exerted on Jesus to prompt him to go into the wilderness of Judea, Mark used the Greek word ekbállo, which can have the sense of “drive out” or “force to leave.” In this case, the significance would be to “cause to go.”

See http://bibleplaces.com/judeanwilderness.htm for pictures of and comments about the Wilderness of Judea.

The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 8:3 (regarding not living on bread alone) and the quotation in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 are identical.

Recognizing that man does not live on bread alone means acknowledging one’s complete dependence on God and trusting him fully, refusing to satisfy the desires of the flesh or the physical organism by any means that would call into question his ability to provide for, sustain, and strengthen his servants.

Luke did not record the temptation of Jesus in chronological sequence, as did Matthew. The arrangement Luke chose seemingly would have been of greater significance to non-Jewish readers, with the temptation involving the temple in Jerusalem being mentioned last.

The quotation from Psalm 91:11, 12 (90:11, 12, LXX) in Luke’s account is more complete than in Matthew’s account. For the basic portion that is quoted, both Matthew and Luke match the wording of the Septuagint.

The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 6:16 (about not testing God) is the same as the quotation in Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12.

It should be noted that, in a sacred location, the devil misused the Scriptures. Awareness of this can serve as a powerful warning. Just because a certain activity may, within a particular “church” or movement, be considered sacred or viewed as an expression of faith, does not make it such. Whenever a certain service places individuals in circumstances that make it extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible, to care for their basic needs without receiving repeated help from others, their choosing such service is much like casting themselves from the summit of the temple and believing that God is obligated to come to their aid. On the other hand, a particular activity may amount to little more than an outward display of godliness and trust in God. Engaging in the activity may do little more than provide participants (and the movement itself) with the means for boasting or promoting themselves.

Not infrequently men wielding authority in religious movements misapply the Scriptures and succeed in persuading others to undertake unwise activity with the objective of furthering the causes of their respective movements, or to risk their freedom, security, or even their lives. Tragically, among those who are convinced to believe that they are serving God by following the directives of a leadership claiming to have divine backing will be persons who end up experiencing needless hardships and suffering. Whenever individuals consider themselves or their particular movements as heaven’s favorites, grave danger exists. Especially when movements are portrayed as the exclusive possessors of “the truth,” darkness may be represented as light, error as truth, and unreality as reality. Spiritual discernment is needed to differentiate between genuine faith and what really amounts to an improper testing of God.

The extant Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 6:13 differs from the quotation in Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8. Both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (with the exception of Codex Alexandrinus) use “fear” instead of a term denoting an act of prostration or worship. “YHWH your God you shall fear, and him you shall serve.” (Masoretic Text) “The Lord your God you shall fear, and him you shall serve.” (LXX) “The Lord your God you shall worship, and him alone you shall serve.” (Codex Alexandrinus)

There are persons who seize or accept authority and want others to acknowledge them in ways that far exceed the kind of recognition to which they may be entitled. Whereas Jesus refused to accept the offer for position and power on the devil’s terms, many, throughout the centuries, have yielded to this type of offer. To assure the continuance of their own position or comparative well-being and not to jeopardize receiving future benefits, they have complied with requests or demands they knew to be wrong or have in other dishonorable ways sought to curry favor. In effect, they have prostrated themselves before mere creatures.

When prominent individuals in religious movements represent themselves as God’s appointees or allow others to make such claims, they pose a serious threat to the spiritual well-being of those who are induced to believe that whatever policies or teachings they promulgate should be regarded as coming from God. A careful review of the official publications of movements that claim to be “the truth” will often reveal a less than honest admission of past errors. Highly questionable aspects in their history are greatly minimized, and prominent ones who conducted themselves in an abusive and morally corrupt manner continue to be portrayed as God’s chosen instruments. Accepting the claim that the leadership serves by God’s appointment, the majority of the members are willing to grant to humans the kind of submission that is not divinely authorized and, unwittingly, make themselves idolaters. Part of the gain for such idolatry is maintaining a good standing within the movement, a social framework for sharing in various activities, and the potential for being given positions or special assignments only open to those considered to be exemplary members.

The strong persuasive power of a temptation primarily lies in its opening up a seemingly easier and speedier way to make gain or to attain a desirable end than the existing circumstances would legitimately allow. Everything the devil proposed to Jesus either suggested a way to satisfy a pressing physical need or a means for gaining recognition and position without undertaking a course of self-denial, hardship, and suffering. Moreover, the suggested objectives could be attained immediately, without having to wait patiently under unfavorable circumstances.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not provide the source of their information about the devil’s efforts to tempt Jesus. A likely possibility is that Jesus himself told some, if not all, of the apostles about his experience in the wilderness, admonishing them to resist the devil.

John Focuses Attention on Jesus (John 1:19-37)

In Jerusalem, John’s preaching raised concerns among the Pharisees. Probably because John was the son of a priest and therefore himself a priest in the Aaronic line of the tribe of Levi, the Pharisees sent a delegation of priests and Levites to question him. Arriving at Bethany on the east side of the Jordan, where John was then baptizing, they asked him, “Who are you?” This question implied that they wanted to know on whose authority he was acting and what basis he had for his activity. In response, John told them he was not the Christ. Answering their other questions, he said that he was neither Elijah nor “the prophet.” (John 1:19-21, 24, 28)

Although John did the work of the foretold Elijah, he was not the Elijah who had lived centuries earlier and whom the questioners expected to return literally. Seemingly, they also believed that “the prophet” greater than Moses would appear before the coming of the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19) That “prophet,” however, proved to be the one for whom John was preparing the way.

Wanting a specific answer from John, an answer they could relate to those who had sent them, they again raised the question, “Who are you?” Referring to the words of Isaiah (40:6), John identified himself, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord.” The delegation then asked why he was baptizing if he was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet. John’s reply focused on the greatness of the one to come and before whom he was preparing the way, “I baptize in water. In your midst, one is standing whom you do not know. [As for] the one coming after me, I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal.” (John 1:21-27)

The next day, after the interchange with the questioners from Jerusalem, John saw Jesus (after his return from the wilderness) approaching and then said to those within hearing distance, “See, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) This identification suggested that Jesus, like the lambs offered daily at the temple, would die sacrificially for the sins of mankind.

Stressing the greatness of Jesus, John called attention to what he had said earlier. “This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who comes to be ahead of me, because he was before me.’” John thus revealed that Jesus would surpass him and, in relation to time, had priority. He already “was” before John’s birth. (John 1:30)

John acknowledged that he did not know Jesus in the manner that he then could identify him but did baptizing so that he would be revealed to Israel. Before John started his activity of calling the people to repentance and baptizing, God had revealed to him that the one upon whom he would see the spirit descending and remaining would be the one who would baptize with holy spirit. As he did see the spirit coming down like a dove from heaven and remaining on Jesus, John testified, “This is the Son of God.” (John 1:31-34)

The next day Jesus again went to the area where John was baptizing. At the time, John was standing with two of his disciples. Seeing Jesus walking, he said to them, “See, the Lamb of God!” This prompted the two disciples to leave and head toward Jesus. (John 1:35-37)

Notes:

The location of Bethany on the east side of the Jordan, where John did baptizing, is unknown.

After the laws respecting becoming a Jewish proselyte were codified, a man had to submit to circumcision and, after the wound healed, to immerse himself in water in the presence of witnesses. The immersion served as a cleansing ceremony. Whether the practice existed when John the Baptist began his activity cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, John’s baptism for repentant Israelites was different. He did the baptizing, and it was not an arrangement for non-Jews.

The prophecy of Ezekiel indicated that God would cleanse the Israelites by sprinkling clean water upon them and then would put his spirit upon them. (Ezekiel 36:25-27) Zechariah’s prophecy (13:1) pointed to the time when God would open a fountain to purify from sin and uncleanness. Such prophecies may well have given rise to the expectation of the coming of one who would act as the agent to carry out God’s work of cleansing by means of water, and the Jews would understandably have concluded that this one would be an extraordinary personage—the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet like Moses.

The example of John the Baptist as a true prophet, in focusing on Jesus Christ (and not himself), contrasts sharply with the kind of self-promotion often carried on in denominational and nondenominational churches or various movements professing to be Christian. Such self-promotion and the kind of claims made respecting the importance of the church or the movement not infrequently are more prominent features than is emphasis on Christ’s important role as the only one through whom a relationship with the Father is possible.

Jesus’ Activity Begins

Jesus’ First Disciples (John 1:14-18; 38-51)

Aware that he was being followed, Jesus turned and asked John’s two disciples, “What are you seeking?” This question served as an invitation for them to express their wishes respecting him. They addressed him as “Rabbi” (“Teacher”) and asked, “Where are you staying?” Their question implied that they wanted to spend time with him. Jesus invited them to come with him and to see for themselves. They then remained with him that day. It was about the tenth hour when they arrived where Jesus was staying. Possibly this was Roman time or about 10:00 a.m., as roughly only two hours would have remained before the start of a new day according to Jewish reckoning. With the Jewish day (the daylight hours) starting at 6 a.m., the tenth hour would have been 4:00 p.m. (John 1:38, 39)

One of the disciples was Andrew, the brother of Simon (to whom Jesus would later give the name Peter). The other disciple likely was John the brother of James. This is suggested by the fact that John is never named in a single verse of the account to which he is linked as the writer. (John 1:40)

Upon leaving Jesus’ company, Andrew located his brother Simon and excitedly told him, “We have found the Messiah” (Christ or the Anointed). With his brother, Andrew then headed back to the place where Jesus was staying. Upon seeing Simon, Jesus said to him, “You are Simon, son of John [Jonah]. You will be called Cephas” (Peter). The name “Cephas” or “Peter” means “rock,” and this name reflected Jesus’ confidence in Simon as one who would prove to be rocklike or solid in his faith and provide strengthening aid to fellow believers. (John 1:41, 42; Mark 3:16; compare Luke 22:32.)

The next day Jesus wanted to leave Judea to go to Galilee. He personally approached Philip, doubtless also one of John’s disciples, inviting him to be a follower. Philip must have known Peter and Andrew. Before taking up residence in Capernaum, Peter and Andrew, like Philip, lived in Bethsaida, a town on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. (John 1:43, 44; compare Luke 4:31-39.)

Philip then located Nathanael, telling him, “The one of whom Moses wrote in the Law and the Prophets we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” The link to Nazareth appeared puzzling to Nathanael, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” His question may suggest that Nazareth did not have a good reputation. On the other hand, Nathanael may have meant that he found it difficult to believe that the promised Messiah, the great good to which Philip had referred, would come from this city in Galilee (and not Bethlehem in Judea). Could it really be that the Messiah, of all places, would have Nazareth as his home? Philip did not try to persuade Nathanael with words but invited him to come and find out for himself. (John 1:45, 46)

As Philip and Nathanael approached, Jesus’ first words to Nathanael were, “See, a true Israelite in whom nothing is false.” Surprised by this observation from one whom he had never met, Nathanael responded, “How do you know me?” Revealing that he had knowledge about Nathanael beyond the ordinary, Jesus told him that he had seen him under the fig tree before Philip called him. An event or circumstance associated with that fig tree revealed the kind of person he was, and Nathanael immediately grasped the significance of Jesus’ words. With conviction, he replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” Having believed on the basis of being told that he had been seen under the fig tree, Nathanael heard Jesus say that he would see things greater than this. In fact, he and the other disciples would see heaven opened and “the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of Man.” Through him, the very heavens would be opened up to them. (John 1:47-51; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

From this time onward, these early disciples (and those who would join them later) came to see in Jesus, though having become flesh, a divine glory or splendor. His was the glory of an only-begotten of a father. He was the unique one, full of kindness and truth. As the one full of “kindness,” favor, or grace, Jesus manifested a gracious disposition of unparalleled love. He himself was the living truth, the one through whom all the promises of God find their fulfillment and the one who, through his attitude, words, and deeds, provided to humans the most complete disclosure possible regarding his Father. (John 1:14)

He alone, as John the Baptist had testified, already “was” prior to his arrival on the earthly scene. From the fullness of the Son of God, his disciples received kindness “upon” (literally, “instead of” [antí]) kindness, or favor upon favor. This favor or kindness was unearned and unmerited. The disciples continued to be the objects of Jesus’ care and compassionate concern as he taught them, came to their aid and defense, and, finally, in expression of his boundless love, gave his life for them. (John 1:15, 16; see additional comments in the Notes section on verse 16.)

Whereas the law had been given through Moses, through Christ came the favor and truth or the full expression of godly kindness and the complete revelation of divine truth. Unlike humans who have never seen God, Jesus had both seen him and enjoyed an intimacy with him reaching into the infinite past. That intimacy is revealed in the expressions used concerning him. He is the “only-begotten,” the unique one, the one and only. “God” (theós), if this is the original reading of John 1:18 (later manuscripts read, “only-begotten Son,” signifying unique Son), describes him as being exactly like his Father. The closeness to the Father is further shown by his being portrayed in his bosom position. This is the kind of intimacy a person would enjoy when reclining in front of another person on the same couch while eating a meal. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus could reveal him to others in a way that no one else could. (John 1:17, 18; see additional comments in the Notes section on verse 18.)

Notes:

See http://bibleplaces.com/bethsaida.htm for pictures of and comments about Bethsaida.

See http://holylandphotos.org for pictures of and comments about Cana. Enter “Cana” in the “search” box.

John’s account does not reveal what happened under the fig tree or what may have been Nathanael’s thoughts. Whatever was involved, Nathanael recognized that Jesus’ knowledge respecting him was of a miraculous nature, removing any doubt from his mind about Jesus’ true identity.

Nathanael is only mentioned in John’s account. Based on the mention of Philip and Bartholomew together in listings of the apostles, Nathanael and Bartholomew appear to be the same person. (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14) Similarly, Matthew is also called Levi. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-29)

The reference to the ascending and descending of angels from the Son of Man somewhat parallels what Jacob saw in his dream at Bethel. In that case, angels descended and ascended by means of a ladder-like or stair-like arrangement that reached from the land to the sky, and the Almighty was positioned at the top. Jacob then heard God’s promise that through his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed. (Genesis 28:12-14) As the apostle Paul wrote when referring to the promise first made to Abraham, that seed proved to be Christ. (Galatians 3:16) Jesus’ statement therefore may also have served to confirm Nathanael’s expression of faith, “You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”

Not until after Jesus’ death do angels figure prominently in the biblical accounts, being seen at various times. (Matthew 28:2-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:1-7; John 20:11, 12; Acts 1:10, 11) Manuscript evidence concerning the appearance of an angel in the garden of Gethsemane to strengthen Jesus is inconclusive. The omission of this incident in early extant manuscripts suggests that it may not have been mentioned in Luke’s original account. (Luke 22:43) So it would appear that Jesus’ words about the ascending and descending of angels relate more to the disciples being able to see the free approach he had to his Father and that angels were always available to minister to him. (Compare Matthew 26:53.)

In John 1:16, the words about receiving “favor upon [anti; literally, “instead of”] favor” could be understood to mean receiving unmerited kindness followed by receiving even greater unmerited kindness.

In John 1:18, the Greek term monogenés (often rendered “only-begotten”) points to the uniqueness of the relationship of the Son to the Father. There is no other son like him. The emphasis is not to be placed on the second part of the compound (begotten), but the expression is to be regarded as a unit. This is evident from the way the term is used in the Septuagint as a rendering for the Hebrew term yahíd (only, only one, alone). Jephthah’s daughter was his only child. (Judges 11:34) The psalmist pleaded that YHWH might rescue his “only-begotten one” (Brenton), meaning the only life he possessed or his precious life. (Psalm 21:21 [22:20(21)]; 34:17 [35:17]) He also prayed for mercy because he identified himself as an “only-begotten,” that is, one of a kind (like an only child). In this case, the Hebrew often has been translated “lonely” or “alone.” (Psalm 24:16 [25:16])

The First “Sign” (John 2:1-11)

Possibly on the third day after Nathanael’s first meeting Jesus, a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee. Among those present were Jesus’ mother Mary, Jesus, and his disciples. Likely there were six disciples at this time, Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew, Philip and Nathanael (Bartholomew), and John and his brother James. While the record is silent about when James became a disciple, it would seem reasonable that John (probably the unnamed disciple mentioned in the first chapter of John) would have shared the news about Jesus with his brother. Their mother appears to have been Salome, usually identified as the wife of Zebedee. She may also have been Mary’s sister. (Compare Matthew 27:56 with Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 with Matthew 27:55 and Mark 15:40, 41.)

During the wedding festivities, the supply of wine ran out. Mary became concerned about this embarrassing development. Her personal interest in preserving the joyous spirit of the occasion appears to be more typical of a relative or a close family friend than of an invited guest. She approached Jesus, informing him that there was no more wine. Possibly based on what her son had done at other times, she apparently believed that he would be able to come up with a solution for the problem she had brought to his attention. His initial reply to her, however, indicated that their relationship had changed. As the Christ, God’s unique Son, he would be the one to initiate action in his own time. A literal English translation of his words is harsher in tone than is the Greek, where the term for “woman” gyné can also denote “lady” or “wife.” For this reason, a number of translations represent Jesus as addressing Mary as “dear woman.” His response in question form was, “What to me and to you?” The idiomatic expression implied that in this specific matter the two of them had nothing in common. Jesus then added, “My hour has not yet come” (possibly meaning the time for him to intervene to handle the problem regarding the wine or the time for him to reveal his identity as the promised Messiah). Mary evidently understood that Jesus would no longer be taking motherly direction from her but did not doubt that he would act. This is suggested by her words to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (John 2:1-5)

For ceremonial washing purposes, six large stone jars were available. Each of these could hold two or three measures (perhaps bath measures or roughly between 12 and 18 gallons). Jesus directed the servants to fill the containers with water and then to take a sample of the liquid to the master of the festivities. The servants did not tell him the source of the liquid. Upon tasting it, he perceived it to be choice wine and thereafter told the bridegroom that he had not followed the customary procedure. Unlike others, the bridegroom had set out the inferior wine first and reserved the best wine until the guests had partaken to a degree where their sense of taste had ceased to be keen. (John 2:6-10)

The transformation of water into wine proved to be Jesus’ first “sign.” It indicated that his ministry would differ markedly from that of John the Baptist, who lived an austere life and never drank wine. (Matthew 11:18; Luke 1:14) John proclaimed a serious message, calling upon the people to repent, and his bearing and actions harmonized with a spirit of godly sorrow. The arrival of the Messiah, however, opened up a period of joy and hope, extending to responsive ones the opportunity to become sharers with him in his royal realm and all the blessings associated therewith. By means of this first sign, Jesus also manifested “his glory” or magnificence, revealing his divinely granted power, his role as a benefactor, and the kind of joy he alone would be able to impart to his disciples. Whereas the disciples had earlier made expressions of belief in him as being the Messiah and God’s Son, this sign, as a manifestation of his glory, served to deepen their faith. As the biblical record states, “His disciples believed in him.” (John 2:11)

Notes:

See http://holylandphotos.org for pictures of and comments about Cana. Enter “Cana” in the “search” box.

The term “sign” (semeíon) designates an occurrence that is viewed as having a special significance. In the context of John 2:11, the Greek word refers to a miracle or a miraculous sign. All the “signs” Jesus performed served to identify him as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. At the same time, the individual “signs” revealed aspects about him or his activity.

Stopover in Capernaum and Passover in Jerusalem (John 2:12-25)

After the wedding, Jesus, his mother, his brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum, a city on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Originally Peter and Andrew had lived in nearby Bethsaida. At this time, however, they were residing in Capernaum, and the city may also have been the home of James and John. (Compare Mark 1:16-21.) As the Passover was near, Jesus, his brothers, his disciples, and Mary did not remain there long. To observe the Passover, they traveled to Jerusalem. (John 2:12, 13)

There, in the “temple” (hierón) or, more specifically, the Court of the Gentiles, which was part of the extensive temple complex, Jesus saw merchants selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. Worshipers would buy animals for sacrifice and exchange coins that were unacceptable for the payment of the temple tax, contributions for the support of the temple, and possibly also for the purchase of sacrificial animals. (John 2:14)

For the merchants and money changers, this proved to be a profitable enterprise. The Mishnah, compiled around 200 CE and consisting of a collection of ancient Jewish traditions, says (Shekalim 1:3) that money changers set up in the temple area on the 25th of Adar (February/March). This Jewish work also reveals extreme price gouging in connection with the sale of sacrificial animals. On one occasion, a pair of doves was being sold for 25 times more than the usual price. (Keritot 1:7)

Filled with indignation about the defilement of a sacred location with commercial activity, Jesus made a whip of ropes and drove the sheep and cattle out of the temple area, forcing the sellers to leave with their animals. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables, and told the sellers of doves to leave with their birds, rebuking them for having turned his Father’s house into a place of business. Upon witnessing Jesus’ taking such firm action, the disciples recalled the words of the psalmist, “The zeal for your house will consume me.” (Psalm 69:9[10]; John 2:15-17)

Based on the words recorded in Malachi 3:1-7, the Jews may have expected the promised Messiah to take decisive action in connection with the sanctity of the temple. His foretold role included purifying the Levites for offering acceptable sacrifices. It therefore appears that certain Jews challenged Jesus to show them a sign, a sign establishing Messianic authority to stop commercial activity in the temple complex. In response to their challenging question about what sign he would be showing them, Jesus replied, “Pull down this temple [naós, usually applying to the main sanctuary building], and in three days I will raise it.” In disbelief, they said, “This temple [naós] was built in 46 years, and you are going to raise it in three days?” Neither they nor his disciples understood that Jesus was speaking about “the temple [naós] of his body.” Not until Jesus was raised from the dead did his disciples understand what he meant. It was then that they believed the “Scripture” foretelling Jesus’ resurrection and the “word” he spoke in the temple area relating to his rising from the dead. (John 2:18-22)

While in Jerusalem for the Passover and the seven-day festival that followed, Jesus did perform miraculous signs. Witnessing these signs, many came to believe in “his name” or in him. Jesus, however, recognized that those who initially responded favorably did not have a solid faith. He did not trust himself to them, for he knew them all or he knew who they really were at heart and understood human weaknesses fully. He did not need anyone else’s testimony about “man,” for “he knew what was in man.” (John 2:23-25) Jesus discerned how easily humans could be swayed or wrongly influenced despite having clear evidence respecting the rightness of a particular course.

Notes:

See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.

From the historical information contained in the writings of Josephus, it is not possible to determine just what the Jews in the temple area meant when saying to Jesus that the temple was built in 46 years. Work on the entire temple complex was not completed until some six years before the Romans destroyed it in 70 CE. As for the start of the rebuilding undertaken at the direction of Herod the Great, Josephus says in War (I, xxi, 1) that it was the 15th year of Herod’s reign, whereas in Antiquities (XV, xi, 1) he states that it was the 18th year. If the reference to the 15th year is not in error, possibly it was then that preparatory work began, with actual construction on the site not commencing until the 18th year.

Jesus’ answer about a sign was basically the same as his reply on other occasions when challengingly asked for a sign. This sign, which came to be widely known, was that he would rise in three days. (Matthew 12:38-40; 16:4; 27:62-64; Luke 11:29) Jesus could refer to raising “the temple of his body” in three days, as his Father had granted him the authority or right to surrender his “soul” or life and to receive it again. (John 10:18)

The Visit of Nicodemus (John 3:1-21)

One night during Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem, Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews (probably meaning a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme council or the highest religious authority), came to see him. Likely Nicodemus was aware of negative sentiments about Jesus among influential Jews and may have chosen to be cautious to avoid potential problems. A night visit would also have been more suitable for an uninterrupted private interchange. He addressed Jesus as “Rabbi” and acknowledged him as a teacher having come from God, for the miraculous signs he had performed proved that God was with him. The first person plural verb oídamen (“we know”) may indicate that he was aware of others who recognized Jesus as having come as a teacher from God. On the other hand, this could simply be the editorial first person plural verb. (John 3:1, 2)

In response, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) The expression “amen, amen” signifies “truly, truly,” and serves to introduce an important truth in a solemn manner. For one to see the “kingdom of God” (or to be part of the royal realm where the Most High is recognized as Sovereign and all the members thereof share in the blessings and privileges he grants) requires a tremendous change. The Greek term ánothen means either “above” or “again.” Earlier in John’s account, the new birth is attributed to God (John 1:13), and this suggests that “born from above” (instead of “born again”) is the preferable significance.

Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus meant. He replied, “How can a man who is old be born? Indeed he cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born.” Clarifying what the new birth involves, Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, Unless a person is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Whoever is born from flesh is flesh, and whoever is born from spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised that I say to you, You must be born from above [ánothen]. The wind [pneúma, meaning “wind” or “spirit”] blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know from where it has come and where it is going. Thus [it] is [with] everyone who is born from the spirit.” Still not grasping the significance of Jesus’ words, Nicodemus said, “How can these things take place?” Based on his knowledge of the Scriptures, he should have understood what Jesus meant. This is evident from Jesus’ response, “You are a teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?” (John 3:4-10)

As a recognized teacher among fellow Jews, Nicodemus knew what the holy writings contained. The prophets Isaiah, Joel, and Ezekiel, for example, spoke about a future outpouring of God’s spirit. Isaiah referred to mourning resulting from divine chastisement as ending upon God’s spirit being poured out from on high upon the people. (Isaiah 32:12-15) Joel’s prophetic words (2:28, 29) indicated that the spirit would be poured out on sons and daughters, men and women, young and old. Ezekiel (36:25-28, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) specifically mentioned cleansing as preceding the outpouring of God’s spirit: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes. And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules. Then you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will be your God.”

Repeatedly, the prophets urged the people to repent and change their ways in order to be recipients of God’s mercy and blessing. (Isaiah 1:15-20; Ezekiel 18:31; Joel 2:12-14; Malachi 3:7) Therefore, from what he knew the prophets had proclaimed, Nicodemus should have understood that repentance preceded a cleansing as by water and only then would God pour out his spirit upon those whom he recognized as clean before him. This was also the message John the Baptist proclaimed, and his immersing Israelites in the Jordan followed an acknowledgment of their sins. Moreover, he announced the future outpouring of God’s spirit, saying of the one to come, “he will baptize you with holy spirit.” (Matthew 3:2, 5, 6, 11; Luke 3:10-16)

Accordingly, as Jesus said to Nicodemus, without being made new by the kind of cleansing represented by the water and receiving God’s spirit, a person would not be able to “see” the kingdom of God. He would not be recognized as one of God’s people and so could not possibly be in his royal realm.

Born of flesh, all humans are flesh, and are burdened by the flawed condition they have inherited. This is why all are sinners, repeatedly disappointing themselves and others in attitude, word, and deed. All are in need of help from outside the human sphere. That aid must come from “above” or the realm of the spirit. A newness of life can only be brought about by an operation of God’s spirit, and the outward manifestation thereof would be a marked change in conduct, motivated by a desire to do God’s will. As Jesus pointed out to Nicodemus, just how God’s spirit operates within an individual cannot be perceived. One can hear the wind and observe its effects, but one cannot see its source or where it is going. Nevertheless, just as the wind is real and its effects are real, the invisible working of God’s spirit within individuals is real.

The Son of God, having come from the spirit realm, fully understood the functioning of holy spirit. He knew what none of earth’s inhabitants knew and had seen what they had never seen. His authoritative testimony, however, did not gain general acceptance. The transformation about which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus related to the earthly realm, for it involved a change in the human condition. If this earthly aspect was not believed, how could it possibly be that Jesus’ words about heavenly things only known to him would be believed? No man had ascended to heaven, precluding any possibility of possessing testimony regarding heavenly things. Jesus, though, had descended from heaven. When referring to himself as the “Son of Man,” Jesus evidently identified himself as the promised Messiah portrayed in the book of Daniel (7:13, 14). Having come from heaven, he alone could teach what no one else could. Additionally, only he could reveal how an eternal relationship with his Father would be possible. (John 3:11-13)

An event during Israel’s wandering in the wilderness revealed an aspect of how restoration to divine favor would come about. When many Israelites died from being bitten by poisonous serpents, Moses was divinely instructed to make a serpent and place it on a pole. Anyone bitten by a serpent, upon looking at the bronze serpent Moses had made, would live. There was nothing in that metal serpent that could remove the lethal venom from those who had been bitten. Their response to God’s arrangement made it possible for them to continue living. (Numbers 21:5-9)

Similarly, response in faith to Jesus’ being lifted up on the implement on which he would die would lead to eternal life. Just as the Israelites acknowledged their sin and had to recognize the danger in which they found themselves because of having been bitten, humans must acknowledge their sinful state, recognize the death-dealing effects of sin, and avail themselves of God’s provision through Christ to be liberated. It is an arrangement that reveals the hideous nature of sin (considering what Jesus endured for sinners) and God’s great love by having his Son die for the world of mankind, reaching the inmost selves of those who believe and appreciatively acknowledge that God and Christ did this for them so that they might live in eternal fellowship with them. (John 3:14-16)

In expression of his boundless love, God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, depriving humans of all hope, but to save the world of mankind, opening up to all the opportunity for eternal life or an abiding relationship with him. The individual responding in faith would not have a condemnatory judgment expressed against him. A failure to put faith in the “name” or in the person of the unique Son of God when the testimony concerning him is presented would, however, lead to adverse judgment. (John 3:17, 18)

The only-begotten or unique Son of God is the “light” that came into the world, dispelling the darkness of ignorance and evil. Whenever people love the darkness more than the light, preferring a life contrary to God’s upright ways, they are not drawn to his Son. Having chosen to engage in wicked works, harming themselves and others by their lawless actions, they hate the light embodied in him. They do not want their works to be exposed by the light that radiates from God’s Son. (John 3:19, 20)

The person who “lives the truth,” striving to harmonize his life with what is true and right, is drawn to the light. Instead of fearing exposure, such a person makes a confident approach, letting the light reveal his works as having been done “in God.” The expression “in God” suggests that the individual recognized the need for divine aid and lived a life that acknowledged the Most High and focused on pleasing him. (John 3:21)

Note:

The words of John 3:16-21 are not necessarily part of the discussion with Nicodemus, but may be the comments of the writer of this account. Translations vary in the placement of the quotation marks, either ending the quotation with verse 15 or verse 21.

Jesus’ Disciples Do Baptizing and John “Decreases” (John 3:22-36; 4:1-3)

Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them, and they did baptizing, evidently at his direction or with his approval. (John 3:22; 4:1, 2) As there was abundant water in Aenon near Salim, John did baptizing there, and people continued coming to him to be immersed. (John 3:23, 24)

In the minds of the Jews who disputed with John’s disciples about purification, baptism would have been associated with cleansing, especially in view of the call to repentance. The nature of the argument is not specified in the account. In view of what his disciples later said to John, it would appear that the dispute centered on what seemed to be competing baptisms. John had ceased to be the only one doing baptizing. The disciples of John called to his attention that the one concerning whom he had testified was baptizing and that “all” were going to him. They attributed to Jesus what his disciples were doing and appear to have been disturbed by the decreasing number of people coming to John. (John 3:25, 26)

Responding to their concern, John told them that a man cannot receive anything unless it has been given him from above or by God. As he reminded them, they knew full well that he had said, “I am not the Christ,” and that he had been sent to prepare the way before him. Likening himself to the bridegroom’s friend, John continued, “The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The bridegroom’s friend stands and hears him, rejoicing greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore, this, my joy, has been made complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:27-30)

The Son of God had come from above and so was above all. Although a prophet, John had not come from the realm above. He was from the earth and was limited to conveying information that related to the earthly sphere. Although God’s unique Son had come from heaven and is above all and could testify about things that no one from the earth had seen or heard, people generally did not accept his testimony. (John 3:31, 32)

The person accepting this testimony placed his seal upon it, certifying that God is true or that he had kept his word to send the one who was promised to come. With the fullness of God’s spirit operating upon him (unlike the prophets to whom the spirit had been given by measure), Jesus spoke his Father’s words. As the one whom he dearly loved, the Father had given everything into the hands of his Son — everything relating to the eternal future of the world of mankind. To have faith in the Son would result in coming into possession of eternal life or a life distinguished by an abiding relationship with the Father. Those who reject the Son will not see life or experience an abiding life as persons whom the Father approves and loves. As persons against whom a record of sin remains, they continue to be the objects of God’s wrath or disapproval. (John 3:33-36)

Whereas Jesus’ disciples and not he himself did baptizing, the news reached the Pharisees that he was making and baptizing more disciples than John. Learning about this development, Jesus left Judea and returned to Galilee. (John 4:1-3) According to Matthew 4:12 and Mark 1:14, Jesus’ departure coincided with John’s arrest and imprisonment for having exposed the wrongness of Herod Antipas’s incestuous relationship with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. (Mark 6:17, 18) This suggests that the apparent jealousy of the Pharisees and John’s imprisonment created an environment hostile to Jesus. As his time for laying down his life had not yet come, he may have left for Galilee, where the potential personal risks would not have been as great.

Notes:

There is a question as to whether the words of John 3:31-36 are part of John the Baptist’s testimony. The revelatory nature of the comments about God’s Son would seem to indicate that this is a summation of the gospel writer. As in the case of verses 16-21, translators vary respecting the placement of the closing quotation marks, either including verses 31 through 36 or ending the quotation with verse 30.

The location of Aenon near Salim is uncertain.

In Samaria (John 4)

On their way to Galilee, Jesus and his disciples traveled the more direct route through Samaria. Arriving at a well the patriarch Jacob had dug centuries earlier and which was in a field that came to be the legal possession of Joseph, Jesus, tired from the journey, seated himself there while his disciples went into the nearby city of Sychar to buy food. It was about the sixth hour or noon (according to Jewish reckoning). (John 4:4-6, 8)

When a Samaritan woman arrived to draw water from the well, Jesus asked her to give him a drink. Surprised that a Jew would ask a Samaritan for a drink (as Jews did not associate with Samaritans), she said, “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” Endeavoring to shift her focus to what he could provide for her, Jesus replied, “If you had known the gift of God and the one who said to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The Samaritan woman, however, did not understand what Jesus meant but continued to focus on literal water, telling him that he had no means for drawing water from the deep well. “Where, then,” she asked, “can you get this living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob who gave us the well and who himself and his sons and his flocks drank from it?” (John 4:7-12)

Drawing a distinction between the water from the well and the “water” he could provide, Jesus said, “Everyone drinking from this water will get thirsty again. The one, however, drinking from the water I shall give him will never thirst, but the water I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” With her mind still fixed on water, the woman did not comprehend Jesus’ words. “Sir, give me this water,” she said, “that I may not thirst and may not have to come here to draw [water].” (John 4:13-15)

If the Scriptural account basically contains the entire conversation, Jesus did not explain how his words related to him and how, through him, all that was essential for eternal life could be obtained. He used another approach to direct her attention beyond her mundane concerns, asking her to call her husband. Acknowledging the correctness of her response about not having a husband, Jesus continued, “You have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband.” His reply made her realize that he was no ordinary man. He was a prophet. This prompted her to bring up a matter that had seemingly lain dormant in her mind. “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain [Gerizim], but you [Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship.” Her implied question was, Which view is correct? (John 4:16-20)

Jesus then revealed that the time was at hand when geographical locations would cease to have any bearing on worship. “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You [Samaritans] worship what you do not know. We [Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is [here], when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for also such ones the Father seeks to worship him. God [is] spirit, and those worshiping him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:21-24)

With Jesus’ arrival as the promised Messiah, the “hour” or time had come for a change in the arrangement for worship. No longer would worship be associated with a specific location like Mount Gerizim or the temple in Jerusalem. Because the Samaritans were only acquainted with the Pentateuch and did not have the complete revelation about God available in the writings of the Hebrew prophets, they were worshiping one whom they did not fully know. The Jews, on the other hand, were in possession of all the “holy writings.” From among them, the Messiah was promised to come. Therefore, as Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews.”

Worship “in spirit” is not dependent on a particular location or any other external factors. Regardless of the time or circumstances, true worshipers are in possession of a worshipful attitude. Worship “in truth” harmonizes with the complete revelation the Father has provided respecting himself. The full disclosure became available through his Son, who is the “truth.” Jesus flawlessly mirrored his Father. Therefore, seeing the Son was just like seeing God. The Father is seeking those whose worship is not governed by externals. He is “spirit” and therefore not to be linked in any way to the realm of the physical. Worship that is acceptable to him must be “in spirit and truth,” reflecting who he is (based on the complete revelation he has provided). Being “in truth,” such worship would also be genuine and not a mere expression of the lips or a ritualistic routine. (Compare 1 John 3:18.)

At this point, the woman acknowledged that she knew Messiah was coming and that he would make everything known. In keeping with her expectation about the Messiah, Jesus identified himself openly to her in a way that he did not among his own people. “I am [the Messiah], the one speaking to you.” (John 4:25, 26)

In the then-existing culture, men did not freely converse with women in the manner that Jesus did. So, when the disciples returned from having purchased food, they wondered why he was speaking with a woman, but no one could bring himself to ask what she wanted or why Jesus was speaking to her. (John 4:27)

Indicating that she planned to return, the woman left her water jar and headed back to the city. As Jesus had revealed that he knew intimate details about her life, she invited men of the city to see the man who had told her “all” that she had done and expressed the thought that he could be the Messiah. Based on her words, the men departed from the city to meet Jesus. (John 4:28-30)

During the intervening time, the disciples asked Jesus to eat. He, though, told them, “I have food to eat of which you have no knowledge.” This perplexed the disciples, causing them to wonder whether someone else had brought him something to eat. Clarifying his statement, Jesus continued, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, ‘Yet [éti, missing in a number of ancient manuscripts] four months it is, and [then] comes the harvest’? Look! I say to you, raise your eyes and behold the fields, that they are white, [ready] for [the] harvest. Already the reaper is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. For in this, the saying is true, ‘One is the sower, and another the reaper.’ I sent you to harvest [that] on which you had not labored. Others labored, and you have entered into their labor,” benefiting from the preparatory work others had performed. (John 4:31-38)

For Jesus, doing his Father’s will brought refreshment comparable to partaking of nourishment. The fields ripe for harvesting denoted the people who would be ready to respond to the message about him that his disciples would proclaim. The Samaritans who were then making their way to see Jesus illustrated the bountiful harvest of people that lay ahead. Those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God would come into possession of eternal life (a life distinguished by an abiding relationship with him and his Father). As “fruit” of the harvest, people would be gathered for eternal life.

The time would come when both those who shared in the preparatory work and those who participated in the harvest could rejoice together. The Hebrew prophets had labored while subjected to abuse and bitter opposition, and their words survived in written form, giving rise to hope respecting the coming of the Messiah. The last of the prophets who had faithfully labored until his arrest and imprisonment was John the Baptist. Even the testimony of the Samaritan woman about her conversation with Jesus served as preparatory sowing. Jesus’ disciples would benefit from all the sowing that had been done in the past, finding joy in gathering “fruit for eternal life.”

Based on what the woman had told them, many Samaritans came to believe in Jesus. Her basic message about him was, “He told me everything I did.” The Samaritans asked Jesus to stay with them, and he accepted their invitation, remaining with them for two days. Based on their personal experience with Jesus, many more came to believe. They then told the woman that their conviction was not based on just what she had said, adding, “We know that he is truly the Savior of the world.” (John 4:39-42)

The faith many Samaritans showed is remarkable. They did not see Jesus perform a single miraculous sign but believed in him because of what they first heard he said to the woman and, later, what they heard from him personally.

Whether Jesus’ disciples remained with him two extra days in Samaria is not specifically stated in the biblical account. At some point during the course of their travel northward, however, they began to head to their own homes.

After the two days in Samaria, Jesus departed for Galilee. Whereas the Samaritans had invited him to stay, he could testify that in his own country (or among his own people) a prophet has no honor. (John 4:43, 44)

Notes:

Sychar is considered to be ancient Shechem. See http://bibleplaces.com/shechem.htm for pictures of and comments about Sychar and Mount Gerizim.

The words about four months until the harvest may have been a proverbial saying, indicating that from sowing until harvesting was a period of four months. As a proverbial saying, the reference would provide no clue as to time of the year Jesus and his disciples were in Samaria.

In John 4:35, the Greek word héde (already) may either indicate that the fields were already white for harvesting or that the reaper was already receiving wages.

Return to Galilee and Jesus’ Activity There

The Second “Sign” in Galilee (John 4:43-54)

At the seven-day festival following the Passover, the Galileans present for the observance had witnessed Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem, including his miraculous signs and his cleansing the temple of commercial activity. Based on what they had seen, they welcomed him. (John 4:45)

Arriving in Cana, where he had earlier turned water into wine, he met a royal official from Capernaum, where Peter and Andrew and seemingly also James and John resided. This official’s son was seriously ill. Upon learning that Jesus had come from Judea, this man set out to meet him, requesting that he come to Capernaum to heal his boy who was then close to death. (4:46, 47)

Jesus responded, “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe.” (John 4:48) According to the Greek text, the verbs are second person verbs, not the singular (“you see” and “you believe”). This suggests that Jesus’ words were designed to test the genuineness of the royal official’s faith. Was the man like the many others who personally wanted to see signs and wonders before they would put faith in Jesus?

This official’s next words reflected the desperate plea of a father for his son and the belief that Jesus alone could cure him. “Sir [or, Lord], come down before my boy dies.” Instead of accompanying the father back to Capernaum, Jesus told him to return, assuring him, “Your son lives.” He believed what Jesus told him and departed. The measure of faith he had then manifested was strengthened during the trip back to Capernaum. While he was on his way, his slaves met him, telling him that his son was alive and well. In response to his inquiry about when his son’s health improved, the slaves said, “Yesterday, in the seventh hour [about 1:00 p.m., according to Jewish reckoning], the fever left him.” This was the very time Jesus had said to him, “Your son lives.” Therefore, he “believed” (evidently in Jesus and with greater conviction than he had upon first heading back to Capernaum) and so did his household. (4:49-53)

This was the “second sign” Jesus performed in Galilee, and the first one since his return from Judea. How many miracles Jesus did earlier in Judea is not disclosed in the biblical accounts. (John 4:54) Like the other miracles, the “second sign” served to identify Jesus as the Son of God. It demonstrated the greatness of the divine power operating through him, as he did not have to be present personally for the cure to occur.

Return to Nazareth (Luke 4:14-30)

With God’s spirit operating mightily upon him, Jesus began to teach in the synagogues of Galilee. Many began to talk about him in a favorable way and the news about him spread. As a result, he came to be honored or highly respected by all. (Luke 4:14, 15)

Wherever he traveled in Galilee, Jesus proclaimed “the evangel of God.” Being of God, this message was one his Father willed for him to preach. The evangel, good news, or glad tidings Jesus proclaimed revealed that the time had been fulfilled, indicating that the time had come for the arrival of the Messiah in fulfillment of the promise made through the prophets. “The kingdom of God” had then drawn near, for Jesus, the Messiah or Christ of God and the King of Israel (as Nathanael had earlier acknowledged him to be), was then in the midst of the Jews. Jesus called upon his people to repent and to believe in the evangel, the glad tidings that focused on him as the Messiah, the Son of God. (Mark 1:14, 15; John 1:49)

He returned to Nazareth where he had spent most of his life and had labored as a carpenter. On the Sabbath day, as was his custom, he went into the synagogue, where the Scriptures were read aloud to those assembled. He apparently was invited to read and stood up to do so. After being handed the scroll of Isaiah, he located the section from where he would begin and then started to read, “[The] spirit of the Lord [YHWH (in the Hebrew text of Isaiah)] [is] upon me, for he has anointed me to proclaim glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to announce release to the captives and to give sight to the blind, to send off the oppressed for release, to announce the favorable year of the Lord [YHWH (in the Hebrew text of Isaiah)].” (Luke 4:16-19)

After completing the reading, Jesus rolled up the scroll and handed it to the attendant (to be properly stored) and then sat down. Whereas the individual would read while standing, he would make any explanatory comments from a seated position. Therefore, when Jesus sat down, all eyes in the synagogue focused on him, waiting for him to comment. It appears that his opening words were, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing [literally, “in your ears”]).” The fact that those in the synagogue reportedly “testified” or made favorable comments and marveled at the gracious words he spoke indicates that Jesus provided a more extensive exposition. Nevertheless, they considered him as just one of the common people of Nazareth, saying, “Is this not the son of Joseph?” (Luke 4:20-22)

Discerning their attitude, Jesus responded, “All of you will say to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ The things we heard you did in Capernaum do also here in your own home [area].” Continuing, Jesus told them “that no prophet is accepted in his home [area].” Calling attention to ancient history, he said, “There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was shut for three years and six months (as great famine came to be over all the land), and to none of them was Elijah sent but to a widowed woman of Zarephath of Sidon. And there were many lepers in Israel [during the time] of Elisha the prophet, and none of them were cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.” (Luke 4:23-27)

Jesus’ words forced those assembled in the synagogue to look at their unbelief in him against the backdrop of their ancient history. Their ancestors had not honored the prophets, with resultant loss to themselves. Yet, non-Israelites (the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian) had been richly blessed through them. Instead of accepting the lesson of ancient history and coming to see their error in the way they looked upon Jesus and their wanting to see signs, those in the synagogue became filled with rage. Angered that they had been likened to faithless Israelites in the days of Elijah and Elisha, they seized Jesus and led him away to the edge of the hill on which the Nazareth was built. Their intent was to throw him down from the elevated location. He, however, got free, passed through the midst of the group, and went on his way. (Luke 4:28-30)

Notes:

See http://bibleplaces.com/nazareth.htm for pictures of and comments about Nazareth.

The expressions “kingdom of God, “kingdom of the heavens,” and “kingdom” all relate to God’s rule by means of his Son. The kingdom is the royal realm where God’s reign is recognized and believers enjoy the protective care and blessings promised to them. With the arrival of the Messiah or God’s appointed King, the kingdom had drawn near, and the time had come for individuals to become part of the royal realm as persons who had repented of their sins and wanted to be under divine sovereignty to be exercised through him. The praiseworthy change in the lives of Christ’s disciples, which transformation is effected through God’s spirit, constitutes the evidence of the kingdom’s operation. Yet future is the coming of the kingdom in power, when Christ will manifest his royal authority and remove all who violently oppose him and reward his genuine disciples by having them share in his rule as God’s anointed one.

In Luke 4:18, later manuscripts include the words “heal the brokenhearted,” and this addition may be attributed to copyists who thought to harmonize the quotation with the reading of the Septuagint (Isaiah 61:1), which reading also agrees with the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. Whereas Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint, as in the quotation in Luke 4:18, refers to restoring sight to the blind, the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah do not mention the blind. The Hebrew text has been commonly understood to refer to the release of persons who are bound or confined in prison.

At his baptism, Jesus had been anointed with God’s spirit, and was thus empowered to fulfill the commission contained in Isaiah’s prophecy. The “poor” designated the afflicted and disadvantaged who recognized their need for God’s help. Burdened by the weight of human traditions that went far beyond the requirements of the law, the Jews found themselves in the condition of captives. For responsive ones, the liberating message Jesus proclaimed led to their gaining refreshing freedom. Jesus made it possible for those who had been spiritually blinded by the religious leaders to see clearly, accepting him as the promised Messiah. He also opened the eyes of those who were physically blind. The proclamation of “release” to the oppressed may allude to the kind of release associated with the Jubilee year when Israelites who had sold themselves into slavery were again free and had their land inheritance restored to them. For all who then found themselves in an afflicted or oppressed state, the glad tidings Jesus announced brought hope and comfort comparable to a release from distress in the Jubilee year. It was then the “year” for gaining God’s favor or a favorable time the Most High was extending to become recipients of his approval and blessing.

In Luke 4:19, the quotation could either be understood to mean “to announce the favorable year of the Lord” or “to announce the year of the Lord’s favor.” The extant text of Isaiah 61:2 in the Septuagint has a form of the Greek word kaléo (“to call,” “to summon”) instead of kerysso (“to proclaim,” “to announce,” “to preach”)

According to Luke 4:23, Jesus had already done things in Capernaum. Based on John’s account, this could have included the healing of the royal official’s son. While Jesus had earlier spent time in Capernaum, none of the biblical accounts mention his having performed any miracles at that time. Whether Jesus spent time in Capernaum on another occasion prior to his return to Nazareth or whether Luke’s account here does not follow a strict sequential order cannot be determined with certainty.

Jesus Invites Peter, Andrew, James and John to Be Fishers of Men (Luke 5:1-11)

After leaving Nazareth, Jesus made his home in Capernaum and, initially, appears to have labored alone, proclaiming the need for repentance and the news that the “kingdom of heaven” or the “kingdom of God” had come near. Galilee included the ancient tribal territories of Zebulun and Naphtali. Jesus’ ministry there fulfilled the prophetic words of Isaiah: “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, [by] way of the sea, across from the Jordan, Galilee of the nations — the people sitting in darkness have seen a great light, and for those sitting in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.” (Matthew 4:13-17; see the Notes section for additional comments about Isaiah’s prophecy.)

In time, Jesus began to choose men from among his disciples to be more closely associated with him in his activity. On one occasion, as he stood beside the Sea of Galilee (the lake of Gennesaret), many people gathered around him and were pressing in upon him, desiring to hear the “word of God.” On the shore were two boats, and the fishermen were washing their nets. Jesus stepped into the boat belonging to Simon Peter and asked him to pull out a short distance from the shore. Seating himself in the boat, Jesus began to teach the crowds. (Luke 5:1-3)

After having finished speaking, he told Peter and his brother Andrew to take the boat to deep water and let down their nets for a catch. Although having toiled all night without catching anything, Simon Peter agreed to act on Jesus’ directive. Upon doing so, Peter and Andrew caught so many fish that the nets began to rip. They motioned to their partners, James and John (the sons of Zebedee), to come to assist them. (Luke 5:4-7)

Together, they filled both boats to the point that they were about to sink. Seemingly because of feeling unworthy on account of being a sinner, Simon Peter fell to his knees before Jesus, and was emotionally moved to say, “Go away from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord.” The tremendous catch of fish astonished all four fishermen, and Jesus reassured Peter, “Fear not; from now on you will be catching men.” After bringing the boats back to the shore, Peter, Andrew, James, and John responded to the call to follow Jesus. (Luke 5:7-11; see the Notes section for more details.)

Departing from the seashore, Jesus and his disciples walked to Capernaum. (Mark 1:21) They probably headed for the home of Peter and Andrew.

Notes:

The quotation from Isaiah 8:23(9:1) and 9:1(2) in Matthew 4:15, 16 varies somewhat from the extant text of Septuagint manuscripts. The Septuagint reads, “Country of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali, [by] way of the sea, and the rest who dwell by the seashore and across from the Jordan, Galilee of the nations, the parts of Judea: O people who walk in darkness, see a great light! O dwellers in the country and shadow of death, light will shine upon you.”

Not all Septuagint manuscripts include the words “way of the sea.” The expression “across from the Jordan,” as relates to the location of Galilee, would mean the region across from the Jordan when coming from the east.

After “land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,” the Masoretic Text reads, “and in the latter time he will cause the way of the sea to be honored.” This differs considerably from the extant Septuagint text, which mentions no such development regarding the “way of the sea.”

Situated in the northern part of the ten-tribe kingdom, Naphtali and Zebulun often suffered from enemy attacks. During the reign of Pekah, Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III invaded, conquering Galilee and taking inhabitants of Naphtali into exile. (2 Kings 15:29) As Isaiah 8:22 indicates, this proved to be a period of distress and darkness, with no bright prospect. The time would come, however, when such humiliating treatment as the Assyrians had meted out would not be experienced, when Naphtali and Zebulun would be honored. After the exile, the region of Galilee again became populous. Contrasting with the gloom and distress of the past, the time of restoration was a period of joy comparable to a celebration at the time of harvest. (Isaiah 9:3) As if a new day had dawned, the darkness had been dispelled. Where people had once walked in darkness or resided in gloom on account of difficult circumstances, living in the land of “deep shadow,” there then came to be a light.

Centuries later, when God’s Son engaged in extensive activity around the Sea of Galilee, light did indeed shine upon the people. As the “light of the world” (John 8:12), Jesus Christ brought comfort and hope to the oppressed and disadvantaged ones. He also liberated many from their physical afflictions. Most importantly, he refreshed them spiritually and opened up to all who accepted him the inestimable honor of being God’s children and benefiting from his guidance and loving care.

The events surrounding the response of Peter, Andrew, James, and John to Jesus’ invitation to follow him are presented in a very brief way in Matthew and Mark. According to Matthew’s account, Jesus walked along the shore of the Sea of Galilee when he saw Peter and Andrew casting a net into the sea. He invited them to follow him and told them he would make them “fishers of men.” “They immediately left their nets and followed him.” He then saw the brothers James and John in the boat with their father Zebedee. They were mending their nets. When Jesus called them, they immediately left the boat and their father to follow him. (Matthew 4:18-22) Mark’s account is almost identical, with the exception of the addition that there were also hired men with Zebedee. (Mark 1:16-20) This detail reveals that James and John did not leave their father without assistance.

Luke’s account provides more detail, and first introduces the four fisherman as being outside their boats and washing their nets. Initially, though, as Matthew reports, Jesus may have seen Peter and Andrew casting a net into the sea. After the surprisingly large catch of fish, Peter and Andrew brought their boat to the shore, as did James and John. A comparatively short distance would have separated the two boats, and the men would have busied themselves in attending to the catch.

During fishing operations, nets would at times tear, and so it would not have been unusual for Jesus later to have seen James and John mending their nets. When Peter and Andrew tried to pull up the large catch, their nets did tear. The account does not say that James and John, on coming to assist, also used their nets and that these ripped in the process. This is, however, a possibility. On the other hand, James and John may have been mending tears in their nets from other fishing operations.

In Luke 5:10, the reassurance about not being afraid is specifically directed to Peter. The aspect concerning “catching men,” however, applied to all four fishermen, as the Greek verb for “will be catching” is second person plural.

The condensed accounts should clearly not be taken to mean that Peter and Andrew left the fish to rot in the boat and the nets in disarray. The major change in their life was that they were from then onward far more closely associated with Jesus in his activity and witnessed most of what he said and did. The biblical accounts serve to identify Jesus as the Son of God, and how the disciples cared for family affairs during this period does not contribute to the all-important message. So the absence of this kind of information should not be taken to mean that the disciples neglected basic responsibilities and left wives and children to fend for themselves as best they could. When Jesus extended the invitation to Peter, Andrew, James, and John to follow him, they did not put off accepting it but responded without delay. They let nothing interfere with what acceptance of Jesus’ invitation required of them. As “fishers of men,” they would search for responsive ones and share with them the message that Jesus directed them to proclaim.

It may be noted that the disciples continued to use a boat, likely the one belonging to Peter. After Jesus’ resurrection, Peter and six other disciples went fishing, and the net in which 153 large fish were caught was in good condition. (Matthew 8:23; 9:1; 13:1, 2; 14:13, 22; 15:39; Mark 3:9; Luke 8:22, 23; John 21:2, 3, 11)

See http://bibleplaces.com/seagalilee.htm for pictures of and comments about the Sea of Galilee.

In the Synagogue of Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37)

On the Sabbath day, Jesus, accompanied by the four disciples, went to the synagogue and began to teach those assembled. His teaching “astonished” (ekplésso) the people, for he taught as one having authority and not as did the scribes. Whereas the scribes quoted prominent rabbis from the past, Jesus did not base his teaching on tradition but made direct application of the Scriptures (as evident from later accounts about his teaching). (Mark 1:21, 22; Luke 4:31, 32)

Suddenly, a man, under the influence of an “unclean spirit” or the “spirit of an unclean demon” began to scream, “What [is there between] us and you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the holy one of God.” Jesus did not allow any further expressions, saying: “Be silent and come out from him.” At that, the man was seized by a convulsion and a loud scream followed. Unharmed by the convulsion, the man was freed from his affliction. Amazed, those who witnessed this exclaimed, “What is this? A new teaching? With authority [“and power,” Luke 4:36], he commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” Thereafter word about this incident spread to other parts of Galilee. (Mark 1:23-28; Luke 4:33-37)

The way those in the synagogue expressed themselves shows that they did not recognize that the powerful work they had witnessed revealed Jesus to be the promised Messiah. Their amazement appears to have been limited to attributing the development to a new teaching.

Notes:

The Greek word ekplésso (“to be astonished,” “astounded,” or “amazed”) may also signify “to be shocked.” At least a number of those in the synagogue may have been disturbed or shocked about the manner of Jesus’ teaching. It is not uncommon for people to become uncomfortable when experiencing something unfamiliar or new to them.

Possibly persons whose affliction was attributed to an “unclean demon” would repeatedly scream filthy and abusive terms. The many instances of demon possession may not, in every case, have been such. In the first century, serious mental illness and other ailments were often regarded as being caused by malign spirits. While there are definite instances (based on the details provided) that point to actual demon possession, often those who brought the afflicted ones to Jesus believed this to be the reason for the suffering. The Son of God would have dealt with the situation according to then-existing beliefs, as the people would not have understood any explanation about the real cause of serious mental illness and other ailments. Just as Jesus “rebuked” the fever of Peter’s mother-in-law (Luke 4:39), he would have “rebuked” the agent people believed to be responsible for the suffering of the afflicted individuals.

See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.

Healing Peter’s Mother-in-Law and Other Afflicted Ones (Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 1:29-39; Luke 4:38-44)

Jesus and his disciples left the synagogue and entered the home of Peter and Andrew. At the time, Peter’s mother-in-law had a high fever. Informed about this, Jesus took hold of her hand, raised her up, and “rebuked the fever.” Liberated from the fever and with her full strength restored, the mother-in-law got up and began to serve Jesus and the others, probably providing food for them. (Matthew 8:14, 15; Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38, 39)

In the evening, after the Sabbath had ended at sundown, people came to the home, bringing the sick and those they believed were suffering from demon possession. Jesus healed the sick and those who were possessed, many of whom screamed, “You are the Son of God.” He, however, did not permit them to speak, as they knew him to be the Christ. The cures Jesus effected fulfilled the words of Isaiah’s prophecy (53:4), “He took our infirmities [away] and carried our diseases.” (Matthew 8:16, 17; Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40, 41)

It appears that Jesus stayed overnight at Peter’s home. While it was still dark, he got up early in the morning and then headed for an isolated area, where he could pray. (Mark 1:35)

In the meantime, people probably came to the house, looking for Jesus. Peter and the other disciples searched for him. Upon finding him, Peter said, “All are seeking you.” (Mark 1:36, 37) According to Luke’s account, quite a number of people seem to have followed the disciples and tried to prevent Jesus from leaving Capernaum. He, however, replied, “I must proclaim the glad tidings of the kingdom of God also in other cities, because for this [reason] I have been sent.” (Luke 4:42, 43) In Mark’s account, Jesus directed his words to Peter and the other disciples, “Let us go elsewhere, into the neighboring towns, that there also I may preach; for this [reason] I have come.” (Mark 1:38) Accompanied by his disciples, he went throughout Galilee, teaching in the synagogues, preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom, curing every disease and ailment among the people, and liberating many from the power of the demons. (Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:39)

Notes:

The inhabitants of Capernaum observed the Sabbath and so waited until after it ended to bring the sick and those suffering in other ways.

The quotation of Isaiah 53:4 in Matthew 8:17 does not follow the wording of the extant Septuagint text, which reads, “This one carries our sins and undergoes pain for us.” The quotation in Matthew does, however, agree with the reading of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. “Surely he has borne our sicknesses and carried our pains.” The extant Septuagint text is somewhat closer to the thought expressed in the Targum of Isaiah, “He shall pray for our transgressions and our iniquities.”

According to the reading of Luke 4:44 in the oldest manuscripts, Jesus preached in the “synagogues of Judea.” If this is the original reading, “synagogues of Judea” may designate the synagogues in the land where the Jews lived and not specifically those in the region known as Judea, situated on the southern border of Samaria. Later manuscripts read “Galilee.”

See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.

Healing a Leper (Matthew 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16)

During the course of Jesus’ activity in Galilee, a man afflicted with leprosy approached him. Kneeling before him and bowing down with his face touching the ground, he pleaded, “Lord, if you want to, you can make me clean.” Moved with compassion, Jesus reached out with his hand and touched him, saying, “I want to; be made clean.” Although the man had been “full of leprosy,” suggesting a serious advanced state, every trace of the disease vanished immediately. (Matthew 8:2, 3; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 5:12, 13)

Jesus sternly charged the healed leper not to let anyone know about his miraculous cure but to present himself before the priest and comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law “for a testimony to them.” By following the prescribed purification procedure, the cured leper would be pronounced clean, providing testimony to all that he had been healed. (Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14; see the Notes section for requirements of the Mosaic law.)

Instead of appreciatively heeding Jesus’ directive, the healed leper spread the news far and wide. As a result, crowds would gather and Jesus could no longer enter cities openly. So he remained in the sparsely populated areas, but the crowds still kept coming to hear him and to be healed. (Mark 1:45; Luke 5:15) In order to have the needed privacy for prayer, Jesus had to find deserted places. (Luke 5:16)

Notes:

The Greek term for leprosy (lépra) can refer to a variety of skin diseases, including the disfiguring Hansen’s disease.

In Mark 1:41, a form of splanchnízomai (have compassion) is supported by the reading of most manuscripts. A fifth-century manuscript contains a form of orgízo (to be angry). This reading may have arisen from an effort to harmonize the stern charge Jesus gave the man not to spread the news and then dismissing him with the directive to show himself to the priest. The compassion the Son of God showed, however, would not preclude his being firm about not wanting talk about his healing activity to be spread.

According to the law, the priest would examine the healed leper and determine whether the diseased condition no longer existed. This would be followed by a cleansing ceremony involving the use of two birds, cedarwood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop. One of the birds would be killed over an earthen vessel containing “living” water (fresh or spring water, not stagnant water from a cistern), allowing the blood to flow into the vessel. With the yarn, the living bird and the hyssop would be attached to the wood and dipped into the vessel. The water mingled with blood would be sprinkled seven times upon the cured leper. Thereafter the living bird would be released to fly away. (Leviticus 14:2-7)

The cured leper would wash his garments, shave off all his bodily hair, and bathe. Seven days later, he would again shave off all his bodily hair, wash his garments, and bathe. On the eighth day, he, depending on whether he could afford to do so, would offer two unblemished male lambs, one unblemished female lamb, three-tenths of an ephah (about six dry quarts) of choice flour mixed with olive oil, and one “log” (possibly about two-thirds of a pint) of olive oil. With the prescribed amount of olive oil, the priest would present one of the lambs as a guilt offering. He would then take some of the blood of the slaughtered lamb and put it on the cured leper’s right earlobe, thumb of the right hand, and big toe of the right foot. After sprinkling seven times before God with his right finger the olive oil he had poured into his left palm, the priest would apply some of the oil where he had put the blood — the right earlobe, the thumb of the right hand, and the big toe of the right foot. He would then put all the remaining olive oil on the head of the cured leper. Thereafter the priest would offer one of the lambs (probably the female lamb; compare Leviticus 4:32) as a sin offering and the other lamb as a burnt offering, accompanied by the grain offering. (Leviticus 14:8-20)

For one who could not afford all these offerings, two pigeons or two turtledoves could be substituted for one of the male lambs and the female lamb. The amount of choice flour would be reduced to one-tenth ephah (over two dry quarts). The procedure followed would remain the same. (Leviticus 14:21-31)

Healing a Paralytic in Capernaum (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26)

When Jesus returned to Capernaum (his “own city”) with his disciples, he likely stayed in the home of Peter and Andrew. Once it became known that Jesus was again in the city, many people came to the house. According to Luke’s account (5:17), among them were Pharisees and teachers of the law from towns in Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. It would appear that the crowd filled the house and the courtyard. So many had gathered that even outside the home the entrance was blocked. (Matthew 9:1; Mark 2:1, 2)

While Jesus addressed the people, four men came, carrying a paralytic on a mat. Unable to get to Jesus, the men climbed up the outside stairs to the flat roof. They then dug an opening through the earthen roof and lowered the paralytic in front of Jesus. Seeing this evidence of their faith in him as one who could cure the paralyzed man, Jesus said, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” (Matthew 9:2; Mark 2:3-5; Luke 5:18-20)

Hearing this, the scribes and Pharisees who were there began to reason within themselves that Jesus was blaspheming, as only God could forgive sins. Discerning their thoughts, he said, “Why are you thinking these things [evil (Matthew 9:4)] in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and pick up your mat and walk?” (Matthew 9:3-5; Mark 2:6-9; Luke 5:21-23)

To let them know that he, the Son of Man, had “authority to forgive sins,” Jesus said to the paralytic, “I say to you, Get up, take your mat, and go to your home.” The paralytic then got up, immediately picked up his mat, and departed in front of the amazed onlookers. Those who witnessed this miracle were filled with a reverential fear and glorified or praised God, saying, “Never have we seen anything like this!” (Matthew 9:6-8; Mark 2:10-12; Luke 5:24-26)

Notes:

Much of Jesus’ activity centered in Capernaum and, therefore, came to be known as his “own city.” (Matthew 9:1)

See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.

In Matthew 9:2 and Mark 2:5, Jesus is quoted as addressing the paralytic as “child,” whereas Luke 5:20 says “man.” This could be understood to mean that the paralytic was a young man. Another possibility is that the designation “child” functions as an expression of compassionate or loving concern for the paralytic and could be rendered “my dear man.”

As the unique Son of God who would lay down his life in sacrifice to make forgiveness possible for all who responded in faith, Jesus, while on earth, possessed the authority to forgive sins. He discerned the genuineness of the paralytic’s faith and responded to him accordingly.

Physical ailments were commonly attributed to a person’s having sinned. On one occasion the disciples expressed that belief regarding a blind man, asking whether his blindness was to be attributed to his own sin or that of his parents. (John 9:2) When assuring the paralytic that his sins had been forgiven, Jesus made it clear to him that he was not under God’s disfavor. Therefore, upon being cured physically, the man also ceased to be burdened by any feelings of guilt. The assurance of forgiveness, confirmed by the miracle, resulted in making him well in all respects. While this assurance caused the scribes and Pharisees to find fault, it served to benefit that formerly afflicted man. In his love and compassion, Jesus did not hold back from saying what was needed despite knowing the kind of unfavorable reaction that was forthcoming from some who were then present.

Jesus’ telling the paralytic that his sins had been forgiven would not have proved that this had actually occurred nor could it be disproved with tangible evidence. When, however, the paralytic got up and walked away with his mat, Jesus’ words were undeniably confirmed. Therefore, the more difficult saying, the one requiring a miracle for it to be revealed as authoritative, was to say to the paralytic, “Get up and pick up your mat and walk.” (Mark 2:9)

It is most unlikely that those who witnessed the miracle would all have used the same words. This is reflected in the difference between Mark 2:12 (“Never have we seen anything like this!”) and Luke 5:26 (“We saw remarkable things today!”).

Jesus Calls Matthew to Follow Him (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32)

Matthew (also known as Levi) doubtless was one of the tax collectors who responded to John the Baptist’s call to repentance. From the place where he collected taxes near the Sea of Galilee (probably on the outskirts of Capernaum), Matthew may often have heard Jesus speak and must have known about his many miracles. Therefore, when Jesus called him to follow him while he was seated at the tax collector’s booth, Matthew did not hesitate to do so. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:13, 14; Luke 5:27, 28)

Probably to celebrate the honor that had been extended to him and to inform his friends and acquaintances about his new role, he invited them to his home for a banquet along with Jesus and his disciples. Observing this, the Pharisees and scribes made an issue of it, saying to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat [and drink (Luke 5:30)] with the tax collectors and sinners?” They implied that Jesus desired the company of those who failed to live up to the law. Tax collectors were in the service of a foreign power (Rome) and had a reputation for dishonesty, charging more than the required tax rate to make gain for themselves. As a tax collector, Matthew would not have been regarded as a desirable associate. Understandably, therefore, his guests were fellow tax collectors and others with a bad reputation. (Matthew 9:10, 11; Mark 2:15, 16; Luke 5:29, 30)

Overhearing their complaining, Jesus corrected the wrong view of the Pharisees and scribes, telling them that those who were well, unlike the ailing, did not need a physician. The Pharisees and scribes imagined themselves to be in an acceptable condition before God and so were unaware of their need of the kind of spiritual healing available through Jesus. The sinners and tax collectors, on the other hand, recognized their need for repentance and forgiveness. They welcomed Jesus as one who could help them. (Matthew 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31)

Backing his statement from the Scriptures, Jesus quoted from Hosea 6:6 and directed the Pharisees and scribes to learn from the words, “I want mercy and not sacrifice.” In keeping with his Father’s desire for mercy to be shown to those in need, Jesus pointed out that he came to call sinners, not the righteous, that is, those who regarded themselves as righteous before God by reason of their legalistic observance of the law. In reality, though, they were not truly upright, failing to manifest the love, justice, and compassion that the law required. (Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; compare Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42.)

A Question About Fasting (Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39)

It appears that Jesus banqueted with his disciples on what may have been a fast day (either Monday or Thursday) observed by the Pharisees. This prompted some disciples of John the Baptist to ask him, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [often (not in all manuscripts of Matthew)], but your disciples do not fast?” (Matthew 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

In reply, Jesus indicated that it was inappropriate for the guests [literally, “sons”] of the bridegroom to fast while the bridegroom was with them. When, however, he would be taken away from them, they would fast. (Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19, 20; Luke 5:34, 35) Illustrating the point further, Jesus used two likenesses or parables.

No one would patch an old garment with a new, unshrunk piece of cloth. Upon being washed, the new fabric would shrink, pull away from the material of the old garment, and worsen the tear. (Matthew 9:16; Mark 2:21) Luke 5:36 identifies the source of the patch as a new garment. The new fabric would not match the old cloth, and both garments would be ruined.

No one would put new wine into old wineskins. Lacking elasticity, the old wineskins would burst from the fermenting of the new wine, and the new wine would spill out. To prevent this, new wine would be poured into new wineskins. (Matthew 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37, 38)

People, however, have a tendency to resist change, preferring the old and familiar. As Jesus said, “No one who has drunk the old [wine] wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’” (Luke 5:39)

By means of the parables, the Son of God emphasized that his teaching could not be fitted into the old traditional mold. Any attempt to do so would work out ruinously for his dynamic teaching and would wreck the old traditional way. This should have helped the disciples of John the Baptist to see that their loyalty to him was not to interfere with their becoming Jesus’ disciples, as John’s preparatory work had served its purpose.

Notes:

Matthew, Mark and Luke word the point about fasting somewhat differently. “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [often], but your disciples do not fast?” (Matthew 9:14) “Why do the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” (Mark 2:18) “The disciples of John fast frequently and pray, as also [do the disciples] of the Pharisees, but your [disciples] eat and drink.” (Luke 5:33) The differences in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are understandable. The words were not originally spoken in Greek, and the writers of the accounts conveyed the sense of what the disciples of John said and not their precise words.

During the time Jesus was dead, the disciples, overcome with grief, would doubtless have fasted. After his ascension to heaven, the disciples also fasted for specific reasons. In time, believers came to include Pharisees, and they may have continued with their fasting routine, as it was not wrong in itself. Generally, though, early believers do not appear to have set aside specific fast days.

In Jerusalem (John 5)

The various manuscript readings do not make it possible to determine for which festival Jesus went to Jerusalem. (John 5:1) While the oldest extant manuscripts omit the definite article before “festival” (heorté), many later manuscripts include it. Based on the definite article, many have thought that this would have been the most prominent of the three annual festivals — the Passover (followed by the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread). A ninth-century manuscript does, in fact, read ázymos, identifying the occasion as being the Festival of Unleavened Bread. A fourteenth-century manuscript, however, refers to it as “the Festival of Tabernacles” (he skenopegía).

While in Jerusalem, Jesus, on a Sabbath day, passed by the pool of Bethzatha (Bethesda or Bethsaida [according to other manuscript readings]), which was situated near the Sheep Gate, the northeastern entrance into the temple area. In the five porticoes that had been constructed for this pool, many afflicted persons were lying, including the blind, the lame, and the crippled. Among them was a man who had suffered from his ailment for 38 years. Aware of this man’s pitiable state for many years, Jesus said to him, “Do you want to get well?” The man explained that he had no one to put him into the pool when the water would get stirred up. While he would then try to make it into the pool, someone else would precede him. Jesus told him, “Rise, pick up your mat, and walk.” Immediately cured from his affliction, the man got up, took hold of his mat, and started to walk. (John 5:2-9)

Seeing the cured man carrying his mat, fellow Jews told him that it was unlawful for him to do this on the Sabbath. He replied that the man who had made him well had told him to pick up his mat and walk. Instead of rejoicing about the marvelous cure, the objectors continued to focus on what they perceived to be a violation of the law, saying, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up [your mat] and walk’?” The cured man could not answer this question, for Jesus had not identified himself and, because of the crowd there, had walked away. (John 5:10-13)

Later, Jesus found the cured man in the temple complex. Whether he chose to look for the man or just happened to meet him again is not disclosed in the biblical account. Jesus did use the opportunity to admonish him not to sin any more and thus to avoid having something even worse than the 38 years of suffering befall him. This could suggest that the man had in earlier years lived a sinful life that brought on his affliction. Now that he was again well he should have been concerned about not repeating past wrongs and sinning with full knowledge of the serious consequences. (John 5:14)

The biblical record does not state why the cured man felt impelled to reveal Jesus’ identity to the Jews who had accused him of breaking the law by carrying his mat on the Sabbath. It seems most unlikely that he thought that this would bring trouble to his benefactor. As he appears to have made a point of the fact that Jesus had restored him to sound health, the man may have felt that this would cause them to draw a positive conclusion about his healer and cease making an issue about his carrying the mat on the Sabbath. (John 5:15)

Those who regarded what had taken place in connection with the cured man as a violation of the law, however, made Jesus the object of their hostility. Establishing his right to do good deeds on the Sabbath, Jesus said to his opponents, “My Father has been working until now, and I continue working.” The Jews would have believed that God completed his creative activity but continued to work, extending his blessing and expressing his judgment. Based on their holy writings, they would have known that God’s works included healing and making alive. (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7) In imitation of his Father, Jesus continued to work, doing good deeds on the Sabbath. (John 5:16, 17)

Recognizing that he was referring to God as his Father in an intimate way, those hearing Jesus’ words became enraged, intent on killing him. In their minds, he had violated the Sabbath and called God his own Father in a very personal manner that was foreign to them, prompting them to conclude that he was blasphemously making himself “equal to” or like God. (John 5:18)

Jesus’ reply revealed that they were wrong in their thinking that he was making himself equal to God, for he never acted independently of his Father. He solemnly affirmed the certainty of his words with “amen, amen” and stressed that he did not act on his own authority respecting a single deed but only did what he saw his Father doing. Whatever the Father did, the Son did likewise. Calling attention to the close relationship with his Father, Jesus continued: “The Father loves the Son and shows him everything he himself does, and works greater than these he will show him, so that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and restores life, so also the Son restores life to whomever he wishes. For the Father judges no one but has granted all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Amen, amen, I say to you, that whoever hears my word and believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and is not condemned but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:19-24)

As the intimate and dearly beloved of his Father, the unique Son possessed complete knowledge of his Father’s activity. In this context, the deeds of the Father specifically relate to humankind. The Father would do works even more astonishing than one like the restoration of good health to the man who had been afflicted for 38 years. The more impressive works would amaze those beholding them. As Jesus’ words revealed, those astonishing works involved more than temporary cures from affliction. The Father would make it possible for his Son to raise the dead and give them life.

As the one to whom the Father had granted judgment authority, the Son would be in position to judge those whom he restored to life. Being the possessor of life-giving power like his Father and judge by his Father’s appointment, Jesus would be deserving of honor. All, in fact, should honor him as they would rightly honor the Father. A refusal to honor the Son would signify a refusal to honor the Father, as the Father had sent him.

In his capacity as judge, the Son would not express condemnatory judgment against those who believe in him, acknowledging him as God’s beloved Son and living a life that gives evidence of their belief or faith. Those who “hear” his word, accepting it in faith and acting on it, and who believe that the Father had sent his Son come into possession of eternal life. It is a life of an abiding approved relationship with the Father and his Son. Possessors of this eternal life, a newness of life as divinely approved persons, do not face condemnatory judgment. From a state of being dead in sins and therefore without a divinely approved standing, they have entered into the realm of life.

In past generations, this opportunity had not been opened up, as Jesus continued, “Amen, amen, I say to you that the hour is coming and is now when the dead will hear the voice of God’s Son and those hearing [it] will live.” Those who paid attention to Jesus’ words and embraced them in faith ceased to be dead in trespasses and sins and began to enjoy a newness of life. With the arrival of God’s Son on earth, the “hour” or time for this marvelous development had arrived. (John 5:25)

The Father, who had “life in himself” or life-giving power also granted the Son to have the same life-giving power. Jesus explained that he had been granted authority to render judgment because of being the “Son of Man.” By speaking of himself as the “Son of Man,” he identified himself with the one like a “son of man” (mentioned in Daniel 7:13, 14) to whom the Most High would grant kingship. (John 5:26, 27)

Jesus’ statement, “Do not be amazed at this,” could apply either to his words about being the “Son of Man” with divinely granted authority to judge or to his next comment about his restoring life to the dead and thereupon judging them. He continued speaking about himself in the third person, “The hour is coming when all in the tombs will hear his voice and come out.” Those who revealed themselves to be doers of good during their lifetime would then experience the “resurrection of life,” from then onward enjoying life eternally as persons having an approved relationship with the Father and his Son. Practicers of vile deeds, those who had set themselves in opposition to God’s ways, would face a “resurrection of judgment,” a condemnatory judgment commensurate with the life they had lived. (John 5:28, 29)

These words of Jesus parallel Daniel 12:2 (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]), “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence.” Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote about judgment, (2 Corinthians 5:10 (NAB), “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.”

Christ’s judgment would conform to the highest standard of justice. He continued, “I can do nothing of myself, as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, for I seek [to do] not my own will but the will of the one who sent me.” (John 5:30) In judging, Jesus would not handle matters as if he were a law to himself. His Father is the source of the ultimate standard of justice, and it is to him that Jesus would always listen, assuring absolute impartiality. At all times, he would seek to do his Father’s will, never deviating therefrom to do his own will and failing to uphold what the demands of flawless justice require.

Jesus acknowledged that, if he merely testified respecting himself, his testimony could not be accepted as true, for it would be lacking the needed confirmation from at least one other witness. (Compare Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; 1 Timothy 5:19.) There was, however, another witness who bore testimony concerning him, and Jesus knew the testimony of this other witness to be true. The dependable witness was not a man. (John 5:31, 32)

Prominent Jews from Jerusalem had sent a delegation of priests and Levites to John to question him about his activity. On that occasion, John provided testimony that focused on the Messiah, the one for whom he was preparing the way. (John 1:19-27) Jesus, though, was not “accepting” the testimony from any man as if he depended upon it. He had testimony from a much higher source than man, making testimony from a human source unessential for confirmation of his identity. Jesus did not, however, reject John’s testimony. With the objective of leading his listeners to salvation or liberation from enslavement to sin, he called attention to John’s truthful witness. (John 5:33, 34)

Jesus wanted his listeners to reflect on John’s words and to act on them, leading to their acceptance of him as the promised Messiah. John proved to be a shining lamp, providing enlightenment about what was essential for being ready for Messiah’s appearance. For a short time (an “hour”), the people rejoiced in the light from this lamp, with many coming to John, listening to what he proclaimed, and being baptized by him in acknowledgment of their sinful state. (John 5:35; compare Matthew 3:1-6.) Eventually, however, increasing numbers looked upon him negatively, slanderously referring to him as being demon possessed. (Matthew 11:16-18)

The miraculous works his Father had empowered Jesus to do served as testimony far greater than what John could give. These works undeniably established that he had come from God. (Compare John 3:2; 9:24-38.) As Jesus said, “The works that I am doing testify about me that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:36) By means of the works he had given Jesus to do, his Father testified that he was his beloved Son. (Compare Hebrews 2:2-4.)

When telling those to whom he was then speaking that they had never heard God’s voice nor seen his form, Jesus did not refer to their not having such an experience in the literal sense. The holy writings, which they claimed to believe, contained God’s words and presented a clear vision respecting him. (Compare Exodus 20:18-22; 24:9-11; Judges 13:21-23; Job 38:1; 42:5; Isaiah 6:1-5; Ezekiel 1:26-28.) Their response to Jesus, the unique Son of God who flawlessly reflected the image of his Father, proved that they had not heard God’s voice as conveyed through the holy writings nor did they see God in the way he had revealed himself in these writings. God’s revelatory word did not abide in them. It was no part of their inner self, and so they lacked the essential light for recognizing the Son. This was the reason for their refusal to believe him as the one whom the Father had sent. (John 5:37, 38)

They did search the scriptures, thinking that through them they would have eternal life or a life as God’s favored people. Despite their searching, though, they failed to see the vital truth respecting the activity of the coming Messiah and allowed themselves to be blinded by what they wanted him to be. (Compare Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Isaiah 53:1-12.) The kind of life they were seeking could only be obtained by coming to Christ, acknowledging him as God’s unique Son who could liberate them from enslavement to sin. But, as Jesus said, “You do not wish to come to me so that you might have life.” (John 5:39, 40)

Jesus felt no need to have men bestow glory or honor upon him, seeking to please them in efforts to gain their favor or approval. He was fully aware that those to whom he spoke did not have the love of God in themselves. Their refusal to love him showed that they did not love the Father who had sent him. He had come in his Father’s name, faithfully representing him in word and deed. Yet those who heard Jesus’ words refused to accept him. If, on the other hand, someone came to them in his own name, acting and speaking on his own authority, they would accept him, evidently because they would be of kindred spirit and would be hearing what they wanted to hear. (John 5:41-43)

They had the wrong view of glory, wanting the praises of men, which required an appeal to those aims and desires that pandered to the flawed human condition. They did not seek the glory or praise that had its source in the only God, not wanting to submit themselves fully to his will and ways. (John 5:44)

Although Jesus thus reproved their unbelief, he could say that they had another one who accused them for their faithlessness. That one was Moses, the very one in whom they had set their hope. If they had truly believed Moses and the Messianic prophecies recorded in the sacred writings they attributed to him, they would have believed Jesus. How, though, could they believe Jesus’ words if they did not really believe the writings of Moses, writings which they claimed to believe as being of God? (John 5:45-47)

Notes:

The measure of uncertainty about which festival was involved also makes the placement of the event uncertain.

The Greek text of John 5:2 does not include the word “gate.” Based on the context, the term has been included in translations.

According to the oldest manuscripts, there is no mention about the reason for the stirring up of the waters in the pool. Later manuscripts say that an angel stirred up the waters and that the first person then stepping into the pool would be cured of whatever ailment he may have had.

The words “amen, amen, I say to you,” found in John 5:19, 24 and 25, constitute a solemn declaration and strong assurance of the statements thus introduced.

Back in Galilee

The biblical record does not mention when Jesus left Jerusalem and resumed activity in Galilee. Only John’s account refers to his having been in Jerusalem for a festival and having cured an afflicted man at the pool of Bethzatha. This account next narrates events that occurred in Galilee shortly before the Passover. (John 6:4)

Jesus’ Disciples Pick Ears of Grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5)

One Sabbath, Jesus and his disciples were walking on a path leading through grainfields in Galilee. The hungry disciples, in keeping with a provision of the law, began picking some ears (either of barley or wheat), rubbing them in their hands, and then eating the grain. (Deuteronomy 23:25) Observing this, certain Pharisees objected, viewing their activity as harvesting and threshing and, therefore, unlawful on the Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1, 2; Mark 2:23, 24; Luke 6:1, 2)

In response, Jesus reminded the Pharisees of what David had done when he and the men with him were hungry. He accepted shewbread from the priest at the sanctuary, which bread, according to the law, only priests were entitled to eat. Jesus then called attention to the fact that the priests at the temple worked on the Sabbath and yet remained innocent of wrongdoing while carrying out their sacred duties. The Pharisees knew that, outside the temple area, the kind of activity in which priests and Levites engaged on the Sabbath would have been a violation of the law. With reference to himself, Jesus told them, “Something greater than the temple is here.” As the promised Messiah, the unique Son of God, Jesus was greater than the temple, and he did not consider what the disciples did as wrong. Their hunger was real, and human need took precedence (as the case of David illustrated). Stressing the spirit of the law, Jesus added, “If you knew what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent ones.” (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 12:3-7; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4)

A day of rest served to benefit man. It was not a matter of man being created for the purpose of observing a day of rest. Again calling attention to his identity, Jesus said, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” As Lord of the Sabbath, it was at his disposal for doing positive good, and no one had the authority to condemn his disciples for any activity that he deemed appropriate on that day. (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:27, 28; Luke 6:5)

Notes:

According to 1 Samuel 21:2-6, David obtained the shewbread from Ahimelech. The extant text of Mark 2:26 mentions Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. It should be noted, however, that Mark 2:26 does not say that Abiathar gave the shewbread to David. This did take place during the general period in which Abiathar served as high priest, for King Saul had Ahimelech executed shortly after David received the shewbread and Abiathar escaped being massacred along with his father and other priests. (1 Samuel 22:11-23)

The extant Septuagint text of Hosea 6:6 is the same as the quotation in Matthew 12:7.

Jesus Heals a Man’s Hand on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11)

Every Sabbath, Jesus customarily went to the synagogue in whatever town or city in Galilee he happened to be at the time and would teach. (Compare Luke 4:16.) On this particular occasion, scribes, Pharisees, and a man afflicted with an atrophied, paralyzed, or crippled right hand were present among those assembled. The scribes and Pharisees watched whether Jesus would cure the man, seeking to accuse him of violating the law. Probably one of their number raised the question, “Is it permissible to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matthew 12:9, 10; Mark 3:1, 2; Luke 6:6, 7)

In response, Jesus asked whether a man whose sheep had fallen into a pit on a Sabbath would not lift it out. (Matthew 12:11) Those who were seeking an accusation against Jesus knew that it would primarily be in the man’s interest to help his sheep and that his doing so would, to a lesser extent, be for the sake of the animal. A man, as Jesus pointed out, had greater value than a sheep, and so it was allowable to do good on the Sabbath. He then requested the afflicted man to stand up and position himself in front of everyone. Their seeing him should have given rise to feelings of compassion and a desire to see him cured. The way they reasoned, as Jesus knew, did not allow them to respond mercifully. They would have been more concerned about making sure their sheep was safe than about promoting the welfare of a fellow Israelite. (Matthew 12:12; Mark 3:3; Luke 6:8)

Jesus asked, “Is it permissible on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save a life [soul], or to kill?” For Jesus to have left the man in his afflicted state when he was in a position to bring him relief would have been a callous act or evil. Apparently recognizing what Jesus’ question implied in relation to the man, those assembled refused to answer. As Jesus looked around at the faces of those in the synagogue, he saw no evidence of fellow feeling for the man. Their lack of compassion angered and greatly distressed him. He then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” Immediately the man’s right hand was restored to the sound condition of the left hand. (Matthew 12:13; Mark 3:4, 5; Luke 6:9, 10)

Infuriated at what they regarded as a violation of the Sabbath, the scribes and Pharisees were determined to put a stop to Jesus’ activity. Although they were at enmity with the supporters of Herod Antipas, they thereafter joined them in plotting how they might destroy Jesus. To attain their objective, they needed the political backing of those whom they actually hated and so were willing to cooperate with them in an effort to rid themselves of the object of their hostility. (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6; Luke 6:11)

Note:

According to Jerome, the evangel the Ebionites used referred to the man as a mason who pleaded with Jesus to restore his hand so that he could again make a living and not have to endure the disgrace of being forced to beg for his food.

Jesus Cures Many by the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 12:15-21; Mark 3:7-11)

With his disciples, Jesus departed for the area around the Sea of Galilee, where his safety would not have been imperiled by the plotting of his enemies. Many from Galilee followed him. News about his activity had spread extensively, and multitudes also came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumaea (bordering Judea on the south), the region on the east side of the Jordan, and the area around Tyre and Sidon (major cities north of Galilee). (Matthew 12:15; Mark 3:7, 8)

To avoid having the crowds crush him, Jesus requested that his disciples have a boat ready for him. This likely would have been Peter’s boat. (Mark 3:9) From the boat, Jesus could address the crowds. The availability of the boat also facilitated his being able to travel to other areas along the seashore.

Jesus had healed many people. So those afflicted with diseases would press upon him, seeking to touch him. Under the control of unclean spirits, persons would shout, “You are the Son of God.” Often Jesus would rebuke them, not allowing them to continue calling attention to his identity. (Mark 3:10-12) In this way, he made it clear that he had nothing in common with the demons and did not want their testimony. To the extent possible, Jesus sought to prevent situations that could lead to his being misrepresented.

He instructed those whom he healed not to spread the word about their cures. Jesus wanted to prevent stirring up needless excitement and the gathering of huge crowds. The way in which he handled matters fulfilled the words of Isaiah 42:1-4. According to Matthew 12:18-21, the prophecy says, “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul has taken delight. I will put my spirit upon him, and he will announce judgment to the nations. He will not quarrel nor cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the squares. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering [wick of] flax he will not extinguish, until he has brought judgment to victory, and in his name nations will hope.”

Jesus proved to be the Messianic “servant,” whom his Father had chosen to do his will. This involved laying down his life in sacrifice to make it possible for humans to be forgiven of their sins and to be reconciled to the Father. At the time of Jesus’ baptism, his Father acknowledged him as his beloved with whom he was pleased. (Matthew 3:17; compare Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:5-13.) He was then anointed with holy spirit and thereafter began a proclamation of judgment. The message revealed divine justice and how to gain a right relationship with God and also made it clear that serious loss would result from failure to respond in faith. Whereas Jesus primarily focused on the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he later did “announce judgment to the nations” through his disciples.

The Son of God did not engage in noisy public debating. He refused to be like those who called attention to themselves, were intent on having the masses hear them, and made loud pronouncements in areas where large numbers of people would customarily gather. The lowly or humble and the afflicted among the people resembled bruised reeds and lamp wicks about to go out. They had little from their hard toil and experienced oppression. Among them were many who suffered from diseases and infirmities. Unlike those who made the lot of the lowly more difficult, Jesus compassionately and lovingly brought relief to those who looked to his Father for help. He provided them with comfort and hope, healed many afflicted ones, and infused the lowly and those in distress with new life. Through his activity, he brought what is just or right to victory or accomplished his Father’s will respecting justice. To people of the nations, he (the one bearing the name) came to be the one on whom they could set their hope and, through him, come to be approved children of God. (For additional comments on the quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4, see the Notes section.)

Notes:

The quotation of Isaiah 42:1-4 in Matthew 12:18-21 largely follows the reading of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah. A major difference is in Isaiah 42:4, where the Hebrew text says, “He will not grow faint and not be crushed until he has set judgment in the earth, and for his law the islands [or, coastlands] shall wait.”

This could be understood to mean that YHWH’s servant, the Messiah, would not tire out or become discouraged on account of the unresponsiveness he would be facing, but he would succeed in accomplishing his mission respecting judgment or justice. He would reveal what is right or just. In this case, “law” would mean Messiah’s authoritative teaching. Nations other than Israel would wait for it, indicating that non-Israelites would desire to receive this teaching or law. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah says that the isles or coastlands would “inherit” the law, suggesting that they would accept the authoritative teaching and make it their own, faithfully submitting to it.

The extant Septuagint text differs in numerous respects from the quotation in Matthew and the Hebrew text. It reads, “Jacob [is] my servant. I will support him. Israel [is] my chosen one. My soul has welcomed him. I have put my spirit upon him. Judgment he will bring forth to the nations. He will not cry out or let loose [his voice] nor will his voice be heard outside. A bruised reed he will not crush, and a smoking [wick of] flax he will not extinguish, but in truth he will bring forth judgment. He will shine forth and not be broken until he has set judgment upon the earth, and upon his name nations will hope.” There is a possibility that this translation is an interpretive rendering, identifying the servant as the people of Israel rather than the Messiah.

In Matthew 12:21, the point about the hoping of the nations in the name agrees with the reading of the Septuagint but differs from the wording of the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah.

Choosing the Twelve (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16)

The mountain that Jesus ascended and where he spent the entire night in prayer before choosing the “twelve” may have been located near the Sea of Galilee, as there is no indication in Mark’s account that Jesus left the general area around the seashore. In the morning he called the twelve to him, empowering them to expel demons and to cure sicknesses and infirmities. He also commissioned them to proclaim the glad tidings (the message about gaining divine approval and having God as the Sovereign of one’s life). To the twelve, he gave the name “apostles,” meaning “ones sent out.” (Matthew 10:1; Mark 3:13-15; Luke 6:12, 13) The twelve apostles were Simon, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Judas the son of James), Simon the Cananaean, and Judas. (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16)

All of them appear to have originally been disciples of John, as the qualifications for a replacement for Judas included being a witness respecting Jesus’ baptism by John. (Acts 1:21, 22) Only John could have provided firsthand testimony to his disciples about what he saw and heard on that occasion.

John the Baptist specifically pointed Jesus out to Andrew and John (who does not identify himself in the gospel attributed to him). Andrew introduced his brother Simon to Jesus, and at that time Jesus gave him the name Cephas or Peter, meaning “rock.” (John 1:35-42)

Although not mentioned in the biblical record, John likely was instrumental in leading his brother James to Jesus. If Salome was indeed Mary’s sister, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were Jesus’ cousins. To them, Jesus gave the name “Boanerges” (“sons of thunder”), which designation perhaps described their fiery disposition. (Mark 3:17)

In John’s account (1:44-47), Philip is mentioned as introducing Nathanael to Jesus. The fact that Philip and Bartholomew are linked in the lists of the apostles in Matthew, Mark, and Luke suggests that Nathanael is another name for Bartholomew.

Not until later did Jesus invite the tax collector Matthew or Levi to be his follower. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14) As to Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Judas the son of James), Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the biblical record provides no information at what point before their selection as apostles they had become close disciples of Jesus. If the designation “Iscariot” is correctly understood as meaning “man of Kerioth,” this could mean that the betrayer Judas was from the Judean town of Kerioth. All the other apostles were Galileans. (Compare Acts 1:15; 2:1, 6, 7.)

Notes:

The term Cananaean appears to be a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning “zealot” or “enthusiast.” Luke’s account uses the Greek term zelotés (“zealot”). This may well mean, as many have concluded, that Simon had formerly been associated with the political faction known as the Zealots.

Another possibility is that the appellative describes Simon as a person of exemplary zeal.

Jesus’ Activity With His Disciples in Galilee (Matthew 4:23-25; Luke 6:17-19)

Traveling throughout Galilee, Jesus taught in the synagogues, proclaimed the glad tidings of the kingdom (the message that revealed how to gain an approved relationship with his Father and to be part of realm where he is the Sovereign), and healed the sick and infirm. News about his activity spread among Jews living in areas beyond the borders of Galilee and Judea, including the Roman province of Syria, the Decapolis, and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon. This resulted in people coming to Jesus in large numbers from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and the region east of the Jordan. They would bring the sick, those whom they perceived to be demon possessed, the epileptics, and the crippled, and he would heal all of them. As power to heal proceeded from him, the afflicted would seek to touch him. (Matthew 4:23-25; Luke 6:17-19)

Notes:

The Decapolis was a region of ten predominantly Greek cities, which appear to have formed a league sometime during the first century BCE. Of these cities, only Scythopolis was located west of the Jordan. Damascus occupied the most distant northeastern location, and the eight other cities were situated east of the Jordan.

In his Natural History (V, 16 [English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley]), the first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder wrote the following regarding the Decapolis: “On the side of Syria, joining up to Judaea, is the region of Decapolis, so called from the number of its cities; as to which all writers are not agreed. Most of them, however, agree in speaking of Damascus as one, a place fertilized by the river Chrysorroös, which is drawn off into its meadows and eagerly imbibed; Philadelphia, and Rhaphana, all which cities fall back towards Arabia; Scythopolis (formerly called Nysa by Father Liber, from his nurse having been buried there), its present name being derived from a Scythian colony which was established there; Gadara, before which the river Hieromix flows; Hippo [Hippos], which has been previously mentioned; Dion, Pella, rich with its waters; Galasa [Gerasa], and Canatha.”

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7:29; Luke 6:20-49)

During the period of his activity in Galilee, Jesus’ typical teaching appears to have included at least parts of what has become known as the “Sermon on the Mount.” Matthew (5:1) specifically reported that Jesus ascended a mountain upon seeing the crowds, seated himself, and then, with his disciples near him, began to teach. Although his words were directed to the disciples, seemingly the acoustical properties of the location made it possible for the rest of the people to hear his strong voice. (Matthew 5:2)

Luke included much of the same material in his considerably shorter account but mentioned Jesus and many of his disciples being in a plain and surrounded by a large crowd from Judea, Jerusalem, and the coastal regions of Tyre and Sidon. (Luke 6:17-19) This suggests that two separate occasions may have been involved. It was not unusual for Jesus to repeat vital aspects of his teaching as he traveled from place to place. (For examples of repeated teaching on other occasions and the differences between Matthew 5:1-7:29 and Luke 6:20-49, see the respective Notes sections.) Those who believe that Luke 6:20-49 and Matthew 5:1-7:29 relate to the same occasion commonly suggest that the plain mentioned in Luke’s account may have been a level area on the elevated site.

Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-26)

Jesus pronounced those “fortunate” or “happy” who would usually not be considered such. The Greek term makários is descriptive of a privileged, enviable, or desirable state. In this context, the fortunate aspect involves a person’s having a yearning for a right relationship with God and for his guidance, help, and blessing.

The “poor in spirit” are persons who recognize their dire impoverished state. “In spirit” or in attitude, they see themselves as helpless. Their disposition is the opposite of those who are arrogantly self-reliant and consider themselves as needing nothing. (Compare Revelation 3:17.) Despite their trials and suffering, the “poor in spirit” cling to their faith in God. They are not like persons who fail to use good judgment, engage in risky behavior, or take needless chances and then blame God for their suffering or misfortune. (Compare Proverbs 19:3.) The “poor in spirit” are fortunate, “because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.” Their disposition is such that they perceive their need for God, wanting to be part of his realm. Therefore, they willingly subject themselves to his guidance and direction. As persons whom God approves and who accept him as their Sovereign, they are, in fact, in his realm and so his kingdom or the “kingdom of the heavens” is theirs. (Matthew 5:3)

Not all persons who mourn may be considered fortunate, but those who mourn for the right reasons do find themselves in a desirable state. Whenever persons mourn in a godly way about their own flawed or sinful condition and the injustices and oppression existing in the world, they will, as Jesus said, “be comforted.” Their comfort would include being forgiven of their sins, having the inner assurance of God’s abiding love, and possessing the trust or faith that his coming day of judgment or reckoning will rectify all matters. (Matthew 5:4)

The “meek,” “humble,” “gentle,” or “considerate” are persons who do not have an exalted opinion of themselves. They are not impressed by their own importance and do not look down upon others with disdain nor treat them in a harsh or hateful manner. Unlike oppressors who seem to have power on their side, the “meek” or “gentle” appear to be at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, it is the meek who “will inherit the earth” or the land. In Psalm 37:10, 11, where the same thought is expressed, the contrast is drawn between the short time the evil oppressor is able to exercise control and the continuance of the meek on the land and their enjoyment of its fruitage. Likely many, if not all, who heard Jesus would have been reminded of the psalmist’s words and would have understood Jesus’ comments accordingly. While corrupt oppressors may dominate for a period, they are not the owners of the earth or land. The ones to whom God grants the inheritance will come to enjoy everything it embraces, and they are the meek or gentle who will continue to live after the oppressors are no more. (Matthew 5:5)

A hungering and thirsting for righteousness would denote an intense yearning to be righteous or upright from God’s standpoint. Such hunger and thirst would stem from an individual’s recognition of personal shortcomings in attitude, word, and action, and from an ardent desire to be a better person. The filling of this hunger and thirst would include coming into possession of the assurance of God’s forgiveness and the conviction that, in the future, one will experience complete deliverance from the sinful condition. (Matthew 5:6)

The merciful treat others in a compassionate manner, responding lovingly to their needs and showing consideration for the weaknesses associated with the flawed human condition. Those who deal compassionately with fellow humans are more likely to prompt a kindly response from others in their own time of need than are persons who have been harsh and demanding. The Most High also deals with individuals according to the way in which they have treated fellow humans. (Compare Matthew 18:35.) As Jesus said, “Fortunate are the merciful, because they will be granted mercy.” (Matthew 5:7)

Persons who are “clean in heart” are pure, not defiled or corrupt, in their inmost selves. They are not unduly suspicious and quick to ascribe bad motives to others. Their inner life is upright, and this makes it possible for them to have a clear vision of God as the Holy One. (Matthew 5:8) When Job, for example, came to recognize the greatness of his lack of knowledge in relation to his God, he was able to say, “Now my eye sees you.” (Job 42:5, NRSV) Those whose inner life is corrupt cannot see God, but their expressions about him will reflect the darkness of their inmost selves. (Compare Titus 1:15.)

“Peacemakers” are persons who promote good relationships with and among others. They do not incite quarrels, strife, and disputes but seek to effect reconciliation, using their influence to resolve differences and to further a better understanding with and among individuals. Peacemakers do not insist on the letter of the law but look at matters humanely. Jesus said that they would be called “sons of God.” His Father is the “God of peace” (Romans 15:13), and peacemakers, therefore, are like he is. (Matthew 5:9)

Those who find themselves among the persecuted for righteousness’ sake are in a desirable state, “because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens.” Their suffering is for the right reason, and God acknowledges them as his approved servants in his realm. He is their Sovereign. (Matthew 5:10)

It is not pleasant for a person to be misrepresented, persecuted, and spoken against in abusive terms. When, however, individuals are reviled, persecuted, and maligned for the sake of God’s Son, they are fortunate, as what they are facing is because of their being divinely approved. They have reason to rejoice, for their reward is great “in the heavens,” indicating that God will abundantly reward them. Further assuring them of their approved standing before the heavenly Father is the fact that formerly the Hebrew prophets also experienced persecution. (Matthew 5:11, 12)

Notes:

In Luke’s account, there are fewer clarifying terms, and the list of those who can be considered as being in a fortunate state is shorter. The fortunate include those who were then “poor,” “hungry,” and weeping, and those who would be hated, excluded, and reviled, and have their name cast out as wicked “for the sake of the Son of Man.” (Luke 6:20-23)

Instead of referring to the comfort those who “weep” or mourn would experience, Luke 6:21 says, “you will laugh.” This indicates a complete reversal, their weeping for the right reason would be transformed to rejoicing.

The words “cast out your name as wicked” may denote being expelled from the synagogue and thus represented as an evil person before others. (Luke 6:22) Perhaps being excluded (in a more limited way than by expulsion) and reviled preceded this severe measure. It may be noted that, before expelling the cured blind man, those who took this action reviled him. (John 9:34)

The “leaping” (Luke 6:23) would be a leaping for joy. Numerous translations make this explicit.

Luke 6:24-26 describes those who appear to be in a favorable situation but are not. The expression ouaí, commonly rendered “woe,” conveys the sense of “too bad” or “how terrible.”

Those who were then rich, regarding themselves as not being in need of anything, had all they would ever get. Their present state and the value they attached to it would be their only consolation or comfort. (Luke 6:24)

Persons who then thought of themselves as filled would experience a reversal, becoming painfully aware of their emptiness. They would hunger. As individuals possessing everything they deemed important and enjoying their status and belongings, they then did laugh. Faced with the loss of everything, however, they would end up weeping and mourning. (Luke 6:25)

It might appear that being spoken of in glowing terms by all would be desirable. Israelite history, though, confirmed that this was not the case. It was the false prophets concerning whom the Israelite “fathers” or ancestors spoke well. (Luke 6:26)

“Salt of the Earth” (Matthew 5:13)

Unadulterated salt, a crystalline compound of sodium and chlorine, does not lose its saltiness. The impure salt common in the first century, however, could become tasteless. In a humid environment, the sodium chloride could progressively leach out, making the substance useless for flavoring and as a preservative. People would then throw out the valueless residue on paths, where passersby would repeatedly trample upon it.

For Christ’s disciples to remain the “salt of the earth” would require their continuing to be an influence or force for good. Their adherence to the highest standard of honesty, industriousness, conscientiousness, and moral rectitude would exert a restraining force on those around them and counteract the tendency toward moral degradation. By refusing to resort to filthy and abusive speaking, they would cause others to become more circumspect in their expressions. Like salt that can make foods more flavorful, disciples of God’s Son, through their compassionate and loving response to those in need, their kind, impartial treatment of fellow humans, and their friendly and caring disposition, can contribute to making life more pleasant for those with whom they interact. On the other hand, their failure to live exemplary lives and to be actively engaged in doing good for others would make them unfit to serve as the “salt of the earth” and, therefore, without value. (Matthew 5:13)

Note:

When his disciples argued about who among them was greater, Jesus repeated and expanded upon aspects of the teaching regarding salt. (Mark 9:33, 34, 49, 50) After illustrating the need to consider the cost of discipleship, he also commented on the loss of saltiness and the consequences thereof. (Luke 14:25-35)

“Light of the World” (Matthew 5:14-16)

Disciples of Christ are to serve as the “light of the world,” revealing to observers the splendor of godly conduct in attitude, word, and deed. In a world darkened by moral corruption, lack of love, and ignorance of God’s lofty standard of justice, Christ’s disciples should stand out as different, like a brilliant light surrounded by darkness. A city situated on a hill is not concealed from view. (Matthew 5:14)

Ancient lamps were often made of earthenware and served as a container for a flammable liquid, commonly olive oil. Enclosed lamps were equipped with a spout for holding the wick and a centrally situated hole for filling the vessel with oil. No one would think of hiding a lighted lamp under a container, as that would be contrary to its purpose to provide light for those in the house. The vessel was placed on a lampstand. (Matthew 5:15)

Like a city on an elevated site and a shining lamp on a stand, Christ’s followers were to let their light shine. Others should be able to see their praiseworthy works — their exemplary conduct and their doing of positive good for fellow humans. Because of imitating God’s love, compassion, and justice, Christ’s disciples would reveal themselves to be children of the Most High and would thus honor him. As a result, observers who would come to recognize the reason for their commendable disposition, words, and actions would glorify or praise the heavenly Father. (Matthew 5:16)

Note:

Among other parables, Jesus included the point about not hiding a lighted lamp. (Mark 4:1, 2, 21-23; Luke 8:4, 16-18)

Jesus Came to Fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17-20)

Jesus did not invalidate the law and the words of the prophets but fulfilled them, revealing the full intent and significance of what was set forth in the sacred writings. Through his example and teaching, he showed what it meant to live according to the spirit of the law and the admonition of the prophets. With a solemn “amen” (truly), Jesus revealed that there was a greater likelihood for heaven and earth (the realm in which humans find themselves for a few decades) to pass away than for one iota or one tiny part of a letter to pass away from the law without everything taking place. Jesus carried out his activity fully within the framework of the law, not deviating from its purpose in any respect. (Matthew 5:17, 18)

Like the Hebrew letter yod, the Greek letter iota is the smallest letter of the alphabet. According to the Greek text, the word “horn” (keraía) denotes a small part or stroke of a letter. In Hebrew, for example, a slight difference distinguishes the daleth (D) from the resh (R), and so even a small change in a letter can alter the meaning. Jesus’ solemn declaration made it clear that his life and teaching upheld the lofty principles of the law in every way.

Anyone disregarding or nullifying even one of the least commandments, or a command that related to less serious aspects of life, and teaching others to this effect would be “called least in the kingdom of the heavens.” Individuals doing so would be setting themselves against God, the Lawgiver, and would thereby demonstrate that they did not want him as their Sovereign. Accordingly, they would be “least in the kingdom of the heavens” or, in actuality, have no share in the realm where he is recognized as King and in the privileges and blessings associated with this realm. Those who endeavored to live up to the law and taught others to do likewise demonstrated a proper regard for the Lawgiver and would be “called great in the kingdom of the heavens.” As persons who humbly acknowledged God as their King and willingly submitted to his upright ways, they would be part of his realm and “great” from his standpoint. Their greatness would stem from their being recognized by him as his devoted servants. (Matthew 5:19)

The Son of God stressed the need for living according to the highest standard of uprightness. The kind of righteousness characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees fell far short of what God required. (Matthew 5:20) Their righteousness was merely an insistence on the letter of the law according to revered traditional interpretations and was devoid of genuine love, justice, and compassion. It was a righteousness that distorted the truth about the Lawgiver, for it did not reveal him to others as a “merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity, continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless.” (Exodus 34:6)

In disposition, word, and deed, the scribes and Pharisees failed to sanctify God’s name or made him to appear before others as lacking in love and compassion. Their persistence in this course stood in the way of entrance into the kingdom. They and those whose righteousness did not exceed theirs would not be approved servants in God’s realm. Similarly, centuries earlier, when Moses and Aaron failed to sanctify God’s name by misrepresenting him to the Israelites in word and action, they lost out on being able to enter the Promised Land. (Numbers 20:10-12)

Note:

On another occasion, in remarks directed to the Pharisees, Jesus pointed out that the law would not pass away without being fulfilled. (Luke 16:14, 17)

Murder and Anger (Matthew 5:21, 22)

Those who heard Jesus’ words knew that the command not to murder had applied from ancient times, and that individuals guilty of murder would face severe judgment. (Matthew 5:21) The law also indicated that certain acts were tantamount to murder, as they were expressions of violent rage. The penalty for murder, for example, was imposed on anyone who struck his father or mother or cursed either one of them. (Exodus 21:15, 17) Accordingly, the command prohibiting murder had as its intent more than restraining individuals from going to the point of killing someone, and Jesus made this clear in his teaching.

Anyone who continued in a state of wrath toward his brother would make himself liable for judgment (like one guilty of an offense that merited judicial action). The hearers likely would have understood the “brother” to have been a fellow Israelite, one related to them by reason of their common descent from Jacob or Israel. (Matthew 5:22)

Even more serious would be calling a brother rhaká (an expression of abuse, which may be a transliteration of an Aramaic term meaning “empty one” and conveying the sense of such abusive terms as “numskull,” “nitwit,” or “stupid”). According to Jesus’ teaching, the person who used such abusive language made himself guilty of an offense comparable to a crime that was serious enough for the Sanhedrin or Jewish supreme court to handle. (Matthew 5:22)

Anyone who called his brother a “fool,” or condemned him as a morally worthless person deserving of the severest punishment, would make himself liable for Gehenna. (Matthew 5:22) Instead of loving his brother, the individual would be showing extreme hatred for him, regarding him as a person unfit to continue living. Therefore, the judgment such a hateful person wished to befall his brother would, in keeping with retributive justice, be expressed against him. One who experienced the judgment of Gehenna would come to be like a carcass tossed on a garbage heap and would remain in a state of condemnation, forever deprived of the eternal life of fellowship with God and Christ. (Compare Isaiah 66:24.)

Notes:

In Matthew 5:22, the Greek participle for “being angry” is in the present tense and so suggests a continued state of anger. Numerous manuscripts include the word eiké, meaning “for no reason,” and thus imply that there might be justification for being angry. It appears likely that this was a scribal attempt to make Jesus’ statement less all-embracing. The word is missing in such ancient manuscripts as partially preserved P67 (second century) and fourth-century Codex Vaticanus.

In the Scriptures, the designation “fool” relates primarily to one who is morally corrupt. Isaiah 32:6, 7 (NJB) describes such a person as follows: “For the fool speaks folly and his heart is set on villainy; he is godless in his actions and his words ascribe error to Yahweh; he starves the hungry of their food and refuses drink to the thirsty. Everything to do with the rascal is evil, he devises infamous plans to ruin the poor with lying words even when the needy has right on his side.”

Gehenna is evidently to be linked to the Valley of Hinnom, where unfaithful Israelites anciently engaged in idolatrous rites. Godly king Josiah eradicated idolatry and defiled the location, at which time or later the valley came to be used as a refuse dump. (2 Kings 23:10) It appears that this is the reason fire and worms or maggots are associated with Gehenna, and the judgment of Gehenna denotes the severest punishment possible.

Peace With God and One’s Brother (Matthew 5:23, 24)

When an Israelite came to the temple to present a sacrifice, he was to make sure that his brother or a fellow Israelite did not have a valid reason for a complaint against him. Jesus urged the one remembering that his brother could fault him to leave the temple, mend the strained relationship, and then return to present his gift or sacrifice. (Matthew 5:23, 24)

Settling Disputes (Matthew 5:25, 26)

A failure to settle disputes quickly can have serious consequences. The wise course is to straighten out a matter before it leads to a judicial proceeding. Jesus warned that a failure to act swiftly (while there was still time before the accuser presented his case before the judge) could lead to a severe judgment — imprisonment with no hope of release until the last quadrans, a Roman bronze coin of low value, was paid. (Matthew 5:25, 26) Sixty-four quadrans equaled one denarius, which was the equivalent of a day’s wages.

Note:

At the time Jesus exposed the failure of those who refused to put faith in him, he repeated the teaching about settling a dispute. In this particular setting, he appears to have been illustrating the need for making peace with God before it would prove to be too late. (Luke 12:54-59) In view of the earlier reference to making peace with one’s brother so as to be at peace with God and in a proper condition for offering a sacrifice, this thought may also be inferred from the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.

Adultery and Divorce (Matthew 5:27-32)

All who listened to Jesus knew the command about not committing adultery. (Exodus 20:14) They had often heard it. The Son of God revealed that living in harmony with the full import of this command involved more than not engaging in the immoral act. For a man to continue looking at a woman to the point of arousing a passionate desire for her would mean that, in his heart or his deep inner self, he had already committed adultery. The desire to commit the sinful act would have been fully developed. (Matthew 5:27, 28)

Jesus then directed attention to rooting out wrong desires before they develop and lead the individual to sin. “If your right eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and toss it away from you, for it is better for you to lose one of your [body] members than for your whole body to be tossed into Gehenna. And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and toss it away from you, for it is better for you to lose one of your [body] members than for your whole body to go off into Gehenna.” Neither the eye nor the hand is responsible for an individual’s “stumbling” or being induced to sin, but wrong desires lead to misusing the eye or the hand. These wrong desires must be forcefully and decisively rendered inoperative, comparable to surgically removing a diseased body part to save the rest of the body. For the whole body to be cast into Gehenna would signify the permanent loss of eternal life, being forever cut off from an abiding relationship with God and all the blessings associated therewith. Far better it is to lose something the flesh may crave than to be eternally cut off from God. (Matthew 5:29, 30)

The law allowed a man to divorce his wife, but required that she be given a “certificate of divorce,” which freed her for remarriage. (Deuteronomy 24:1, 2) This provision, however, did not set aside God’s original purpose respecting marriage. After quoting what had been said about divorce, Jesus continued, “But I say to you that anyone divorcing his wife, except for unchastity [porneía], causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31, 32)

The “certificate of divorce” constituted a legal proof that the husband no longer considered the woman as his wife and had released her from all legal obligations to him. Deprived of her home and commonly without any means to support herself, the woman would be forced to seek the security that marriage to another man could provide. Then, upon beginning to live as a wife with another man, she would commit adultery, but the divorce certificate protected her from being legally charged as an adulteress. Likewise, the man who married her would be committing adultery, but her divorce certificate cleared him from being legally charged as an adulterer. Thus a man who divorced his wife would be committing a grave wrong, making himself responsible for causing his wife and another man to enter a relationship that, without the existence of the divorce certificate, would be adultery in every respect.

In case the married woman had made herself guilty of unchastity or unlawful sexual intercourse, she would be entering into a relationship with another man as an adulterous woman and not merely as a wife who had been rejected by her husband. The husband to whom she had been unfaithful and who divorced her would not be responsible for having created the circumstances that would cause her to seek a relationship with another man.

On another occasion, when certain Pharisees raised a question about the certificate of divorce, Jesus replied, “Moses, on account of your hardheartedness, permitted you to divorce your wives, but this was not so from the beginning.” There was no provision for divorce in the case of the first human pair, Adam and Eve. Thus Jesus made it clear that marriage was to be a permanent union, with the later concession about divorce serving to prevent the kind of abuses to which women could have been subjected by husbands who had rejected them but who were nevertheless bound to continue living with them in the marriage arrangement. (Matthew 19:3-9)

Notes:

Although disciples of Christ do have the help of God’s spirit, this does not mean that no exertion on their part is needed to resist wrong desires. Sin must not be allowed to acquire a base of operation. (Romans 6:12-14; 8:5-14; Colossians 3:5)

It should be noted that Jesus’ comments about divorce are limited to what is set forth in the law, which included no provision for women to initiate divorce proceedings. According to the law, a married man was guilty of adultery only if he had relations with another man’s wife or an engaged woman.

Oaths (Matthew 5:33-37)

Among the Jews, it had become common to resort to oaths in daily life. This is reflected in the admonition contained in the book of Sirach (written in Hebrew early in the second century BCE and translated into Greek by the writer’s grandson after 132 BCE). The writer included the admonition: “Let not your mouth form the habit of swearing, or becoming too familiar with the Holy Name. Just as a slave that is constantly under scrutiny will not be without welts, so one who swears continually by the Holy Name will not remain free from sin. A man who swears often heaps up obligations.” (Sirach 23:9-11, NAB)

The Pharisees established a gradation for oaths, setting aside the binding nature of certain formulas. According to ancient Jewish sources, swearing by heaven, the earth or the sun was not considered to be an oath even if the intent of the individual had been to swear by the Creator. It was customary to swear by various things, including Jerusalem, the temple, the altar, sacrifices, and the life of one’s head. One prominent rabbi (Judah) is quoted in the Tosefta as saying: “He who says, ‘By Jerusalem,’ says nothing, unless with an intent purpose he shall vow toward Jerusalem.”

So it must have been common knowledge that it had been said to those of old, “You must not swear falsely, but you must pay your vows to the Lord.” Jesus, however, directed his comments against the practice of resorting to the use of oaths to add credibility to statements or promises. “Do not swear at all,” he said and then pointed out that, even though not mentioned in the particular formula being used, God was involved when swearing by heaven, the earth, or Jerusalem. This is so because heaven is God’s throne, the earth is his footstool, and Jerusalem is his city. The Most High is the Sovereign and, therefore, Jesus referred to Jerusalem as the “city of the great king.” (Matthew 5:33-35)

Presenting the reason for not swearing by one’s head, the Son of God said, “You cannot make one hair white or black,” showing that humans have no real control of their life even in insignificant matters. Therefore, instead of swearing to assure others they were speaking the truth or excusing nonfulfillment of a promise or agreement on the basis that a particular formula used in swearing did not impose a binding obligation, all who heed Jesus’ teaching should be dependable respecting their word, letting their “Yes” mean “Yes” and their “No” mean “No.” (Matthew 5:36, 37) He identified whatever went beyond not maintaining trustworthiness in word as being from the wicked one, the “devil” or “slanderer,” with whom lying had its start. (Compare John 8:44.)

Retaliation and Liberality (Matthew 5:38-42; Luke 6:29, 30)

When handling legal cases, elders in ancient Israel were to apply the principle, “eye for eye and tooth for tooth,” imposing just penalties that fit the crimes. (Exodus 21:22-25; Leviticus 24:19, 20; Deuteronomy 19:16-21) This legal precept, however, came to be wrongly used to justify retaliation. Addressing this aspect, Jesus said, “Do not resist one who is wicked; but if someone slaps [rhapízo] you on the right cheek, turn the other [cheek] also to him.” Striking someone on the right cheek with the back of the right hand would have been an insult designed to provoke the one slapped into a fight. For one to retaliate in kind would have meant that the person bent on doing evil had succeeded in attaining his objective. By turning the other cheek, the one slapped would usually prevent the situation from escalating into a vicious struggle. (Matthew 5:38, 39)

The chitón, commonly translated “tunic,” designated the garment worn under the himátion, often rendered “cloak.” If faced with being taken before a judge to forfeit a tunic, the one following Jesus’ advice would also give up his cloak, the more valuable garment. Thereby the individual would avoid getting embroiled in a legal confrontation (with a strong possibility of an unfavorable decision) and all the stress associated therewith. (Matthew 5:40)

During the time Jesus was on earth, the Romans exercised authority. At any time, Roman soldiers could impress a passerby into service. Instead of grumbling about being forced to carry a load for a mile and yielding to emotionally harmful resentment, the one heeding Jesus’ words would willingly discharge the service, carrying it out for an additional mile. This would aid the individual to maintain a disposition conducive to better mental, emotional, and physical well-being. (Matthew 5:41)

Jesus then said, “Give to the one asking, and do not turn away from the one wanting to borrow from you.” When in possession of the means to aid those in need, one acting in harmony with Jesus’ teaching would be willing to respond to requests for help. Liberality has a wholesome effect on the individual, promoting an inner peace and the joy that comes from being able to share in alleviating human suffering. (Matthew 5:42)

Notes:

Verses 29 and 30 of Luke 6 read, “To the one striking you on the cheek, present the other [cheek] also; and to the one taking your cloak [himátion], do not withhold even your tunic [chitón]. Give to everyone asking you; and from the one who has taken your things, do not ask them back.” The situations on which Jesus commented differ from those he mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount (recorded in Matthew’s account).

The Greek word for “strike” (typto) signifies to administer a blow. Luke’s account uses the participial form of the word in the present tense to designate the one doing the striking, and the present tense could denote someone who repeatedly strikes. The person using his right hand to “slap” (rhapízo) someone on the right cheek would do so with the back of the open hand, but the individual intent on hurting someone would usually hit with his fist. Even when confronted by someone determined to inflict blows, the person who does not hit back (but shields himself) can often minimize personal injury.

Luke’s account presents a case where the individual is faced with having his cloak taken from him. The one following through on Jesus’ teaching would not try to prevent the seizure of his cloak and would not even withhold his tunic. Such willingness to part with possessions frequently contributes to avoiding confrontations with very serious outcomes.

In Luke’s account, the “asking” could be in the form of a demand and not necessarily an asking based on need. The point about asking back involves things that were taken. This suggests that in both cases the “asking” could involve “demanding.”

Love (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27, 28, 32-36)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’” (Matthew 5:43) Whereas the law did command the Israelites to love their neighbors or their fellows, it did not command them to hate their enemies. They were, in fact, to avoid harboring grudges or seeking revenge. (Leviticus 19:17, 18)

In keeping with the spirit of the law and the example of his Father, Jesus rejected the view that love of neighbor implied hatred for one’s enemy, saying, “Love your enemies and pray for those persecuting you.” (Matthew 5:44) Such love would be demonstrated by continuing to treat them kindly as fellow humans, not seeking to harm them but coming to their aid in time of need. Praying for persecutors would include petitions that they would come to see the error of their ways, accept God’s arrangement through Christ so as to come into possession of eternal life, and be forgiven of their sin. (Compare Acts 7:60; 1 Timothy 2:1-4.)

By loving their enemies and praying for their persecutors, Jesus’ disciples would reveal themselves to be “sons of [their] Father in the heavens.” They would be imitating his example and thus be like him. He does not prevent persons who conduct themselves in a lawless and unjust manner from enjoying the benefits of the natural cycles that make life on earth possible. As Jesus said of his Father, “He makes his sun rise upon the wicked and the good, and [makes it] rain upon the upright and the unjust.” (Matthew 5:45)

“If you love those loving you,” Jesus continued, “what reward do you have? Is this not also the same thing the tax collectors are doing? And if you only greet your brothers, what exceptional thing are you doing? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:45-48)

It is easy to love those who reciprocate with love, and the display of such restrictive love brings no “reward.” Observers would not consider it noteworthy and deserving of particular credit. Even tax collectors who were known for their dishonesty, enriching themselves by charging more than the tax rate, loved their friends. To limit one’s greetings only to a particular circle and ignoring others would not be something noteworthy. By comparison, persons without any belief in God then would not even slightly fall short. To be “perfect” or “complete” as God is would mean placing no limits on love. It would be the opposite of restricting one’s care and concern to a select few and excluding all others.

Notes:

Luke’s account regarding Jesus’ teaching on love and compassion parallels thoughts in Matthew 5:43-48. To those listening to him, Jesus said, “Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27, 28) Disciples of God’s Son would not manifest a retaliatory spirit, never acting unlovingly or hatefully toward anyone. They would not withhold needed aid from those who may have treated them hatefully. Others may curse or mistreat them, but they would not respond in kind. They would bless those who may seek their injury or express the prayerful desire that the final outcome for such ones would ultimately prove to be a favorable one.

For Jesus’ listeners simply to love those loving them and to do good to those doing good to them would not make them stand out as different from sinners or persons known for living a godless life. Therefore, they should not have expected any reward for doing so. Even lawless ones love their friends and do good things for those who do good things for them. (Luke 6:32, 33)

There is nothing particularly exceptional about lending money to someone with the expectation that the full sum would be repaid. Even “sinners” or godless persons may do that. Lending money to someone in need when there is a possibility that nothing may ever be repaid, however, is an expression of compassion that goes beyond what “sinners” may be willing to do. (Luke 6:34)

Summing up his teaching on love and compassion, Jesus said, “Love your enemies and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back, and your reward will be great. And you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ingrates and the wicked. Be compassionate just as your Father is compassionate.” (Luke 6:35, 36)

Persons whose love and compassion reflect that of the Most High demonstrate that they are his “sons” or his children. Their actions are like his, for he continues to allow thankless and lawless ones to get enjoyment from life, not depriving them of life’s necessities. The Most High will abundantly reward his Son’s disciples for responding to everyone with love and compassion and never turning a blind eye to genuine need.

It is noteworthy that, whenever a marked sectarian spirit develops within a group, Jesus’ admonition is ignored. Persons who live exemplary lives and sincerely desire to be disciples of God’s Son may be looked upon as wicked and not even be extended common courtesies if they disagree with a particular teaching of the movement with which they may have been associated. Even godly individuals who never were associated with the movement may be regarded as divinely disapproved and bad companions. Rejection of an interpretation is equated with disloyalty to God even if there is an acknowledged possibility that the interpretation could be in error, and certain scriptures (for example, 2 John 10, 11) are misapplied in order to justify the course that the membership is required to follow.

Rightly Motivated Giving (Matthew 6:1-4)

When the carrying out of “righteousness” or right deeds has as its objective to be seen by others with a view to gaining their esteem, this has no value in the eyes of God. After urging his listeners to guard against practicing their righteousness before people to be seen by them, Jesus said that a failure to do so would lead to receiving no reward from the heavenly Father. (Matthew 6:1)

Showy public display should not accompany rendering aid to those in need. In their giving, hypocrites trumpeted what they were doing, making it as noticeable as possible. In the synagogues and on the streets, where others could see them, they did their giving. They wanted to appear as compassionate persons and be “glorified” or praised in glowing terms as being generous and caring. Thus they revealed themselves to be hypocrites, for they were primarily interested in the favorable recognition their giving would bring and did not have genuine concern for the needy. (Matthew 6:2)

Jesus solemnly declared with an introductory “amen” (truly), “I say to you, They have received their reward.” Aside from the praise they craved, no other reward would they be getting. For giving to have value in God’s eyes, Jesus said that the right hand should not know what the left hand is doing. Aid to those in need as an expression of care and compassion should be extended in “secret,” without any public display. The heavenly Father who witnesses what is hidden from human view will then recompense rightly motivated kindnesses. (Matthew 6:2-4)

Prayer (Matthew 6:5-15)

With reference to prayer, the hypocrisy Jesus censured was the desire to be seen as pious. According to ancient Jewish sources, the arrival of the hour of prayer required that the activity in which one was then engaged be halted. To pray, men picking fruit from the top of a tree would descend, and those riding donkeys would dismount. The Tosefta (Berakhot, 3:18), however, indicates that a person could remain seated on the donkey if it could not be restrained from running away. Reportedly, by pausing a long time before and after prayers, individuals could make it appear that they were making their petitions for a much longer period than was actually the case.

Those who wanted others to admire their zeal and piety timed their activities in order to arrive at locations where many people would observe them standing in an attitude of prayer. Regarding those who “loved” to be seen standing in the synagogues and at the street corners as they prayed, Jesus solemnly declared, “Amen [Truly], I say to you, They have received their reward.” His Father had no regard for such wrongly motivated prayers, and the praise of humans would be the one and only recompense. (Matthew 6:5)

Petitions sincerely made, without any intent for others to observe one in an attitude of prayer, are the ones God hears. In the privacy of one’s room and with the door closed, one can pray hidden from human view. Concerning such prayer, Jesus added the assurance, “Your Father who sees in secret will recompense you,” responding favorably to the petitions made with the right spirit and in harmony with his will. (Matthew 6:6)

Among the nations, people who worshiped various deities also prayed, rambling on extensively (often repeating the same formulaic phrases) and believing their many words would lead to a favorable hearing. Jesus admonished his disciples not to imitate them but to keep in mind that the heavenly Father already knew their needs before they even made their petitions. (Matthew 6:7, 8)

Indicative that they were not alone but part of a family of God’s beloved children, they would rightly direct their prayers to “our Father in the heavens.” (Matthew 6:9) This, however, does not mean that all prayers must include “our,” for this pronoun is missing in Luke 11:2.

For God’s name to be “hallowed” or “sanctified” could either mean that humans would, in increasing numbers, come to honor him as the bearer of the holy name or that he would reveal himself to be the holy God through direct intervention in human affairs. As a petition that precedes an appeal for his kingdom to come, it more likely is to be understood as relating to his action in sanctifying his name, making himself known by manifesting his power. (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2)

Asking for God’s kingdom to come would mean requesting that his sovereign will be expressed on earth, culminating in the end of any competing demands from other rulerships. (Compare Daniel 2:44.) Believers, by reason of their being no part of the world alienated from the heavenly Father, are in the kingdom of his beloved Son. (Colossians 1:13) They recognize Jesus Christ as God’s appointed king and conduct themselves as loyal subjects in the realm where his Father is the Supreme Sovereign. In the world, therefore, theirs is an alien status, and they find themselves faced with demands requiring them to disregard humans in order to choose to do God’s will, leading to their suffering for doing what is right. As for those who are part of the world of mankind alienated from the Most High, they are not in his realm. Praying for the kingdom to come is an appeal for the existing condition to end, with a world that is in a state of rebellion against God and all the problems associated therewith to pass away. (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2)

In heaven, the holy spirit realm, all are in complete harmony with God’s sovereign will. For his will to be done also on earth as it is done in heaven would signify that there be perfect unity in both realms, with angels and humans carrying out his will and being at one with him and with one another. The basis for this marvelous unity would be love. (Matthew 6:10, but not in Luke’s account)

In the petition relating to “bread” (ártos), the Greek term epioúsios appears. There is uncertainty about the precise significance of epioúsios. Not having seen this word in other writings or hearing it used in common speech, Origen (185? to 254? CE) concluded that it was a coined term. Considering Jesus’ admonition not to worry about the next day (Matthew 6:34) and the fact that manna was a daily provision of one omer (about two dry quarts) per person (Exodus 16:16-18), one may reasonably conclude that the petition is for “needed” bread or “essential” sustenance for the day. (Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3)

A sin is an offense against God and often also an offense against a fellow human. The sinner thus comes to be in the place of a debtor to God and to anyone else he may have sinned against. This means that sinners need to be extended forgiveness to be released from their debtor status. In Matthew 6:9, the petition is, “Forgive us our debts,” but in Luke 11:4, the plea is, “Forgive us our sins.” This is followed by an acknowledgment of having personally displayed a forgiving spirit (“as we also have forgiven our debtors” [Matthew 6:12]; “for we ourselves also forgive everyone indebted to us” [Luke 11:4]). Therefore, as forgiving and merciful children, we look to our heavenly Father to forgive us our debts or sins.

The plea not to be led into temptation could embrace not being permitted to come into circumstances beyond one’s strength to endure and, instead, could involve being fortified to resist succumbing to sin. The Greek word ponerós could either denote the “evil one” (the devil) or the “evil thing.” To be delivered from the “evil one” would mean to be shielded from his gaining the opportunity to lead one into sin. (Compare Luke 22:31; John 13:2; 1 Peter 5:8.) On the other hand, deliverance from “evil” would mean being safeguarded from anything that could result in ruining a right relationship with our heavenly Father.

Emphasizing the need to maintain a forgiving spirit, Jesus taught that those who are willing to forgive fellow humans their trespasses could look to his Father to forgive those they commit. As for those who are unforgiving and merciless, they cannot expect God to forgive them. (Matthew 6:14, 15)

Notes:

Jesus’ teaching about prayer is directed against the display of private devotions for the purpose of being seen, and his comments do not include prayers in which a community of believers join and to which they add their personal “amen.”

Traditionally, there were three hours of prayer. Acts 3:1 links the ninth hour or 3 p.m. to an “hour of prayer.” Josephus, in his Antiquities (IV, viii, 13), mentions two times for prayerful remembrance: “Let everyone commemorate before God the benefits which he bestowed upon them at their deliverance out of the land of Egypt, and this twice every day, both when the day begins and when the hour of sleep comes on, gratitude being in its own nature a just thing, and serving not only by way of return for past, but also by way of invitation of future favors.”

On another occasion, Jesus taught his disciples about prayer in response to their request. (Luke 11:1) Luke 11:2-4 parallels Matthew 6:9-13, but the wording differs and the prayer is shorter, indicating that Jesus’ words serve as an example of appropriate prayer and not as a formulaic expression to be repeated by rote.

The word “name” does not refer to the transliterated four letters YHWH appearing over 6,800 times in the Masoretic Text and uniquely distinguishing him as the true God (the One who is). “Name” stands for the heavenly Father, the bearer of the name or the God he has revealed himself to be.

A number of translations render the petition about the sanctifying of God’s name in a manner that would relate to the action of humans. “Help us to honor your name.” (CEV) “May your holy name be honored.” (GNT, Second Edition) “Your name be honored as holy.” (HCSB) “May your name always be kept holy.” (NCV) This, however, does not appear to be the preferable significance. In the prophecy of Ezekiel, divine action is revealed as resulting in the sanctification of God’s name. The Septuagint rendering of Ezekiel 38:23 uses a form of the same Greek word for “sanctified” as found in Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2 and specifically identifies the sanctification as a result of God’s action in expressing his judgment against “Gog” and “many nations with him.” (Ezekiel 38:22) According to the Septuagint, Ezekiel 38:23 reads, “And I will be exalted and sanctified and glorified; and I will be known before many nations, and they will know that I am the Lord [YHWH, Masoretic Text].”

Fasting (Matthew 6:16-18)

In times of great personal distress or when a serious situation faced the community, many customarily prayed and fasted, eating no food from the time of getting up in the morning until their retiring for the night. According to ancient Jewish sources, the person fasting on the day of atonement was not to wash or anoint his body or any part thereof. If, however, any body part had become dirty with excrement or filth, he could wash, and the sick could anoint themselves with oil or put oil on a scab.

One way those engaging in frequent fasting made a display thereof was to blacken their faces with ashes. Concerning a prominent rabbi of ancient times (Joshua Ben Ananiah), it was said that his face was black from fasting. Those who fasted appear to have made themselves look as miserable as possible.

Jesus identified as hypocrites persons who fasted for others to notice them, because their main objective involved the manner in which observers would regard them instead of a sincere desire to reflect the intensity of their appeal to God. Therefore, as Jesus had said about wrongly motivated prayer, such persons had received their reward. Whatever expressions of praise observers would make constituted the one and only recompense. (Matthew 6:16)

The Son of God taught his disciples to avoid making a show respecting personal fasting, not altering their appearance in any way. Instead, they were to wash their faces and put oil (commonly olive oil) on their heads. The oil would protect the exposed areas of the head and neck from the penetrating rays of the sun and would keep the skin supple. Jesus’ Father would take note of the sincere fasting, though done in secret or hidden from human view, and would respond favorably to the appeal associated therewith. (Matthew 6:17, 18)

Treasure (Matthew 6:19-21)

Material possessions are transitory, with most of them deteriorating in a comparatively short time. Anciently, garments could not be protected from the ravages of moths in the caterpillar stage, and there were no security systems to deter thieves from breaking into homes and stealing. Rust, then as now, ruins what was once attractive. Material possessions are never secure. They may depreciate or be stolen, ruined, or destroyed. Jesus’ admonition not to make the accumulation of material “treasure” the prime focus in life continues to be applicable. (Matthew 6:19)

The wiser course is to store up “treasure in heaven,” the place of ultimate security. It is by using one’s assets, time, and energies unselfishly for the good of others out of loving concern for them that one makes a record that is divinely approved. Building up an account of generous giving based on one’s ability and in expression of genuine compassion is comparable to making a deposit in heaven, for the recompense will be received from the Most High. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews assured fellow believers: “God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name [or for him], having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.” (Hebrew 6:10) No moth, no rust, no thief, or any other destructive agent can lessen the value of the treasure deposited in heaven. (Matthew 6:20)

Whatever one may consider as being of chief value will be the object on which one’s heart or one’s desires and affections are centered. As Jesus said, “For where your treasure is, there also your heart will be.” (Matthew 6:21)

Note:

According to Luke’s account (12:33, 34), Jesus, on another occasion, repeated the teaching about storing up treasure in heaven.

The Eye (Matthew 6:22, 23)

Without sight, one’s world becomes a world of darkness. The eye functions like a lamp for the body, making it possible to perceive everything that light makes visible. (Matthew 6:22) When, however, the eye does not focus properly, images are distorted, and whatever is perceived by means of the eye cannot be trusted. The manner in which one views matters is a reflection of one’s inner moral and spiritual condition.

When the eye is “simple,” sound, or properly focused, it serves as a dependable lamp for the body. The Greek word for “simple” (haploús) can, in a moral sense, also signify “sincere,” “straightforward,” “guileless,” and “generous.” Rightly focused on the realm belonging to eternity and not on transitory material assets, the “eye” makes the whole body bright, engendering a compassionate and loving concern for others and a desire to live a godly life.

Whenever the focus is on nothing nobler than material possessions or, even worse, directed by debased or impure motives and desires, the whole body or the whole being of a person exists in a state of deep darkness. It is then that the eye is bad or sick, functioning contrary to its purpose as a provider of light for the body. With the faculty of conscience not supplying light or clear direction, the individual’s state of darkness is indeed great. The very faculty that should be the source of light would then prove to be darkness, and, as Jesus said, “How great that darkness is!” (Matthew 6:23)

Note:

In Luke 11:34-36, the basic teaching about the “eye” is repeated. The occasion, however, is not the same.

Two Masters (Matthew 6:24)

It is impossible to slave for two masters, with each one demanding different services at the same time. A slave would be forced to make a choice, and that choice would be based upon which master he preferred. The slave would choose to be devoted to the master he loved, and hate or not like the one whom he rejected or despised as being undeserving of his service. Applying the principle, Jesus said, “You cannot slave for God and for mammon.” (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13 repeats these words but in connection with another occasion.)

The transliterated term “mammon” (mamonás) is understood to mean “wealth” or “possessions.” Service to God includes the willingness to use one’s resources to aid those in need. When, however, a person’s life is centered on increasing possessions, compassionate concern for others is either relegated to an insignificant place or ceases to exist. A godly life of generous giving is impossible for the individual who is enslaved to material assets.

Worry (Matthew 6:25-34)

Regarding life’s necessities, Jesus basically taught, “Do not worry.” Instead of giving in to anxiety concerning the need for food, drink, and clothing, disciples of God’s Son were to look to his Father to make it possible for them to have life’s essentials. The “soul” or one’s existence as a person is more than just a matter of having food, and the body is more than just an object to be clothed. Life as a human does not mean merely existing to eat and to wear garments. (Matthew 6:25)

Through his Father’s providential care, as Jesus pointed out, birds are able to obtain food, although they do not sow, harvest, or gather supplies into storage places. Applying the object lesson, Jesus raised the questions, “Are you not worth more than they are? Who of you by worrying can add a cubit [a small amount (a measure of merely some 18 inches) of length] to his life?” (Matthew 6:26, 27) Everyone listening knew that their worth was far greater than that of birds and that worry would accomplish nothing.

As to clothing, Jesus called attention to the “lilies” or common flowers growing in the fields. Although neither laboring nor spinning, the flowers were robed in splendor exceeding that of Solomon, the wealthiest of Israelite kings. Jesus could authoritatively say this, as he had seen the magnificence of Solomon’s attire. In view of the beauty with which God has arrayed the flowers that quickly fade and may the next day, when dry, be cast into an oven to start a fire, would he not also clothe the disciples? Jesus’ referring to them as having “little faith” may imply that they had a tendency to be anxious despite evidence of God’s providential care for the creation. (Matthew 6:28-30)

Concluding his teaching about not worrying, Jesus added that his disciples should not be like the people of the nations who do not know God and anxiously say, “What are we to eat? What are we to drink? What are we to put on?” For such people, “seeking” life’s essentials or being fully occupied by thoughts and efforts to acquire food, drink, and clothing was their whole existence. (Matthew 6:31, 32)

In the case of his disciples, Jesus continued, “Your Father in the heavens knows you need these things. Seek, then, first the kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be granted to you. Therefore, never worry about the next day, for the next day will have its own cares [literally, worries or anxieties]; enough for each day [is] its own trouble.” (Matthew 6:32-34) In his providential care, our loving heavenly Father will not overlook our needs, all of which are fully known to him. Never will he abandon those for whom seeking his kingdom and his righteousness occupies the foremost place in life and who prove themselves to be willing and dependable workers, conscientiously using their God-given abilities to obtain life’s necessities.

Seeking God’s kingdom would involve earnestly desiring to have him as our Sovereign, submitting ourselves to do his will and looking to him to sustain us. For us, seeking his righteousness could include endeavoring to live uprightly and trusting fully in his saving justice, confident that he will always fulfill his promise to provide and care for us. It is enough for one to have to deal with daily problems or concerns without adding to one’s burdens by needless and unproductive worry.

Notes:

At another time, according to Luke 12:22-32, Jesus repeated this vital teaching about anxiety.

The objective of seeking something is to find it and to have it in one’s possession. Therefore, seeking God’s kingdom relates to wanting to be under his sovereignty and living accordingly, and seeking his righteousness could embrace desiring to be upright in harmony with his will and also to be a recipient of his just dealings. God’s justice or righteousness can be depended on, as he always fulfills his word.

Judging (Matthew 7:1-6; Luke 6:37-42)

Judgmental individuals, those who are quick to censure or condemn, place themselves in line for the same treatment. Therefore, wise are all who heed Jesus’ admonition, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.” The “measure” or standard of judgment the censorious person uses is the very one by which others will judge him. (Matthew 7:1, 2; Luke 6:37)

Those who listened to Jesus’ teaching about judgment would have considered a fellow Israelite to be a “brother.” The Greek term kárphos designates a particle of wood, chaff, or straw, and can apply to a speck or a splinter, whereas the word dokós designates a beam or a heavy piece of timber. Addressing those who were inclined to be judgmental, Jesus said, “Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but do not notice the beam in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me get rid of the speck from your eye,’ when, see! [there is] a beam in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3, 4; Luke 6:41, 42)

Censorious individuals are quick to notice the minor flaws of others but to overlook their own faults, which, by comparison, may actually be more like a beam than a speck. With their vision or personal judgment obscured, they are in no position to help a brother in overcoming a flaw. On account of their own serious failings, they would likely cause great harm in their attempt to do so.

Jesus referred to the seriously flawed judgmental person as a “hypocrite.” (Matthew 7:5; Luke 6:42) Censorious individuals adopt a double standard, minimizing their own faults and exaggerating those of others. They may even condemn certain traits in others but consider them desirable in their own case. For example, they may call someone else hypercritical for making certain expressions but view themselves as having keen discernment for reacting similarly in comparable situations.

Endeavoring to free oneself of undesirable traits is extremely difficult. Bad habits are not easily replaced by good ones. So, the one with the serious fault comparable to a beam needed to rid himself first of his own obstacle in order to see clearly. Then he would be in a far better position to act with compassionate insight in an effort to aid his brother to get rid of a “speck.” (Matthew 7:5; Luke 6:42)

There are times, however, when judgments do have to be rendered regarding others and when a failure to do so would be harmful. “Do not give the sacred thing to dogs nor cast your pearls before pigs,” said Jesus. There are individuals who have no appreciation for sacred things or spiritual treasures. Attempts to share with them precious thoughts about God and his lofty ways would be comparable to an Israelite’s throwing meat from a holy communion sacrifice to dogs or valuable pearls to swine. Pigs would only trample upon the pearls and may then turn around and injure the one who foolishly threw the gems in front of them. Similarly, unappreciative persons would commonly resort to ridicule and make light of what was truly noble, trampling upon it. They may even flare up in anger and injure the one who failed to use discernment. (Matthew 7:6)

Notes:

In Luke 6:37 and 38, there is an expansion of the thought about giving and receiving. “Do not judge, and you will not be judged, and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Release [as when forgiving the transgressions of others or freeing them from the obligation to repay a debt], and you will be released [or pardoned]. Give, and it will be given to you.” The degree to which the generous giver would receive is likened to having a good measure of grain poured into the upper fold of a garment and then having the entire amount pressed down and shaken. Thus the amount would be the largest quantity possible, reaching the point of running over. “With the measure with which you measure, it will be measured back to you.”

The words of Luke 6:39 and 40 do not have a parallel in Matthew’s account. A blind man cannot serve as a reliable guide for another blind person. Unable to see a pit in the path, both he and the one he was leading would fall into it. Likewise, those presuming to be guides for others, trying to correct their faults, can bring harm to themselves and those whom they are endeavoring to set straight. The person being instructed will become like the one providing the teaching. Therefore, discernment is needed in determining whose teaching one would be willing to accept. Those who choose God’s Son as their trustworthy instructor are truly wise, for his teaching would always prove to be dependable and would never lead to a ruinous fall.

God’s Answering of Prayer (Matthew 7:7-11; Luke 11:9-13)

“Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who seeks finds, and to everyone who knocks it will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7, 8; Luke 11:9, 10) These words of Jesus express a general principle. By way of contrast, a request cannot be granted until it is made, the individual who refuses to seek will not find, and the door will not be opened to the person who chooses not to knock.

Illustrating his point about making requests, Jesus raised two questions with an implied negative response. Would a father hand a stone (something resembling a loaf but of no value for nourishment) to the son who asks for bread? Would he give a serpent (a creature that was unclean for food according to the requirements of the Mosaic law) to the son who requests a fish? (Matthew 7:9, 10)

Applying the point made with his questions, Jesus then gave the assurance that, since flawed (literally, “wicked,” “bad,” or “evil”) fathers know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more so would the heavenly Father “give good things to those who ask him.” (Matthew 7:11)

Notes:

Luke’s account (11:9-13) repeats the basic thoughts and mentions them in connection with another occasion during the course of Jesus’ ministry. The two questions are whether a father would give a serpent to the son who asks for a fish or whether he would give a scorpion to the son who requests an egg. Then, instead of mentioning that the heavenly Father would give “good things,” Luke 11:13 says that the Father would give “holy spirit.”

Both Matthew 7:11 and Luke 11:13 start with the words, “If, then, you, [although] being bad, know how to give good gifts to your children.” The Greek word for “bad,” “evil,” or “wicked” is ponerós and serves to contrast the flawed human with the Father who is holy or pure in the absolute sense. This adds emphasis to Jesus’ assurance that his Father would always give good things to those who ask him.

The “Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31)

“All things you want men [or, people] to do to you, you should thus also do to them, for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31) Treating others like one would want to be treated has come to be known as the “golden rule.” Acting in harmony with it reflects a caring, loving, just, and compassionate disposition. The law given to Israel and the words of the prophets repeatedly stressed the need for acting impartially and with love and compassion. Therefore, Jesus could say that treating others in the manner in which one would want to be treated “is” or expresses the sum of the guidance set forth in the law and by the prophets.

Notes:

In Luke 6:31, the wording is slightly different, “And as you want men [or, people] to do to you, do to them likewise.”

Tobit 4:15 (NRSV) presents a negative form of this admonition, “And what you hate, do not do to anyone.” Adherence to this advice would merely require not harming others, but Jesus’ counsel calls for positive action when interacting with fellow humans.

There have been those who want to improve upon Jesus’ words, changing the directive to be, “Treat others as they want to be treated.” This, however, assumes knowledge that one would not necessarily have, and there are times when individuals would want to be treated in a manner that violates the teaching of God’s Son. The positive form in which Jesus framed his words is appropriate at all times and in all situations, as the individual, in his interaction with others, is fully aware of how he would want to be treated.

Two Roads (Matthew 7:13, 14)

One would readily see a spacious road where many are walking and not even notice a small gate leading to a cramped, difficult path. Even in case some individuals spotted the small gate, they would generally choose the easier and well-traveled road. People tend to feel more secure when they observe many on the same course. It gives them confidence that the road is the right one to take, eliminating the need for personal evaluation. When it comes to matters of life, they find it comfortable to be in step with the majority and not to be looked upon disdainfully for being outsiders.

Jesus, however, taught that, when it comes to one’s course in life, the broad road should not be the option of choice. “Enter through the narrow gate,” he said, “because wide [is] the gate [like the main gate leading into a city] and broad [is] the road leading to destruction, and many are those who enter through it.” Emphasizing the right choice, Jesus continued, “Narrow [is] the gate and arduous [is] the road leading to life, and few are the ones who find it.” (Matthew 7:13, 14) Although appearing to be right, the broad road leads to loss and ruin. By contrast, the difficult path, requiring one to break away from the crowd, is the way that leads to life.

For those who heard and saw Jesus, the decision to accept him as the promised Messiah and the Son of God and then to follow his example and teaching proved to be the difficult path, the one leading to life. A person’s starting and continuing to walk on this arduous path resulted in disapproval, reproach, and even the possibility of violent treatment. The attitude of the most influential members of the Jewish nation is reflected in the words later spoken to officers sent to arrest Jesus but who had failed to do so, “Have you also been deceived? Has anyone of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law—damned they are.” (John 7:47, 48)

Notes:

The word translated “arduous” is a form of the Greek word thlíbo, which can mean to “press upon” or “crowd,” “constrict,” “afflict,” or “oppress.” These meanings suggest a hard or difficult path.

Jesus’ words reveal that security is not to be found with the crowd. Often, when individuals become disillusioned by a religious movement, a denomination, or a nondenominational body, they cast about for another group, seeking a more comfortable environment and social framework. They never seem to come to recognize that being a disciple of God’s Son means being attached to him, and that the family of God’s children includes all who love the Father and his Son as reflected in upright conduct and compassionate and loving concern for fellow humans.

Traveling on the difficult path is not a group endeavor. It is not a matter of subscribing to a specific “statement of faith,” nor does it mean following the routine a particular religious movement may advocate. Rather, it is a daily walk with God and Christ, with the full awareness of personal accountability.

Other individuals, upon discovering that the movement with which they may long have been associated is not what it claims to be, jettison whatever belief in God and Christ they may have had. They may then seek out others with the same experience and form a loose network of malcontents, venting their anger against a system they have come to view as deceptive and as having robbed them of opportunities that could have meant a better life for them. Although free of the movement, they still feel the weight of its chains and struggle hard against it. Sadly, they choose not to enter through the narrow gate and follow the difficult path leading to life.

Identifying Fruit (Matthew 7:15-23; Luke 6:43-46)

Jesus warned about being on guard against false prophets, those who, in their proclamations, would misrepresent him and his Father. Outwardly, they would appear as sheep, innocent and inoffensive. In actuality, they would be ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, exploiting and injuring all whom they succeeded in deluding. (Matthew 7:15)

They would be recognized by their fruits — their disposition, conduct, and objectives. Persons producing good “fruits” would reveal themselves to be loving, compassionate, and impartial, seeking not personal advantage or gain but being intensely concerned about honoring God. Good and bad fruit would be as recognizable as that on a vine or tree. No one gathers grapes from a thorny shrub, or figs from thorny plants. A good tree does not yield bad fruit, and a rotten tree does not produce good fruit. Unproductive trees or those yielding worthless fruit were cut down and burned, as, in the first century, owners had to pay tax for these trees. For emphasis, Jesus repeated the words, “You will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:16-20; Luke 6:43, 44)

There are those who would call Jesus, “Lord, Lord,” using the right expression and doing so with a seeming intensity of feeling (as suggested by the repetition). Nevertheless, they would not enter the “kingdom of the heavens,” never becoming part of the royal realm where God is recognized as Sovereign. To gain entrance into that realm and coming to enjoy all the benefits and blessings associated therewith requires, as Jesus said, “doing the will of [his] Father.” (Matthew 7:21) Moreover, Luke’s account (6:46) indicates that their calling Jesus “Lord” was insincere, for they did not carry out the things he told them to do.

In “that day,” when the identity of those wanting God as the Sovereign of their lives is confirmed, many will claim that this was their desire. They would then point to having performed works they considered deserving of commendation. “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and did we not expel demons in your name, and did we not do many impressive deeds in your name?” (Matthew 7:22)

Although he is Lord and rightly addressed as such and the works enumerated are not deeds that would merit censure, Jesus would not acknowledge them as approved and as ever having had a relationship with him. Rejecting them, he would then say, “I never knew you. Depart from me, workers of lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:23) They would claim to have acted in his name or as representing him, but this would not have been so in actuality. They had failed in doing his Father’s will. Whatever their motivations, conduct, and deeds may have been, those who will be rejected brought no honor to Jesus nor to his Father.

Notes:

Jesus’ words are sobering, calling for serious self-examination as to whether one’s words and actions are focused on advancing his honor. Both as an individual or as part of a group, one can fall into the trap of promoting an agenda or working for a cause and winning supporters for it. The activity may then be mistakenly regarded as an expression of genuine faith. Whenever the tendency is to promote self or a particular movement, the danger of failing to live a life that truly brings praise to God and Christ is very real.

What counts with Christ is that we do his Father’s will. This requires being on guard against anyone who would make one the victim of a system, laboring for it and its interests.

In Luke 6:45, the aspect about fruit is amplified with the words, “A good man, from the good treasure of his heart, produces good, and the evil [man], from the [store of] evil, produces evil; for out of the heart’s fullness, the [his, in other ancient manuscripts] mouth speaks.” The true inner self of a person, the “heart,” is revealed through the expressions that come out of the mouth. These would be the spontaneous, unguarded expressions that are the real reflection of the individual’s inner life. Jesus expressed a similar thought on another occasion. (Matthew 12:35)

The Right Foundation (Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49)

Jesus likened the one hearing his words and acting in harmony with them to a wise builder. Erected on a solid foundation of rock, his house would withstand rain, flash floods, and fierce winds. (Matthew 7:24, 25; Luke 6:47, 48)

The one hearing Jesus’ words and disregarding them would be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. With the coming of the rainy season and accompanying floods and powerful winds, his house would collapse and be reduced to ruins. (Matthew 7:26, 27; Luke 6:49)

Jesus’ teaching had a profound effect on those who heard him, as it differed markedly from that of the scribes. For their authority, the ancient scribes and rabbis drew on the traditional teaching of those who preceded them. Reportedly, Hillel the Great discussed a certain subject accurately all day, but his teaching was not accepted until he, at the end, said, “So I heard from Shemaia and Abtalion.”

Unlike the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus spoke authoritatively, never basing his teaching on tradition but referring only to the Scriptures or appealing to the authority his Father had granted him. It is this distinctive feature of Jesus’ teaching — his speaking with authority completely independent of tradition — that astonished the crowds who listened to him. (Matthew 7:28, 29)

Notes:

The basic message of Matthew 7:24-27 and Luke 6:47-49 is the same. In Luke’s account the one likened to a wise builder is also referred to as coming to Jesus, indicating that he is a person who wanted to hear the teaching of God’s Son. Luke 6:48 includes the additional detail that the builder dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock, but the passage does not mention the rain and the winds. Having been erected on the solid foundation, the house could not be shaken by the force of the river (at flood stage) lashing against it. The one who heard but did not act on Jesus’ teaching is then likened to a man who built his “house on the ground without a foundation.” Against this house, the raging river burst, causing it to collapse at once, “and great was the ruin of that house.”

Regardless of the circumstances, faithful adherence to Jesus’ teaching places one on a solid foundation and leads to abiding benefits. Allowing others to alter or weaken his teaching or wrongly to equate mere interpretations with his clear instruction is comparable to building on sand, with resultant serious spiritual harm. It is vital that we indeed listen to and heed Jesus’ words and not what others, through the filter of their paradigm, represent as his teaching.

Miracles and Continued Activity in Galilee

Healing the Centurion’s Servant (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10)

During the time Jesus ministered in Galilee, Rome had a military presence in the region. Among the soldiers were men who retained their humanity and befriended the Jews. In Capernaum, one Roman centurion (a commander of 100 soldiers) came to be highly regarded among the elders of the city. He was a compassionate man who deeply cared about his ailing servant who appeared to be at the point of dying. (Luke 7:1, 2) Paralyzed, the servant suffered terribly. (Matthew 8:5, 6)

So, when Jesus was back in the city, this centurion, having heard about him, directed a request to Jewish elders of the city. Through them, he wanted to appeal to Jesus to cure his servant. (Luke 7:3)

The elders earnestly pleaded with Jesus, telling him that the centurion was deserving of having his request honored. “He loves our nation,” they said, “and built the synagogue for us.” (Luke 7:4, 5)

Jesus expressed his willingness to cure the servant and then left with them to go to the centurion’s home. As they approached, he sent friends to tell Jesus that he did not consider himself worthy of having him enter his house and that this was also the reason for his not having made his request personally. Believing that Jesus would not actually have to see his servant, the centurion had his friends convey the following message, “Say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man placed under authority, having soldiers under me, and I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes. And to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does [it.]” As far as the centurion was concerned, Jesus authoritative word would be sufficient to effect the cure. (Luke 7:6-8; compare Matthew 8:8, 9.)

Upon hearing these words expressive of a conviction supported by sound reasoning, Jesus marveled and said to the crowd following him, “I tell you, I have not found faith this great in Israel.” The centurion’s remarkable faith gave evidence that many non-Jews would respond in faith, whereas Jesus’ own people would miss out on being part of the royal realm where God is recognized as Sovereign, losing out on all the blessings associated therewith. Speaking prophetically, Jesus said, “Many will come from east and west and recline [as when partaking of a meal] with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness. There the weeping and the gnashing of teeth will be.” (Matthew 8:10-12; Luke 7:9)

Jesus’ listeners would have understood Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to have been their illustrious ancestors to whom the divine promises were made. As their descendants, the Jews were in line for being sharers in the “kingdom of the heavens.” This, however, called for them to accept Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, the Son of God and the king by God’s appointment. Their failure to do so would result in great loss. From east and west, non-Jewish peoples would put faith in Jesus and come to share the benefits of being in the royal realm. Cast out for their rejection of God’s appointed king, the “sons of the kingdom,” heirs to the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would weep and clench their teeth, trying vainly to hold back their bitter tears on account of their loss.

It appears that Jesus also expressed himself to the effect that the cure be accomplished according to the centurion’s faith. In that “hour,” the healing occurred. (Matthew 8:13) Upon their returning to the house, the ones whom the centurion had sent found the slave fully recovered. (Luke 7:10)

Notes:

Matthew 8:5-13 reflects common usage, whereas Luke 7:1-10 provides the more specific details. Although conveyed through others, the words were those of the centurion, and the narrative in Matthew portrays the interchange as taking place between Jesus and the centurion. The account in Luke, however, relates how the centurion communicated with Jesus. Therefore, the words Jesus spoke to those who represented the centurion are referred to in Matthew 8:5-13 as having been directed to him.

The centurion must have known that Jews did not freely associate with non-Jews in their homes. (Compare Acts 10:28; 11:2, 3.) Possibly, therefore, thinking that entering the house of a non-Jewish stranger could be problematic for Jesus, the centurion may have humbly and considerately expressed his unworthiness to have him do so.

Resurrection of a Widow’s Only Son (Luke 7:11-17)

With his disciples, Jesus left Capernaum for other parts of Galilee. Besides his disciples, a large crowd followed. (Luke 7:11)

Near the city of Nain, Jesus performed an astounding miracle. When he and those accompanying him approached the city gate, they saw a funeral procession. The young dead man being carried out for burial was the only son of a widow. A sizable crowd accompanied the weeping mother. Moved with compassion for her, Jesus approached, telling her not to weep. He then touched the bier, and those carrying it stopped walking. In response to Jesus’ words, “Young man, I say to you, rise,” he sat up and began to speak, and Jesus presented him to his mother. (Luke 7:12-15)

All who witnessed this resurrection were filled with a reverential fear or awe and glorified or praised God. “A great prophet has been raised up among us!” they exclaimed. “God has shown concern for his people.” (Luke 7:16)

News about Jesus in connection with this miracle spread widely. The “word” or news reached “the whole of Judea” and “all the surrounding country.” In this case, “Judea” may be understood to refer to all the land in which the Jews resided and not just the region south of Samaria, and “all the surrounding country” would then mean areas beyond the region embraced by the designation “Judea.” (Luke 7:17)

Notes:

This resurrection may well have reminded those witnessing it that the prophet Elijah had resurrected the only son of a widow in Zarephath and that Elisha had raised the only son of a hospitable woman at Shunem. (1 Kings 17:9, 13-23; 2 Kings 4:32-37) Understandably, inhabitants of Nain would have been moved spontaneously to acknowledge, “A great prophet has been raised up among us!”

Nain is commonly identified with a site located roughly twenty miles southwest of Capernaum.

John’s Inquiry and Jesus’ Reply (Matthew 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35)

While John the Baptist was in prison, his disciples told him about all that Jesus was doing. Prior to his confinement, John had called attention to the judgment role the one coming after him would fill and, therefore, would have expected to hear about works suggesting that Jesus had commenced preparing for its execution. He also may have wondered why he was not being freed from imprisonment. To John, reports about the miracles would not have suggested that his message about Jesus was being fulfilled. So he sent two of his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one to come or are we to expect another?” (Matthew 3:12; 11:2, 3; Luke 3:7-9; 7:18, 19)

At the time John’s disciples arrived to make their inquiry, Jesus cured many people of their afflictions, liberated those suffering from demon possession, and restored sight to the blind. (Luke 7:21) Jesus did not provide a direct answer to John’s question but replied in a manner that would have enabled him to draw the right conclusion. “Tell John what you have seen and heard. The blind [now] see, the lame walk, lepers are being cleansed, and the deaf hear. The dead are being raised, the poor are having the glad tidings proclaimed [to them], and fortunate is whoever does not take offense at me.” (Luke 7:22, 23; Matthew 11:4-6)

Jesus’ response somewhat echoes the prophetic words of Isaiah (61:1) and appears to reflect the then-existing expectations regarding the Messiah. A nonbiblical Dead Sea scroll (4Q521) contains the expression “his Messiah” (likely to be understood as meaning God’s Messiah). Then, in a messianic context, this scroll reads, “He will heal the sick, make the dead alive, and proclaim glad tidings to the poor.”

The words about not taking offense or stumbling relate to not allowing preconceived views or expectations to stand in the way of accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Those who let nothing or no one interfere with their response in faith are pronounced fortunate, because they came to enjoy the desirable state of well-being based on an approved relationship with the Most High.

After John’s two disciples departed, Jesus directed his comments about him to the crowd. “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed being swayed by the wind? Then, what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Behold! Those in splendid apparel and living in luxury are in the palaces of kings. Then, what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, even more than a prophet. Concerning him it is written, ‘Look! I am sending my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’ [Amen, according to some manuscripts and also in Matthew] I say to you, Among those born of women, no one is greater than John, but the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (Luke 7:24-28; Matthew 11:7-11.)

John proved to be a courageous prophet, not even holding back from reproving Herod Antipas for his incestuous relationship with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. (Matthew 14:3, 4) By no means could John be swayed from a firm stand for what is right and, therefore, could never be likened to a reed moving to and fro in the wind. He was dressed in austere attire and subsisted in the wilderness on locusts and honey. John did not possess anything that resembled the splendid apparel and luxurious surroundings of the servile flatterers or sycophants whose position depended on maintaining the favor of rulers. In his courageous bearing and words, he had nothing in common with such fawning men.

John was more than just another prophet God had raised up among his people. Centuries earlier, he had been promised to come as the messenger to prepare the way for the Messiah. (Malachi 3:1) In this unique role, John was greater than all the prophets who had preceded him. Nevertheless, the least in the kingdom of God would be greater than he had been in his capacity as the foretold messenger.

Jesus explained that a new development in connection with the “kingdom of the heavens” had its start in the “days of John the Baptist.” The time had arrived and then continued for individuals to become part of the realm where God is Sovereign and to begin enjoying the blessings and benefits this would mean for those seizing the opportunity. In connection with the kingdom, Matthew 11:12 (also Luke 16:16) represents Jesus as having used a word (biázo) that in its basic sense means “to be violent” and in the passive voice “to experience violence.” This may mean that violent opposition is directed against God’s kingdom, and that violent opposers deprive those yielding to them the opportunity to become part of the royal realm. Another possibility is that, in this case, biázo has the sense of directing forceful effort to attain the kingdom and that those exerting themselves fervently would gain entrance. (See the Notes section for the ways in which Matthew 11:12 has been interpretively rendered.)

The law and the prophets prophesied until John came on the scene, pointing forward to the coming of the Messiah. John, however, filled the role of the foretold Elijah, preparing the way for the Messiah’s actual arrival. As Jesus said regarding John, “If you wish to accept it, he is [the] Elijah [foretold] to come.” The proper follow-through for those who were willing to accept that John was the promised Elijah would have been to recognize that the Messiah had arrived and that the marvelous works Jesus did undeniably established his identity as the Son of God. Jesus’ words to those with ears to listen served to admonish them to draw the correct conclusion and to respond in faith. (Matthew 11:13-15)

Luke’s account (7:29, 30) introduces a parenthetical expression that has been understood to refer to hearing what either Jesus or John had said. A number of translations have chosen to make this explicit in their renderings. “All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.” (NIV) “All the people, yes, even the tax collectors, when they heard John acknowledged God and were baptized by his baptism. But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law frustrated God’s purpose for them, for they refused John’s baptism.” (J. B. Phillips) “Everyone had been listening to John. Even the tax collectors had obeyed God and had done what was right by letting John baptize them. But the Pharisees and the experts in the Law of Moses refused to obey God and be baptized by John.” (CEV)

It would appear preferable to regard the “hearing” to relate to the message John proclaimed, for Jesus’ words specifically focused on John. Those who heeded John’s message, including the tax collectors, acknowledged that he was declaring God’s word when urging them to repent of their sins. By following through and submitting to baptism, they “justified” God or confessed that he was right when requiring them to repent. The Pharisees and men versed in the law who disregarded the “counsel of God” conveyed through John did not repent and get baptized.

In their response to him and John, Jesus likened the people to children in the marketplace who declined to share in any form of play other youngsters initiated. If one group of children played the flute, the others refused to dance. When the flute players chose to wail instead, the others did not join in and weep. Neither acting out a joyous event nor pretending to be present for a sad occasion was to the liking of those being invited to participate in playing. Nothing pleased them. Similarly, when John the Baptist did not partake of customary meals and drank no wine, people maligned him as having a demon. Jesus, “the Son of Man,” did eat the usual fare, even accepting invitations to banquets, and drank wine. Yet, those who condemned John also slandered Jesus, calling him a glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners. They implied that Jesus delighted in being associated with the basest elements of society and reveled in food and drink. (Matthew 11:16-19; Luke 7:31-34)

The detractors failed to see that the conduct of John and that of Jesus harmonized with their message and produced desirable fruitage. As Jesus said, “Wisdom is justified by its works.” (Matthew 11:19) “Wisdom is justified by all its children.” (Luke 7:35) The austere life of John suited his message of repentance, and the joys and blessings opened up through the Son of God were appropriate for sharing in pleasant table fellowship, which provided opportunities for bringing spiritual benefits to responsive ones. The wisdom evident in the ministries of John and Jesus and in their personal bearing was thus vindicated by its “works” (by its “children”) or the good results in the lives of all who heeded what they heard.

Notes:

With minor variations, the wording of Matthew (11:4-11, 16-19) and Luke (7:22-28, 31-35) is basically the same. In Matthew 11:8, the less specific designation “soft things” appears twice, but Luke 7:25 uses the expressions “soft garments” or “soft robes” and “splendid apparel.” Only Luke’s account mentions the point about “living in luxury.” According to many later manuscript readings of Luke 7:28, John is identified as a prophet, and Matthew 11:11 refers to him as “John the Baptist.” Whereas Matthew 11:11 says “kingdom of the heavens,” Luke 7:28 reads “kingdom of God.”

The words of Matthew 11:12 have been variously translated, with some renderings being literal and others departing considerably from the Greek text. “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.” (ESV) “From the time John preached his message until this very day the Kingdom of heaven has suffered violent attacks, and violent men try to seize it.” (GNT, Second Edition) “And from the time John the Baptist began preaching and baptizing until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, and violent people attack it.” (NLT) “Since the time John the Baptist came until now, the kingdom of heaven has been going forward in strength, and people have been trying to take it by force.” (NCV) “From the time of John the Baptist until now, violent people have been trying to take over the kingdom of heaven by force.” (CEV) Seit Johannes der Täufer da ist, richtet Gott seine Herrschaft auf, wenn auch Gewalttätige versuchen, es zu verhindern. (“Since John the Baptist has been here God has been establishing his rule, even though violent ones try to prevent it.” [The German Hoffnung für Alle]) Als der Täufer Johannes auftrat, hat Gott angefangen, seine Herrschaft aufzurichten; aber bis heute stellen sich ihre Feinde in den Weg. Sie hindern andere mit Gewalt daran, sich dieser Herrschaft zu unterstellen. (“When the baptizer John appeared, God began to establish his rule; but until today its enemies position themselves in the way. With violence, they hinder others from submitting to this rule.” [The German Gute Nachricht Bibel])

Jesus’ Response to Unbelief (Matthew 11:20-30; Luke 10:13-15, 21, 22)

Jesus did most of the works demonstrating divine power in the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, located near or on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Although having witnessed many miracles, most of the inhabitants of these cities refused to repent and change their ways, persisting in unbelief. This prompted Jesus to reproach them. (Matthew 11:20) On account of their great loss, his pronouncement of woe must have been accompanied by great sadness. (Compare Luke 13:34; 19:41, 42.)

If the people of Tyre and Sidon, the non-Israelite cities on the Phoenician coast, had witnessed the miracles Jesus performed, they would long previously have repented, expressing their sorrow by putting on sackcloth and seating themselves on ashes. The arrival of the day of judgment would, therefore, prove to be more bearable for the people of Tyre and Sidon than for the inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida who saw Jesus’ mighty deeds. (Matthew 11:21, 22; Luke 10:13, 14)

As for Capernaum, it would not be exalted heaven high but would be brought down to the lowest level (Hades or the realm of the dead). (Compare the different subject matter but the similar contrast in Amos 9:2; see the Notes section on Matthew 11:23.) If the morally corrupt inhabitants of Sodom had been granted the opportunity to see the working of divine power like the people of Capernaum did, they would have repented, and the city would still have existed when Jesus was on earth. On the day of judgment, the situation would be more bearable for the former inhabitants of Sodom than for the unrepentant inhabitants of Capernaum. (Matthew 11:23, 24; Luke 10:15)

Jesus’ words suggest that the judgment destined to come upon the unbelieving inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum would be more severe than that on the people of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom. He did not, however, reveal just how the judgment would be more tolerable or bearable. Later, in one of his parables, he did indicate that the kind of punitive judgment to be administered would depend on the degree of accountability. (Luke 12:47, 48) It was sufficient for unbelievers to be warned about the seriousness of the coming judgment without being provided with specifics. By reason of what they had seen and heard, the inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were far more accountable for their actions than the people of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom.

The unresponsiveness of the majority did not embitter Jesus. With holy spirit operating upon him, he rejoiced about those who did come to repentance and put their faith in him. “I thank [exomologéo] you,” he prayed, “Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and have revealed them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it came to be pleasing before you.” (Matthew 11:25, 26; Luke 10:21; see the Notes section for additional comments on Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21.)

For the most part, the prominent ones among the Jews, the wise and learned in their midst, were more concerned about maintaining their position and upholding tradition than they were in doing God’s will. Therefore, the matters relating to coming to enjoy an approved relationship with the Father through his Son remained hidden from them. The Father let them remain blind and thus kept them from seeing their need for repentance and putting faith in his Son. Yet, to the lowly, the ones whom others regarded as insignificant, mere babes, the Father had revealed what was necessary, and they responded in faith. Their disposition was such that they were receptive to the message and person of his Son, and the Father favored them with unobstructed hearing with attentive ears.

To his Son, the Father had committed “all things” pertaining to having his approval. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus alone truly knew him and was fully known by him. In a manner that no one else could, Jesus revealed his Father to anyone whom he chose. The ones chosen would thus also truly come to know the Father as those enjoying an approved relationship with him. Jesus’ choice, as evident from those who became his loyal disciples, were all persons who had repented of their sins and came to acknowledge him as the Christ, the Son of God. (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22)

No one, however, was debarred from coming to him. To all who carried a heavy burden (suffering or oppression of any kind, the weight of compliance with traditions, or feelings of guilt and unworthiness), he extended the invitation to come to him, and he would grant them rest or refreshment. Instead of the oppressive yoke that weighed down on them and brought them pain and grief, he invited them to accept his yoke and to learn from him. He was no oppressive master, with an arrogant or superior bearing. Jesus was gentle and, in his heart or deep inner self, lowly. There was nothing about the Son of God that would make others feel inferior or worthless. He was tender and loving, displaying the spirit of a caring servant and not the harsh attitude of a superior. Therefore, the yoke of discipleship that he offered would be easy to carry, and the load would be light. It was not a life governed by a multitude of rules and regulations but a life of love stemming from an internal desire to be pleasing to him and his Father. (Matthew 11:28-30)

Notes:

In Matthew 11:23 (and the parallel passage of Luke 10:15), a number of translations present the contrast by other than a literal rendering of “heaven” and “Hades.” “And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.” (NIV) “And you Capernaum, will you be lifted up to heaven? No, you will be thrown down to the depths.” (NCV)

The word exomologéo, a form of which is found in Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, signifies to confess or acknowledge openly. In the context of Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21, the term may either mean “thank” or “praise.”

See http://bibleplaces.com/bethsaida.htm for pictures of and comments about Bethsaida.

See http://holylandphotos.org/ for pictures of and comments about Chorazin and Tyre.Type either Korazin or Tyre in the Search box to obtain the specific information on each one.

See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.

In the Home of Simon, a Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50)

Jesus accepted an invitation to share a meal in the home of Simon, a Pharisee. Possibly because of having heard or witnessed Jesus’ miracles, Simon’s curiosity about this “rabbi” of Galilee had been aroused and he wanted an opportunity to interact with him personally. As on other occasions, Jesus would primarily have been concerned about the spiritual well-being of those with whom he chose to associate. (Luke 7:36)

According to the arrangement for serving meals at that time, couches would have been positioned around three sides of a table, with the remaining side providing access for servants to bring in the food. While reclining on the couches, the host and the guests would not be wearing their sandals. Supporting themselves on the left arm, those eating would partake of the food with their right hand.

The account does not say whether those in Simon’s home were eating in the courtyard or in a room adjacent thereto. Uninvited persons would have had access to the courtyard, and it was customary for people to go to homes where rabbis had been invited in order to learn from them.

A woman in the city who had the reputation of being a sinner, possibly a prostitute, heard the news that Jesus was eating in the Pharisee’s home. She doubtless had heard Jesus speak and may even have witnessed his miracles. It appears that, based on what she had heard or seen, she had been moved to make changes in her life and came to appreciate and love Jesus for what he had done for her. Confident that he would not turn her away, she took an alabaster jar filled with myrrh or perfumed ointment and headed for Simon’s house. (Luke 7:37) As a woman with an unsavory reputation, she knew that she would not be a welcome sight, but her love for Jesus and her trust in him prompted her to go where she would not be wanted.

Upon arriving at the house, she stood behind Jesus, at his feet. Emotionally moved by his spirit of love and compassion, she began to weep, and her tears fell upon his feet. She then wiped his feet dry with her long hair, continued kissing them, and poured upon them the perfumed ointment she had brought along. (Luke 7:38) Observing this, Simon reasoned that Jesus could not be a prophet, for a prophet would have known the kind of sinful woman who was touching him. (Luke 7:39)

Discerning Simon’s reaction, Jesus spoke up, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” replied Simon, “speak.” Jesus then told about two debtors, one owing 500 denarii (the denarius being the usual daily wage for a worker) and the other 50 to the same creditor. Neither debtor was able to repay the amount owed, and the creditor kindly canceled their debts. Jesus then asked Simon, “Which one of them will love him more?” Simon concluded that it would be the one who had the greater debt. (Luke 7:40-43)

Jesus acknowledged, “Rightly you have judged.” Applying the point of his parable about the two debtors, Jesus turned toward the woman and directed his words to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house, [and] you gave me no water for my feet, but she, with her tears, wet my feet and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but she, from the time I came, did not stop kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with perfumed ointment.” (Luke 7:43-46)

Simon had not extended to Jesus the customary gestures of hospitality, which included making provision for washing the guest’s feet, greeting him with a kiss, and applying olive oil to the exposed areas of his head. In expression of her love and appreciation, however, the woman had done everything Simon had neglected to do.

Because of the way she had responded to him, Jesus continued, “Her sins, though many, are forgiven because she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.” To the woman, he said, “Your sins are forgiven.” Those reclining at the table, however, reacted negatively, reasoning within themselves, “Who is this who can even forgive sins?” Jesus next words to her revealed why she gained forgiveness, reassuringly he said to her, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.” (Luke 7:47-50) The basis for forgiveness is faith or trust in Jesus, and the woman had demonstrated that she had genuine faith and love. Therefore, she could depart in peace, free from the burden of guilt for past sins.

Women Who Accompanied Jesus and His Apostles (Luke 8:1-3)

With his twelve apostles, Jesus traveled to towns and villages in Galilee, proclaiming the glad tidings of God’s kingdom. His message revealed how individuals could become part of the realm where his Father is recognized as Sovereign. Many accompanied Jesus and his apostles, including some women whom he had cured of their ailments or liberated from demon possession. Among them were Mary, called Magdalene, Joanna the wife of Chuza, and Susanna. (Luke 8:1-3)

Jesus had expelled “seven demons” from Mary. This may not necessarily mean “seven” in a literal sense but may denote a very serious case of demon possession. Mary may have been called Magdalene because of coming from Magdala, a town on the west coast of the Sea of Galilee and about six miles southwest of Capernaum.

Joanna appears to have been a woman of considerable prominence. Her husband Chuza was in the service of Herod Antipas. He is identified as occupying the position of epítropos, (steward or manager). In extrabiblical sources, the term epítropos is even used for men who served in such high offices as governors and procurators. Nothing in the context is specific enough to determine just what Chuza’s official position entailed and whether he was still alive at the time Joanna began following Jesus.

The women seem to have had considerable means at their disposal and used their resources to assist Jesus and the apostles. They may have arranged to provide meals and other essential services. (Luke 8:3)

Misrepresented as Being in League with the Demons (Matthew 12:22-50; Mark 3:20-35)

Large crowds began to gather around Jesus and even scribes from Jerusalem came down to the area in Galilee which was the focus of his activity. The constant presence of crowds did not permit Jesus and his apostles to have the needed time to eat. News about these developments, possibly including word about the hostility of the Pharisees, caused Mary and his brothers to become concerned. They concluded that Jesus had lost his senses and needed to be rescued from the situation that had come into existence. (Mark 3:20-22)

On one occasion, people brought a man whose blindness and inability to speak they believed to be caused by demon possession. Jesus cured the afflicted man, enabling him to speak and to see. Amazed, those witnessing the miracle wondered, “Might he not be the son of David [the promised Messiah]?” (Matthew 12:22, 23) Hearing this, the Pharisees (the scribes that had come from Jerusalem [according to Mark 3:22]) did not deny the miracle but concluded that Jesus performed it by the power of Beelzebul (Beelzebub) or the devil, the ruler of the demons. (Matthew 12:24)

Aware of the thinking of those who opposed him, Jesus exposed the folly of their reasoning. “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How, then, will his kingdom stand? And if I, by Beelzebul, cast out the demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they [your sons, probably meaning the disciples of the Pharisees] will be your judges.” (Matthew 12:25-27; Mark 3:23-26)

It would have been unreasonable for Satan to work against his own interests, creating loss in his realm. Furthermore, the Pharisees would never have contended that their “sons” or disciples engaged in expelling demons by satanic power. They would have attributed such exorcism to the power of God. So, their own “sons” or disciples exposed them as having come to totally inconsistent conclusions when claiming the very opposite about Jesus.

“If, however,” Jesus continued, “I cast out demons by God’s spirit, then God’s kingdom has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the house of a strong man and seize his belongings, unless he first binds the strong man?” Deprived of his ability to prevent the seizure of his goods, he would be vulnerable. It would then be possible to enter his house and rob him. (Matthew 12:28, 29; Mark 3:27) The expulsion of demons through the powerful working of God’s spirit identified Jesus as God’s anointed king and as exercising royal authority that even the demons had to obey.

All who did not take their stand for Jesus, demonstrating themselves to be “with him,” were “against” him. Those who did not “gather” with him, actively supporting his work, made themselves guilty of “scattering” or trying to interfere with his labors. (Matthew 12:30)

Jesus stressed the seriousness of attributing his good works to satanic power. People who, in ignorance, became guilty of blaspheming or reviling God’s Son or sinned seriously could be forgiven. (Compare 1 Timothy 1:13-16.) Blaspheming God’s spirit, persistently maintaining that the unmistakable evidence of the working of divine power for the accomplishment of good was satanic or demonic, would not be forgiven then or in the age to come. It would always be an unforgivable sin. (Matthew 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28-30)

To “make the tree good” would denote to consider the source of the fruit as good and, therefore, the fruit itself as good. When, however, the tree is “made rotten” or the source of the fruit is viewed as bad, the fruit is likewise regarded as bad. Those who opposed Jesus viewed him as evil, and so they called his good works (the “fruit”) the product of evil. The Son of God, however, set forth the trustworthy standard for judging, “A tree is known by its fruit.” His works were undeniably good, establishing that he, as the one through whom they occurred, was good. (Matthew 12:33)

Therefore, all who reviled his good works revealed themselves to be evil, “the offspring of vipers.” As wicked persons, how could they possibly “speak good things”? It is out of the “abundance of the heart” or from all that constitutes the inmost self that the “mouth speaks,” the unguarded words revealing the true identity of the individual. Out of the “good treasure [of his heart, according to some manuscripts],” the depository of his deep inner self or the real person, the good man brings forth good things. The evil or corrupt person brings forth evil things from his “evil treasure” or his inmost self, which identifies him as the person he truly is. (Matthew 12:34, 35)

In the future, everyone would have to render an account for their words and actions. The judgment to be executed upon those blaspheming or reviling God’s spirit (as the scribes and Pharisees had done when attributing Jesus’ good works to demonic power) would be very serious. As Jesus continued, “In the day of judgment,” people would have to give an account for every worthless saying they had uttered. By their words, they would be either justified (acquitted or vindicated) or condemned. (Matthew 12:36, 37)

Then, in response to what Jesus had said, some of the scribes and Pharisees asked for a “sign.” They were not satisfied with the many signs or miracles Jesus had performed and which provided clear evidence that he was the Messiah, God’s unique Son. The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees wanted a spectacular heavenly sign that, in their estimation, would be required to establish his identity as the Messiah who was promised to come. Jesus then referred to the existing generation of which they were a part as “wicked and adulterous” and revealed that their unbelief would not be accommodated. It was a “wicked” generation in its hatred of Jesus and its denial of the operation of divine power through him. By refusing to accept him as the one whom his Father had sent, that generation was guilty of unfaithfulness to his Father and disregarded the covenant that required submission to his will. This unfaithfulness constituted adultery. (Matthew 12:38, 39)

The kind of sign the wicked and adulterous generation wanted would never be granted. No sign other than the sign of the prophet Jonah would be given to that generation. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the large sea creature for “three days and three nights,” the Son of Man would be in the “heart of the earth” or in the tomb for “three days and three nights.” Accordingly, the definitive sign would be the resurrection of Jesus from the dead after parts of three days in the tomb. Even that sign, though, would not persuade those who had hardened themselves in unbelief. So, as Jesus said, the people of Nineveh would rise in the judgment and, because of their having repented upon hearing Jonah’s proclamation, would condemn the generation of unbelieving Jews who saw and heard someone far greater than Jonah. (Matthew 12:39-41; see also Jonah 1:17; 2:10; 3:4-10.)

Likewise, the “queen of the South” would rise in the judgment and condemn the unbelieving generation. Based on reports she had heard, the queen of Sheba (probably located in southwestern Arabia) traveled many miles to hear the wisdom of Solomon. The unbelieving generation, though, had someone in their midst who was far greater than Solomon but turned a deaf ear to him. The course of the queen of Sheba thus stood in marked contrast to that of the generation that persisted in unbelief. (Matthew 11:42; see also 1 Kings 10:1-10.)

Jesus emphasized the grave danger in which the faithless generation found itself. To illustrate this aspect, he drew on then-existing beliefs about unclean spirits. Upon coming out of a man, an unclean spirit passed through dry areas, searching for a resting place. Unable to locate such, this spirit decided to return to its former abode and found it unoccupied, swept clean, and orderly. It then went on its way and found seven other spirits even more evil than it was, and all of them made their home in its former residence. The final condition of the man then came to be worse than the former undesirable state. Jesus concluded with an application of this likeness, saying, “Thus also it will be with this wicked generation.” (Matthew 12:43-45)

In the past, the “demon” that had taken hold on unfaithful Israel proved to be idolatry, particularly Baal worship. After the Babylonian exile, however, the former idolatry no longer posed a threat. Eventually, though, worse “demons” found a home. The legalism that developed, which came to be devoid of love, compassion, and justice, brought the generation existing during the time Jesus was on earth into a more ruinous state. The low level to which unbelief plunged them became more and more evident from their hatred of the unique Son of God and their wanting to bring about his death.

While Jesus continued talking, Mary and James, Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon arrived, wanting to speak to him and have him leave with them. The disturbing reports they had heard made them feel they needed to take control of the situation, for they had concluded that he had lost his senses. Unable to get near him because of the crowd around the house where he was, they got word to him through others. Told that his mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak to him, Jesus, by extending his hand in the direction of his disciples who were sitting around him, identified them as his mother and brothers. Then he added, “Whoever does the will of my Father in the heavens is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:21, 31-35; 6:3; Luke 8:19, 20) According to Luke 8:21, his mother and brothers would be those hearing God’s word and acting in harmony therewith.

Notes:

Josephus, in his Antiquities ( VIII, ii, 5), provides evidence that exorcism was practiced in the first century. He attributed to Solomon the procedure for expelling demons. “And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return, and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this: He put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man.”

A Dead Sea scroll (11QAprocryphal Psalms) dated from before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE contains four psalms used for exorcism, one of which is Psalm 91. The other three are not found in the book of Psalms. Of these three, one is ascribed to Solomon and indicates that YHWH would send a powerful angel against the demons and that they would be sent into the great abyss or the deepest Sheol.

It should be noted that Jesus did not use any special procedure or resort to a display for spectators. Possibly because the Pharisees had maligned him as being in league with the demons, Jesus chose to contrast his greatness with that of Solomon, whose name was commonly associated with exorcism. Those hearing Jesus, based on their beliefs about exorcism, should have been able to discern that his casting out of demons and performing other powerful works confirmed his being greater than Solomon.

While there are variations in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the basic thoughts are the same. Identical wording for quotations should not be expected, as the narratives were composed in Greek and not in the language Jesus or others originally spoke. Minor details preserved in one account but not repeated in another provide indirect proof that the writers produced them independently of one another, based on the information available to them.

Jesus’ Use of Parables (Matthew 13:1-52; Mark 4:1-34; Luke 8:4-18)

The reference to “the house” in Matthew 13:1 suggests that a specific home is meant. Possibly it was the home of Peter and Andrew in Capernaum. After leaving the home, Jesus set out for the Sea of Galilee. Seeing him, many people began to gather around him. He then boarded a boat, seated himself, and began to speak to the crowd standing on the beach. (Matthew 13:2; Mark 4:1; )

Unlike the limited use he had made of parables or likenesses in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus now began to teach exclusively with parables. These parables portrayed scenes from daily life and served to convey spiritual truths. (Matthew 13:3; Mark 4:2; Luke 8:4)

Notes:

See http://bibleplaces.com/capernaum.htm for pictures of and comments about Capernaum.

See http://bibleplaces.com/seagalilee.htm for pictures of and comments about the Sea of Galilee.

Sower (Matthew 13:3-23; Mark 4:3-20; Luke 8:5-15)

As a sower began to broadcast seed, some of it fell on the hard-packed soil alongside the path leading through the field. The birds flew down and ate it. Other seed fell on a thin layer of soil covering rock. The seed germinated quickly, but the thin layer of soil made it impossible for a good root system to develop. Subjected to the sun’s intense heat, the sprouted grain dried up. Still other seed fell among thorns, which deprived the sprouting grain of essential growing conditions, choking it. The seed that fell on good soil eventually yielded a harvest one hundred times, sixty times, or thirty times greater than the amount sown. (Matthew 13:3-8; Mark 4:3-8; Luke 8:5-8)

Jesus revealed that his words involved more than just telling a story about a sower and what happened to the seed he broadcast. He called upon those with ears to listen. Jesus wanted the people to listen attentively and to seek to understand the spiritual truths being conveyed. (Matthew 13:9; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8)

The disciples appear to have noted a change in Jesus’ manner of teaching. They later asked him privately why he taught the people with parables. He explained that the parables served to hide the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens from those who chose not to be his disciples. (Matthew 13:10, 11; Mark 4:10, 11; Luke 8:10)

“To you,” said Jesus, “it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens, but to them it has not been given.” In the case of those who “had” or were in possession of the precious truths Jesus had imparted, more would be given them, and they would come to have an abundance. Persons who did “not have,” failing to recognize the inestimable value of Jesus’ teaching and acting on it, would lose even what they may have had. Their memory of Jesus’ words would not stimulate further reflection and so would convey no real significance to them. (Matthew 13:11, 12; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10)

Continuing, he explained that he spoke in parables to conceal spiritual truths from those who, in their hearts or their inmost selves, really did not want them. They “looked,” but not with the intent of seeing. They “heard,” but did not hear or listen responsively. They did not comprehend. In their case, the words of the prophet Isaiah found fulfillment or applied, “Hearing, you will hear and not comprehend. And looking, you will look and not perceive. For the heart [mind] of this people has become dull. And, with difficulty, their ears have heard, and they have shut their eyes so that they may never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and comprehend with their heart [mind] and turn around, and I would heal them.” (Matthew 13:13-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10)

These words of Isaiah (6:9, 10, LXX) indicate that the people deliberately shut their eyes and closed their ears, refusing to draw the correct conclusions from what they saw and heard. Instead of turning around, coming to repentance, they persisted in their unbelief or faithlessness and lost out on the healing available to them. Although hearing the parables Jesus related and seeing his works, they remained without understanding.

As for his disciples, he indicated that they were fortunate or in an enviable situation. Their eyes did see, and their ears did hear. “Amen (truly), I say to you,” Jesus continued, “Many prophets and righteous ones wanted to see what you are seeing and did not see [it], and to hear what you are hearing and did not hear [it].” Prophets and godly persons in the past looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and the disciples enjoyed close association with him, hearing his teaching, witnessing his miracles, and experiencing his compassion and love. (Matthew 13:16, 17)

Unlike the unbelieving people, the disciples wanted to understand Jesus’ words. Discerning that his disciples would not comprehend other parables without his telling them the meaning of the one about the results from the sower’s work, Jesus gave them the explanation. (Mark 4:13)

The “seed” is the “word of the kingdom” or the “word of God” (the message that related to God’s royal realm and his appointed king, Jesus Christ, his unique Son). People who heard the message but whose “heart” or inmost self remained unaffected would lose all benefits. In their case, the circumstances would be comparable to seed falling on hard-packed soil alongside the path and which seed birds swooped down to eat. Although having heard the message, the individuals involved would never really think about it and then respond positively. Distracted by the traffic running through their lives or by constant activity, they would remain impervious to God’s word or message. Their heart or inner self would prove to be like the trampled-upon path and soil on both sides of it. The wicked one, Satan, or the devil would snatch the word from their heart, preventing them from believing the message that had been lost to them. Consequently, they would not be saved from divine wrath and would not gain the real life of a never-ending relationship with the Father, which relationship was only available through the Son. (Matthew 13:18, 19; Mark 4:14, 15; Luke 8:11, 12)

There are those whose response to the word is comparable to the sprouting of seed from a thin layer of soil covering rock. They accept the message with joy or an initial burst of great enthusiasm, but they do not truly give it serious consideration or appreciatively reflect on its inestimable value. The message does not become part of their deep inner self, merely proving to be like sprouting grain without essential roots. Theirs is an emotional surface acceptance of the word. Then, when faced with distress or persecution because of having believed the message, they are stumbled or give up, no longer letting it influence any aspect of their lives. (Matthew 13:20, 21; Mark 4:16, 17; Luke 8:13)

In its impact on individuals who give in to worries or daily anxieties about making a living, who desire to become rich, or who become preoccupied with pleasures, the message is like sprouting seed that the thorns choke. They may believe the word for a time and be positively affected by it. Eventually, though, the anxieties of life, the desire for riches, or pleasure seeking crowd out the desire to live a life of faith as loyal disciples of God’s Son. The end result is no fruit in the form of words and deeds based on acceptance of the word. (Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:18, 19; Luke 8:14)

All who accept the word and for whom it comes to be a precious deposit in their inmost selves are like good soil where the seed can sprout, grow, flourish, and produce fruit. Even for good soil, however, productivity may vary, with yields of thirty, sixty, and a hundred times the amount sown. Numerous factors beyond one’s control can affect what one may be able to do in advancing the cause of Christ. Nevertheless, the evidence of being a genuine disciple of God’s Son should be discernible from the expressions being made and the kind of life being lived. (Matthew 13:23; Mark 4:20; Luke 8:15)

Wheat and Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43)

In another parable, Jesus likened a feature of the “kingdom of the heavens” to a “man who sowed good seed in his field,” which an enemy later oversowed with seeds from weeds. During the night, while people were asleep, this enemy sowed among the wheat and then left. When the wheat sprouted and the ears developed, the weeds also appeared. This puzzled the servants of the owner of the field. “Master,” they asked, “did you not sow good seed in your field? From where, then, did the weeds come?” He explained that an enemy had oversown the field. Concerned, the servants asked him whether they should get rid of the weeds. He, however, did not grant them permission to do so, telling them that, when pulling up the weeds, they could also uproot the wheat. Both weeds and wheat should be allowed to grow together until the time of the harvest. At that time, the reapers would first collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned, whereas the wheat would be harvested and stored. (Matthew 13:24-30)

Later, after he had dismissed the crowd, Jesus returned to the house (likely Peter and Andrew’s home in Capernaum) with his disciples. They then approached him with the request that he tell them the meaning of the parable about the weeds in the field. (Matthew 13:36)

He explained the “sower of the good seed” to be the “Son of Man.” (Matthew 13:37) By proclaiming the glad tidings of the kingdom, the message revealing how individuals could become part of God’s royal realm, Jesus had gathered disciples, individuals who sincerely desired his Father as their Sovereign and wanted to do his will.

The “field is the world,” the world of mankind in which, on account of Jesus’ activity (“sowing”), the “good seed,” “sons of the kingdom,” those belonging to God’s royal realm, or genuine believers could be found. Seizing the opportunity to introduce a ruinous element, the enemy or the devil did his nefarious sowing while people were sleeping (doing so secretly, as under the cover of darkness). So, in the world, the “sons of the kingdom” (good seed or wheat) and the “sons of the wicked one” (weeds) who belonged to the devil’s realm came to be intertwined and, initially, could not even be distinguished. (Matthew 13:38, 39)

“The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.” This present age is destined to culminate in the execution of divine judgment. At that time, there will be a development comparable to pulling up weeds and burning them. Jesus himself, the “Son of Man,” will send forth his angels to collect out of his kingdom all those causing offense and practicing lawlessness and then toss them, like bundled weeds, into a fiery furnace. The condemnatory judgment the fiery furnace represents would occasion weeping and gnashing of teeth. This “weeping” would be on account of the pain of loss. In a vain effort to stifle tears of bitter grief, the condemned would gnash or clench their teeth. (Matthew 13:39-42)

For the upright ones, the outcome at the “end of the age” would be very different. They would “shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” Theirs would be the splendor of those whom God approves, sharing in all the benefits and blessings to be enjoyed by those in his realm. Again, stressing the need for attentive listening and appropriate action, Jesus added, “Let the one having ears listen.” (Matthew 13:43)

This parable reveals that no humanly devised standard (such as a list of doctrines) can be used to differentiate “weeds” from “wheat.” Humans have not been authorized to root out those whom they perceive to be weeds based on their particular view of “doctrinal purity.” As history has repeatedly demonstrated, human efforts to eliminate “weeds” have brought about untold suffering, with the self-appointed weed pullers repeatedly making themselves guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. The sectarian spirit prevalent in many movements continues to cause harm, as individuals imagine themselves to be serving Christ’s interests while abusing those who may not accept their unique doctrines. With the angels acting under the direction of God’s Son, no mistakes will be made, but the judgment will be just in every respect.

Note:

The Greek word translated “weed” (zizánion) is thought to refer to “bearded darnel,” which looks much like wheat until the ear appears. The alleged poisonous properties of darnel are commonly attributed to a fungus. When eaten inadvertently, darnel has reportedly caused dizziness and diarrhea.

A Lighted Lamp (Mark 4:21-25; Luke 8:16-18)

Placing a lighted oil lamp under a container or a bed would be contrary to its purpose. To give light to those in a house or those entering it, the lamp is placed on a stand. (Mark 4:21; Luke 8:16) Accordingly, those who embraced Jesus’ teaching should serve as lighted lamps, sharing it with others and living in harmony therewith. The teaching Jesus imparted privately to his disciples was not meant to be kept secret. This appears to be the sense of his words indicating that the ultimate objective of hiding or concealing is disclosure. (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17)

Jesus admonished those hearing his teaching to pay attention to how they listened, the purpose being that they would do so attentively and put themselves in a position to recall his words. The measure of attention they would give would determine the measure of the benefit they would receive. Those who paid attention, making Jesus’ teaching their own or coming to have it in their possession would receive even more, continuing to increase in their understanding of his teaching. Those who failed to focus on what he said, never really thinking about it, would lose even what they thought or imagined they had. (Mark 4:23-25; Luke 8:18)

The Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29)

Another feature of the “kingdom of God” is its being like seed that grows without the planter’s contributing toward the growth or knowing just how it comes to sprout and flourish. Day after day, while the man who planted the seed sleeps and then rises in the morning to engage in the day’s activity, the ground of itself (or without his intervention) produces the stalk and then the ear. Once the grain is ripe, he harvests it with his sickle. (Mark 4:26-29)

As the message about the opportunity to become part of God’s realm spread through the activity of Jesus and later of his disciples, observable results were produced. An increasing number of responsive ones entered the realm where God is recognized as Sovereign, and significant changes occurred in their lives. The manner in which these positive results came about, like the sprouting and growing of a plant from a seed, remained hidden from human view. God makes growth possible, and this explains why, with the passage of time, genuine believers come to be more and more like Jesus Christ and his Father. (Compare 1 Corinthians 3:6, 7.) At the time of the “harvest,” all who are genuine believers will be revealed as approved and desirable from God’s standpoint, just like mature grain is identified as suitable for humans.

Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31, 32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18, 19)

Jesus likened the “kingdom of the heavens” or the “kingdom of God” to a mustard seed that grows to become a “tree.” Of the seeds that his listeners planted, the mustard seed would have been one of the smallest. Its potential for growth, however, was far greater than that of larger seeds. The commonly cultivated black mustard (Brassica nigra) may attain a height of fifteen feet. In the autumn, when the branches have hardened, small birds such as finches perch on them and feed on the seeds. It appears that the reference to the “nesting” of birds “in the shade” of the mature mustard plant is to be understood of their alighting and remaining on the branches to feed (as if they had made their nest or home there). (Matthew 13:31, 32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18, 19)

The basic point of the parable appears to be that an insignificant start may result in astonishing growth. Historically, the message about God’s kingdom, with its focus on Jesus Christ, reached the distant parts of the then-known world in less than three decades. (Compare Colossians 1:23.) As a consequence, many thousands began to identify themselves as belonging to God’s realm and as having ceased to be a part of the world alienated from him. This development would have been difficult to imagine when Jesus’ activity first began.

Leaven (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20, 21)

In another parable, Jesus compared the “kingdom of the heavens” or the “kingdom of God” to leaven that a woman added to three seahs of dough. Once added or “hidden,” the leaven would not be visible but would start the fermenting process. It was common for women to use leaven, and there is no reason to think that any of Jesus’ listeners would have imagined that he was portraying something sinister when referring to the woman as “hiding” it in the dough. Three seahs would have been a large quantity, amounting to about 20 dry quarts. Although the amount of leaven or fermented dough was relatively small, it served to ferment the entire batch into which it was mixed. (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20, 21)

The parable suggests a quiet and imperceptible working of a seemingly insignificant nature and which produces remarkable observable results. This fits how the message about God’s kingdom spread far and wide and led to dramatic changes in the lives of those who responded to it in faith, becoming part of God’s realm.

The Extent Jesus Used Parables (Matthew 13:34, 35; Mark 4:33, 34)

Once Jesus began to make exclusive use of parables in his teaching, he appears to have continued doing so when speaking to the crowds. Observing the extent of which they were “able” or willing to listen, he would determine when to stop speaking to them. (Matthew 13:34; Mark 4:33) To his disciples, however, he would explain everything they needed to know. (Mark 4:34) According to Matthew 13:35, his use of parables “fulfilled” the words “spoken through the prophet,” which are then quoted, “I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter things hidden from the founding [of the world (according to many manuscripts)].” (See the Notes section for additional comments.)

After Jesus left the crowd and explained the parable of the weed and the wheat privately to his disciples, he related other parables to them. (Matthew 13:36-43)

Notes:

The superscription of Psalm 78 links the composition to Asaph. According to 1 Chronciles 25:2, the Levite musician, a contemporary of David, did prophesying. Therefore, in Matthew 13:35, the quotation from Psalm 78:2 is rightly attributed to a prophet.

The extant Septuagint text of Psalm 78:2(77:2) does not match the Greek of Matthew 13:35. Although starting with the words, “I will open my mouth in parables,” the Septuagint continues, “I will utter riddles from the beginning.” The Masoretic Text reads likewise. “Riddles” or enigmatic sayings could be spoken of as “hidden” or “concealed” things. Considerable mental effort is required to uncover their meaning. The expression “founding” or “founding of the world” denotes “from the beginning” or “from of old.” So, although the words of Matthew 13:35 differ from the Septuagint reading and a more literal rendering of the extant Hebrew text, the meaning being conveyed is basically the same.

Treasure Hidden in the Field (Matthew 13:44)

Anciently, in times of war, people commonly hid valuables in the ground. If the individual doing so was killed or taken prisoner, knowledge about the hidden “treasure” would be lost. Years later, while plowing a field, a plowman might discover the hidden “treasure.” Recognizing the value of his find, he would do whatever he could to obtain the field and thereby acquire the treasure.

Jesus likened the “kingdom of the heavens” or the “kingdom of God” to a “treasure” a man found in a field and his subsequent sale of all his possessions to be able to buy this field. (Matthew 13:44) In the parable, the man did not begin his work in the field in order to look for a treasure. It was an unexpected find. Similarly, individuals may not necessarily have been searching for something that would add inestimable value to the life they were living. Then, when they hear the message about God’s kingdom and what it can mean for them to be part of his realm, they recognize its value and do whatever is required of them to have God as the Sovereign of their lives.

Pearl (Matthew 13:45, 46)

Unlike the man who stumbled upon a treasure in a field, the merchant of Jesus’ next parable actively searched for pearls of exceptional value. Upon finding one especially precious pearl, he sold everything he had to buy it. (Matthew 13:45, 46) In relation to the “kingdom of the heavens” or the “kingdom of God,” this indicates that there are persons who seek and long for a right relationship with the Most High. Upon hearing the message about Jesus Christ, they recognize that they have found the object of their search and sacrifice everything that may be necessary in order to be in the realm where his Father is the Sovereign.

Dragnet (Matthew 13:47-50)

Jesus likened the “kingdom of the heavens” to a dragnet cast into the sea and by means of which fish of all kinds are caught. When the net is full, the fishermen pull the net ashore and, after seating themselves, select all the fish suitable for food. According to the Mosaic law, only fish with fins and scales could be eaten, and these would be put into containers. The rest of the catch would be discarded. (Matthew 13:47, 48)

Commenting on the parable, Jesus repeated points he had made when explaining to his disciples the parable about the weeds and the wheat. At the “end of the age,” which would be the time for the execution of divine judgment, the angels would separate the wicked from the upright. The dreadful judgment to befall the wicked is compared to their being tossed into a “fiery furnace.” The realization of their great loss would cause them to weep and to gnash their teeth in an attempt to hold back their tears of bitter grief. (Matthew 13:49, 50)

The parable indicates that the means or the instrument through which individuals may come to know about the “kingdom of the heavens” would, like a dragnet, gather both true and false believers. Not all professing to believe in the Son would prove to be his disciples, persons who had ceased to be part of the world alienated from his Father and who were doing his will. At the “end of the age,” the angels would be used to identify those who truly belonged to God’s realm and who would then share in all the blessings associated with being found divinely approved.

Things New and Old (Matthew 13:51, 52)

When Jesus questioned his disciples whether they had understood his parables, they replied, “Yes.” He then continued, “Every scribe, having been taught about the kingdom of the heavens, is like a man, [the] master of the house, who brings out new and old things from his [stored] treasure.” (Matthew 13:51, 52)

A scribe or learned person came to be such upon first being instructed, preparing him to teach others. Jesus’ disciples, having been taught by him about the kingdom of the heavens, came into possession of a precious treasure. Like the master of a house, they could bring both new and old things out of this depository. The new things would have related to Jesus and his teaching, whereas the old things would be the law, the psalms, proverbs or wise sayings, and the words of the ancient Hebrew prophets contained in the accepted collection of sacred writings. In their teaching, the disciples would make use of the “holy writings” and the words of Jesus.

Ending a Storm and Healing Demoniacs (Matthew 8:18, 23-34; Mark 4:35-41; 5:1-20; Luke 8:22-39)

In the evening of the day he had taught the people with parables, Jesus said to his disciples, “Let us go to the other side of the lake [the Sea of Galilee].” (Mark 4:35; Luke 8:22) As on a later occasion, he may have felt the need for all of them to be away from the crowds in order to get some rest in an isolated area. (Mark 6:31)

Earlier, Jesus had arranged for the disciples to have a boat at his disposal, making it possible for him to speak to the people from the boat without being crowded by them. (Mark 3:9) This likely was Peter’s boat and the one that Jesus, on this occasion, boarded with his disciples. (Matthew 8:23) Mark 4:36 says that there were “other boats” with Jesus, but no specifics are included nor is any later mention made of these boats.

During the crossing, Jesus, in the stern of the boat, rested his head on a cushion (proskephálaion) and fell asleep. Suddenly, a tremendous storm whipped up high waves, which violently tossed the boat and began filling it with water. As the boat was being swamped, the disciples feared that they would drown. They woke Jesus, saying to him, “Teacher, does it not matter to you that we are perishing?” (Mark 4:37, 38; Matthew 8:24, 25; Luke 8:23, 24)

Jesus got up and called upon the wind, waves, and water to be still, and immediately all became calm. He also asked the disciples why they were afraid. (Matthew 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24) According to Matthew 8:26, he referred to them as having little faith, and in Mark and Luke his words to them are presented as a question. “Do you still not have faith?” (Mark 4:40) “Where [is] your faith?” (Luke 8:25)

From a human standpoint, the probability of drowning was very real. The disciples, however, had the Son of God with them, which should have assured them that the heavenly Father would never let them perish with his Son. The miracles they had witnessed should have given them a strong basis for faith in deliverance from perilous circumstances.

Upon witnessing what happened after Jesus calmed the wind and the lake, the disciples were filled with great fear and astonishment. They said to one another, “Who really is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Matthew 8:27; Mark 4:41; Luke 8:25) Their reaction and words suggest that they did not yet fully comprehend the greatness of God’s Son, a greatness that transcended that of the person whom they had expected the foretold Messiah to be.

Notes:

At its widest point from east to west, the Sea of Galilee measures about seven and a half miles and its longest length is approximately thirteen miles. (See http://bibleplaces.com/seagalilee.htm for additional information and pictures.) Luke’s account refers to this body of water as a “lake,” whereas Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts speak of it as a “sea.”

The Sea of Galilee lies about 700 feet below seal level and approximately 40 miles southwest of Mount Hermon, with an altitude of more than 9,200 feet above sea level. Hills and mountains surround the lake on the east and the west, where the air temperature is lower than at the level of the water. Therefore, it is not uncommon for winds to rush down from the higher elevations, creating a choppy lake that poses a danger for small boats and their occupants.

In Matthew 8:24, the severe storm is called seismós mégas, which commonly designates a “great earthquake,” and here appears to describe the storm from the standpoint of the extreme effect it produced, with the boat being shaken as are buildings during an earthquake.

In Mark 4:38, the Greek word proskephálaion designates an object on which one can rest the head.

The accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke vary in the wording of Jesus’ fearful disciples. “Lord, save [us]. We are perishing.” (Matthew 8:25) “Teacher, does it not matter to you that we are perishing?” (Mark 4:38) “Master, Master, we are perishing.” (Luke 8:24) The differences are understandable when one considers that a number of the disciples probably spoke up and that their expressions were conveyed in a language other than the one in which they were originally made. All three accounts represent the disciples as saying, “we are perishing,” suggesting that the peril was so great that they felt certain about their doom.

While there are also other differences in the accounts, the basic message is the same. One should not expect precise correspondency, as the writers chose their own wording and presented the sequence of events as suited their particular purpose.

It is of note that a partially preserved nonbiblical Dead Sea scroll (4Q521) indicates that the “heavens and the earth” would obey God’s Messiah. There is a possibility that a missing portion of the next line in this scroll originally included the “sea” as also obeying. If this was a common view, the disciples would have had additional reason for not giving in to fear during the storm.

The Demoniacs

There is no indication in Matthew, Mark, or Luke when Jesus and his disciples arrived on the other side of the lake. Furthermore, manuscript readings vary when referring to the specific region where they disembarked. One area that would appear to fit the description in the accounts lies approximately at the midway point of the lake’s eastern shore. Caves and rock-cut tombs are in the vicinity, and steep hills rise from the shoreline. All that can be said with certainty, however, is that the accounts identify the territory as situated on the east side of the Sea of Galilee or opposite Galilee. (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26; see the Notes section for additional information.)

When Jesus and his disciples started walking on the shore, two men (demoniacs) saw them and came running toward them. These men were in an extremely disturbed mental state and behaved much like savage beasts. Out of fear, people did not travel by the area where they had their haunt, for the two men were extremely fierce. (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:6)

The accounts of Mark and Luke provide details about one of the men, making no mention of the second man. Perhaps this was because he alone later expressed the desire to accompany Jesus.

This man is described as under the control of an “unclean spirit” or of “demons.” He had lost soundness of mind and his identity as a human with family ties. For a long time, he had worn no clothes, had stopped living in a house, and (with the other man) found shelter from the elements either in burial caves or rock-cut tombs. People had made attempts to control him, guarding him and repeatedly binding him with chains and fetters, but he would break free and run away. No one had the strength to subdue him. Day and night his screams could be heard among the tombs or from the hillside. With rocks, he would inflict wounds upon himself. (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:2-5; Luke 8:27, 29)

Upon arriving at the place where Jesus and his disciples were, both men likely prostrated themselves before him. In response to his directive for the men to be liberated from their derangement, they appear to have screamed individually, “What to me and to you, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” (Mark 5:6-8; Luke 8:28) In Matthew 5:29, the question is found in the plural (“us”), as both men are represented as shouting. The idiomatic expression (“What to me and to you?”) implies that the parties had nothing in common, and it constituted an objection. (For additional comments, see the Notes section.) Modern translations commonly render the words in one of two ways. “What do you want with me?” (CEV, NCV, NIV, NJB, REB) “What have you to do with me?” (NAB, NRSV)

Jesus responded with the question, “What is your name?” “My name is Legion,” came back the reply. A Roman legion consisted of 6,000 men and so the designation served to indicate control under many unclean spirits. (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30; see the Notes section for additional comments.) The reply suggests that the man had no recollection of his own name or identity.

This reply was followed by the request not to be sent into the “abyss” (Luke 8:31) or “out of the country” (Mark 5:10). Such a future judgment appears to be referred to in Isaiah 24:21 and 22 (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]): “In that day, the LORD [YHWH] will punish the host of heaven in heaven and the kings of the earth on earth. They shall be gathered in a dungeon as captives are gathered; and shall be locked up in a prison. But after many days they shall be remembered.”

In the distance, many pigs were feeding, and the demons pleaded for permission to enter the animals. (Matthew 8:30, 31; Mark 5:11, 12; Luke 8:32) According to Matthew 8:32, Jesus said “Go!” Immediately, the men were freed from their pathetic mental state. When the demonic power took control of the pigs, they became crazed. The entire herd, numbering about 2,000, panicked, began to run and then plummeted into the lake, where they perished. The herders fled, entered the town, and there (and in the surrounding area) related what had happened. (Matthew 8:33; Mark 5:13, 14; Luke 8:33, 34)

Upon hearing the report of the herders, the populace went to the location where the events had occurred. When they arrived they saw the formerly deranged man whom neither fetters nor chains could control sitting at Jesus’ feet. The man was clothed and in full possession of his mental faculties. (Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35)

Neither Mark nor Luke make any mention about how the man obtained clothing. The most likely explanation is that Jesus’ disciples were in position to provide him with the needed attire. They were familiar with the teaching of John the Baptist that the one with two garments should share the extra garment with the one who had none, and Jesus had reemphasized this teaching about responding compassionately to the needs of others by his own words and actions. (Luke 3:11) The disciples had a common fund on which they could draw in order to help the poor, and there appear to have been occasions when they took along an extra garment when traveling. (Matthew 10:9, 10; John 13:29)

To the people of the region, the man’s restoration and the development involving the pigs (as eyewitnesses related the incident to them) would have been clear evidence of the working of a power far greater than the ordinary. They were filled with fear, but it was not the kind that produced a reverential regard for the Most High whom Jesus represented and whose love and compassion he had revealed. Instead, the populace asked Jesus to leave the region. (Matthew 8:34; Mark 5:15-17; Luke 8:35-37)

As Jesus was about depart with his disciples, the healed man pleaded to be able to accompany him. Jesus, however, did not grant the request. He instructed him to return to his home and his family and to tell them all that God had done for him and the mercy he had been shown. (Mark 5:18, 19; Luke 8:37-39) This directive differed from Jesus’ usual command not to make his miracles known. In this case, however, he had been asked to leave the region, and so he left a personal witness behind. The cured man’s favorable testimony could set straight any distortion about his benefactor and the death of the pigs. (See the Notes section for additional comments.)

As Jesus had requested, the cured man did depart for his home. In the town and the surrounding region of the Decapolis, he made known what Jesus had done for him. His testimony resulted in wonderment among the people who heard it. (Mark 5:20; Luke 8:39; for information about the Decapolis, see Notes section.)

Notes:

In Matthew 8:28, fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and a number of later manuscripts refer to the “country of the Gadarenes,” which area has been associated with Gadara (a city located about six miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee). The original reading of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus is “country of the Gazarenes.” A corrected reading, however, is “country of the Gergesenes,” which is also what many later manuscripts say. Another manuscript reading is “country of the Gerasenes.”

According to fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (original reading), Mark 5:1 reads “country of the Gerasenes,” which is also what a number of later manuscripts say. Other manuscripts read “country of the Gadarenes,” “country of the Gergystenes,” and “country of the Gergesenes.”

In Luke 8:26, a third century papyrus manuscript (P75), fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and a number of later manuscripts say “country of the Gerasenes,” which region has been linked to Gerasa (a city located nearly 35 miles south and east of the Sea of Galilee). Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus reads “country of the Gergesenes,” which is also what a number of later manuscripts say. Numerous other manuscripts contain the reading “country of the Gadarenes.”

The “country of the Gergesenes” has been identified with Gergesa, which site lies approximately at the midway point of the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Based on the biblical accounts, this location would seem to fit best. In view of the variations in the manuscript readings, however, any definitive conclusions are impossible. Whether the area mentioned in Matthew 8:28 is part of a larger territory referred to in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 can likewise not be determined with any degree of certainty.

Like Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28, Matthew 8:29 refers to torment but adds an additional thought. “Have you come here to torment us before [the] time?” This question suggests that the demons recognized they would face a future judgment but that it was then not the appointed time for that judgment to be executed.

While there are differences in the wording of Matthew 8:29, Mark 5:7, and Luke 8:28, the basic thought is the same in all three passages. One of the differences in Luke 8:28 is that the request not be tormented is preceded by “I beg you.” In Mark 5:7, the request is introduced with the words, “I adjure you by God.”

Mark 5:9 and Luke 8:30, though conveying the same thought, represent it somewhat differently. In Mark 5:9, the words “there are many of us” are part of the reply, whereas Luke 8:30 only mentions the designation “Legion” as the reply and then adds the explanation, “for many demons had entered into him.”

Jesus liberated two men from a pitiable state of extreme suffering, and the developments in connection with the pigs serve to provide evidence respecting the horrific mental affliction that plagued the men. Their value as humans restored to soundness of mind should be regarded as having been of greater value than that of many pigs, which were unclean to the Jews. The animals were being raised for slaughter as food for non-Jews. By present-day standards, the method or methods by which these pigs were to be killed would not have been considered humane.

The Son of God did not cause the pigs to behave in a crazed manner and to plunge into the Sea of Galilee. He did not choose to perform a miracle to prevent financial loss to the owners and preserve the life of the pigs for a death that could have been worse than drowning. The writers of the accounts did not feel impelled to provide explanations for what Jesus did or did not do, and there really is no reason for attempting to do so at a time when only an abbreviated version about the incident exists. What should stand out is that Jesus deeply cared about people and reached out compassionately to those whom others had tried cruelly to control with confining chains and fetters and avoided out of fear of being harmed. The people in that region did not value what Jesus had done for the afflicted men, but entreated him to leave the area.

The Decapolis was a region of ten predominantly Greek cities, which appear to have formed a league sometime during the first century BCE. Of these cities, only Scythopolis was located west of the Jordan. Damascus occupied the most distant northeastern location, and the eight other cities were situated east of the Jordan.

In his Natural History (V, 16 [English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley]), the first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder wrote the following regarding the Decapolis: “On the side of Syria, joining up to Judaea, is the region of Decapolis, so called from the number of its cities; as to which all writers are not agreed. Most of them, however, agree in speaking of Damascus as one, a place fertilized by the river Chrysorroös, which is drawn off into its meadows and eagerly imbibed; Philadelphia, and Rhaphana, all which cities fall back towards Arabia; Scythopolis (formerly called Nysa by Father Liber, from his nurse having been buried there), its present name being derived from a Scythian colony which was established there; Gadara, before which the river Hieromix flows; Hippo [Hippos], which has been previously mentioned; Dion, Pella, rich with its waters; Galasa [Gerasa], and Canatha.”

See http://bibleplaces.com/gerasa.htm regarding Gerasa, one of the cities of the Decapolis.

Hemorrhaging Woman, Jairus’s Daughter, Two Blind Men, and a Mute Man (Matthew 9:18-34; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56)

After Jesus and his disciples arrived on the western shore of the Seal of Galilee, probably in the vicinity of Capernaum, a large crowd gathered around him. His still being by the lake when people came to him suggests that, while the boat was yet a distance away from the shore, he had been recognized and the word had spread that he was coming. (Mark 5:21) According to Luke 8:40, the crowd was waiting for Jesus and welcomed him.

The Plea of Jairus

One of the men who came to Jesus was Jairus, a leader of a synagogue. In his official capacity, he would have been primarily responsible for the maintenance and the physical arrangements associated with the meeting place for worship. Jairus dropped to his knees before Jesus and prostrated himself. He repeatedly begged him to come to his home and then to lay his hands on his seriously ill daughter to restore her to health, for she was about to die. The twelve-year-old girl was his only child. Accompanied by his disciples, Jesus departed with Jairus, and the crowd followed and pressed in on him. (Matthew 9:18, 19; Mark 5:22-24; Luke 8:41, 42)

A Woman With Hemorrhage

Among the people was an afflicted woman. During the course of the twelve years she had suffered from hemorrhages, she had gone to many physicians and eventually had exhausted all her resources. Their would-be cures proved to be very painful and did not benefit her. The condition worsened progressively, and no one was able to help her. Having heard about Jesus’ activity, the woman concluded that, if she could only touch his garment, she would be restored to health. (Matthew 9:20, 21; Mark 5:25-28; Luke 8:43)

Though greatly weakened from her loss of blood, she summoned all the strength she could to get near enough to Jesus to touch the fringe of his garment. Upon having done so from behind him, the woman immediately sensed that she had been healed. (Matthew 9:20; Mark 5:27-29; Luke 8:43, 44)

Aware that power had gone out of him, Jesus turned around and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” (Mark 5:30) All those around him denied having done so, and Peter was quick to point out that Jesus was being crowded and the people were pressing in on him. (Luke 8:45) According to Mark 5:31, Peter was not the only disciple who expressed himself to this effect. Other disciples were also puzzled by Jesus’ question about having been touched.

Knowing full well that power had gone out of him, Jesus insisted that he had been touched in a manner that differed from inadvertent contact. He then looked around to see who had done so. (Mark 5:32; Luke 8:46)

Fearful and trembling, the woman, realizing that she had been cured and could not remain unnoticed, fell down before Jesus. In the hearing of all present, she explained why she had touched him and how she had immediately thereupon been healed. (Mark 5:33; Luke 8:47)

Jesus allayed her apprehension, initially assuring her, “Take courage” (a form of the Greek word tharséo) or do not be afraid. (See the Notes section for additional comments.) Lovingly, he addressed her as “daughter,” an expression of endearment, and identified the reason for the cure as having been her faith in him and not the mere touching of his garment. “Your faith has saved you [made you well],” said Jesus. “Go in peace, and be healthy, [free] from your affliction.” From that very “hour” or time, the woman was well. (Matthew 9:22; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48)

The Son of God showed great love and compassion for the woman when causing her to reveal what had happened to her. For twelve years she had been ceremonially unclean. This was a condition that could bring defilement to anyone who might inadvertently touch her or any object that she had touched. (Leviticus 15:25-27) Her state of uncleanness doubtless was public knowledge, and everyone who knew about it would have avoided getting close to her. They would not have wanted to be inconvenienced by having to wash their clothes, bathe, and personally remain ceremonially unclean until the evening. This meant that she had to deal with her affliction in isolation, without experiencing any comforting touch or embrace. The news about her cure would have spread quickly among all those who knew her, making it possible for her once again to enjoy normal contact with everyone. Furthermore, Jesus used the opportunity to help her spiritually, making it clear to her that her faith or her trust in him had led to her being cured.

Resurrection of Jairus’s Daughter

At the time Jesus was still speaking to the woman, Jairus received the sad news that his daughter had died. His worst fear had become reality. Those who brought the message advised that he no longer trouble Jesus (the “teacher”). Overhearing the conversation with Jairus, Jesus spoke reassuringly to him, “Fear not; only believe, and she will be saved.” (Mark 5:35, 36; Luke 8:49, 50) These comforting words must have had a calming effect on Jairus, especially since he had just witnessed the cure of the afflicted woman.

Jesus then appears to have dismissed the crowd and permitted only Peter, James, and his brother John to accompany him. (Mark 5:37) At the home of Jairus, many people, doubtless including professional mourners, created much commotion, with weeping and loud wailing being intermingled with flute playing. Jesus asked all of them to leave, telling them to stop their weeping and that the girl had not died but was sleeping. At that, likely primarily the professional mourners gave way to scornful laughter, for they knew that the girl had died. The only ones Jesus permitted to be in the home with him were the girl’s parents and Peter, James, and John. (Matthew 9:23, 24; Mark 5:38-40; Luke 8:51-53; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

With everyone else outside, Jesus entered where the girl was lying. He took hold of her hand, saying Talitha koum (“Maiden, I say to you, Rise!”) With her “spirit” or life force having returned, she began to breathe, got up, and then began to walk. Her parents were overcome with joy and amazement. Repeatedly, Jesus ordered them not to let anyone know what had happened and instructed them to give their daughter something to eat. (Matthew 9:25; Mark 5:40-42; Luke 8:54-56)

To the extent possible, Jesus wanted to prevent needless publicity and the spread of sensational reports that attracted crowds for reasons other than faith in him as the promised Messiah. Relatives, friends, acquaintances, and others would learn soon enough that the twelve-year-old girl was alive and well. For Jairus and his wife, the appropriate action was to attend to their daughter’s needs and to reflect appreciatively on what God had done for them by means of his Son. Understandably, though, as it became known that the daughter was alive, the news did spread extensively. (Matthew 9:26)

Two Blind Men

When Jesus left the home of Jairus, two blind men began to follow him. They cried out, “Pity us, Son of David.” Their words acknowledged Jesus as the promised Messiah, the descendant of King David. (See the Notes section for additional comments about the designation “Son of David.”) The biblical record does not reveal why he did not immediately respond to their cry to be shown mercy by curing their blindness. Undeterred, the blind men continued to follow him, entering the house where he was staying. (Matthew 9:27, 28) If the home of Jairus was in Capernaum, the most likely place for Jesus to stay would have been the home of Peter and Andrew. (Compare Mark 1:21, 29; 2:1.)

In the privacy of the home, Jesus asked the men whether they believed that he could cure their blindness. They answered, “Yes, Lord.” Touching their eyes, he said, “Let it happen to you according to your faith.” They were then able to see. Though Jesus ordered them not to let others know about this, they, like others whom he had healed, failed to heed their benefactor’s charge to them and spread the news everywhere. (Matthew 9:28-31)

A Mute Man

After the two men had left, people arrived with a man whose inability to speak they attributed to demon possession. Upon hearing the mute man speak in response to Jesus’ exercise of divine power, those who witnessed this exclaimed, “Never has the like been seen in Israel!” Certain Pharisees, however, blasphemously spoke of the good work that had benefited the afflicted man as having been accomplished by the power of the ruler of the demons. While they could not deny the miracle, they found justification for their hatred of God’s Son and their persistence in unbelief by slandering the source of the powerful work they had witnessed. (Matthew 9:32-34)

Notes:

The Scriptures do not explain the metaphysical factors involved in effecting the cures. Jesus’ being able to sense a change in his body suggests that the healings drew on his physical strength.

The Greek word tharséo, found in Matthew 9:22, means “be courageous” and conveys the thought of being resolute or unafraid.

The words of Jesus regarding the girl’s sleeping (Matthew 9:24; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52) are evidently to be viewed from the standpoint of the final outcome. Though she had indeed died, her death was but a temporary sleep.

The collection of psalms known as the “Psalms of Solomon” and believed to date from the first century BCE refer to the messianic king as the “Son of David.” In that collection, Psalm 17:21 reads, “See, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, [the] Son of David, in the time that you chose, O God, to reign over Israel your servant.” The chief priests and scribes objected when Jesus was called the “Son of David,” indicating that the expression was commonly understood to designate the Messiah. (Matthew 21:15, 16)

Return to Nazareth (Matthew 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6)

Upon returning to Nazareth with his disciples, Jesus, as was his custom on the Sabbath, went to the synagogue. Those assembled there knew him to be an exemplary person, were acquainted with his close relatives, and had heard about his miraculous works. Hearing him teach on this occasion, they responded with amazement but could not bring themselves to believe that he was the promised Messiah. (Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:1, 2)

All they did was to question how it could be that Jesus had been endowed with such outstanding wisdom as reflected in his teaching and had been empowered to perform miracles. In their estimation, he was just the carpenter of Nazareth and a carpenter’s son. His mother was Mary, his brothers were James, Joseph (Joses), Judas, and Simon, and his sisters were still living in the town. To the townspeople there seemed to be nothing out of the ordinary about the family. Their view of him as a man of Nazareth and whose family they knew proved to be the obstacle that prevented them from responding to him in faith. They “stumbled at him.” In view of their lack of faith, Jesus was moved to call attention to the fact that a prophet is without honor in his home area, among his relatives, and in his own house. (Matthew 13:54-57; Mark 6:2-4)

Even among the afflicted people of Nazareth, few came to him to be healed. Therefore, upon only an insignificant number of sickly ones did he lay his hands and cure them. If it had not been for their lack of faith, Jesus would have been able to bring relief from suffering to many more. For Jesus, their unbelief, despite what they knew and had observed and heard, was a cause for wonderment. He left the town with his disciples and spent time teaching in various towns and villages of Galilee. (Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:5, 6)

The Twelve Sent Forth (Matthew 9:35-11:1; Mark 6:7-13; Luke 9:1-6)

Traveling from one town or village to another with his disciples, Jesus taught in the synagogues, declared the glad tidings about the kingdom, and cured the afflicted. His message focused on how responsive ones could become part of the realm where his Father is recognized as Sovereign and share in all the promises and blessings this signified. Observing the sad plight in which the people found themselves, the Son of God was moved with deep compassion for them. He perceived them to be like abused and helpless sheep without the compassionate concern and dependable guidance of a caring shepherd. (Regarding the Greek terms describing the sheep in Matthew 9:36, see the Notes section.) In view of the needy condition of the people, Jesus told his disciples, “The harvest is abundant, but the workers are few. Therefore, petition the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.” (Matthew 9:35-38)

As in the case of a field of grain ready to be harvested, the potential existed for many to become part of the realm where God is Sovereign. At the time, there were few laborers who could point out the way for others to gain a divinely approved standing. Consequently, Jesus called upon the disciples to pray to the heavenly Father, the “Lord of the harvest,” for an increase in the number of workers.

During the course of his public activity, Jesus summoned the twelve disciples who were most closely associated with him. He empowered them to free people from the control of “unclean spirits” and to cure the sick and infirm. The twelve came to be known as “apostles” (“ones sent out”), for Jesus sent them out to do the good works for which he had granted them the authority and to proclaim the message about the “kingdom of God.” (Matthew 10:1; Luke 9:1, 2; for additional details about the apostles, see the section “Choosing the Twelve” under the heading “Back in Galilee.” )

He sent them forth by twos (Mark 6:7), possibly according to the way in which they are listed in Matthew 10:2-4 (Peter and Andrew; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean and Judas Iscariot).

The instructions Jesus gave to the apostles included both specifics relating to that particular mission and admonition that would apply in the future. At this time, they were not to go among the non-Jewish peoples nor to any Samaritan town. They were to limit their activity to fellow Jews, giving exclusive attention to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” These “lost sheep” would be persons who recognized their helpless state and would respond favorably to the message the apostles proclaimed. (Matthew 10:5, 6)

Jesus told the apostles, “As you go, proclaim, saying, ‘The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received free, give free.” (Matthew 10:7, 8) In the person of the promised Messiah (the “king of Israel”), the “kingdom of God” had indeed drawn near. (Compare John 1:49.) While the apostles did not then specifically proclaim Jesus to be the king, they did impart the knowledge needed for others to put faith in him (which included the admonition to repent of their transgressions), demonstrating that they wanted to be in the royal realm where he is the king by his Father’s appointment. (Compare Mark 6:12.) Jesus had not asked for any payment for empowering the apostles to perform miracles that would demonstrate to others that they had divine backing for their proclamation about the kingdom. Therefore, the relief that they would bring to the afflicted was likewise to be made available without cost.

As workers of good, the apostles, however, did have the right to receive food and lodging from responsive fellow Israelites. With full trust in God’s providential care and the hospitality of favorably disposed individuals, they were not to equip themselves in a manner typical of travelers. According to Jesus’ instructions, they would not take along any gold, silver, or copper coins for making purchases, any bread, and any bag with supplies. They would only wear the essential attire and their sandals. (Matthew 10:9, 10; Mark 6:8, 9; Luke 9:3; see the Notes section regarding the differences in the instructions.)

Upon entering a town or village, the apostles were to search for “deserving” or “worthy” ones, persons who would appreciatively accept them and their message. These individuals would reveal themselves to be worthy of the precious spiritual benefits the apostles were able to impart. In the homes of these worthy ones, the apostles were to stay until such time as they would leave for another place. (Matthew 10:11; Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4) Their remaining in one house in the town or village would have made it easier for other inhabitants to find them if they wanted to benefit from their ministry. It would also have reflected proper regard for those who initially extended hospitality, as the apostles would neither seek nor accept what might have appeared to be better accommodations.

When first entering the house where the owner extended hospitality, they were to greet the household. (Matthew 10:12) This would have been with the customary “shalom” (“peace,” a wish of well-being resulting from God’s blessing). In the case of those who proved themselves to be worthy, the apostle’s wish for peace would come upon the household. If, however, the residents of the house later revealed themselves undeserving, rejecting the message the apostles proclaimed, the expression of peace was to return to them. (Matthew 10:13) This suggests that they were not to allow unresponsiveness to rob them of their peace, the tranquility they enjoyed as persons having divine approval.

Whenever the apostles came to a place where they and their message were rejected, they were to shake the dust off their feet upon leaving that particular house, town, or village. This gesture would serve as a testimony against the unresponsive ones. In the day of judgment, the very dust would testify against them as having been persons who rejected the message the apostles proclaimed, did not repent of their transgressions, and refused to accept the marvelous opportunity of coming to be part of the realm where God is acknowledged as Sovereign. As individuals who possessed knowledge about the Most High and witnessed miracles that verified the dependability of the message the apostles declared, their accountability was greater than that of the corrupt inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah in the days of Abraham and Lot. Therefore, as Jesus stated with a solemn “amen” (“truly”), it would be more bearable for the “land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment” than for the inhabitants of a town or village who refused to listen to the apostles. This indicates that, on account of the greater accountability, the judgment would be more severe. (Matthew 10:14, 15; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5)

According to ancient Jewish sources, dust from outside the land of Israel defiled by one’s carrying or touching it. Therefore, the apostles, when shaking the dust off their feet, could also have been indicating that the rejection of the message revealed the people to be impure and as having no relationship with God. They were leaving the unbelieving people behind as persons with whom they would have no further contact, taking nothing of theirs with them, not even the dust on their sandals.

Jesus alerted the apostles to the fact that they would be encountering enemies who would seek to harm them. He likened his followers to defenseless sheep being sent out among wolves. This called for them to become “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16) In pursuing their prey, serpents are cunning. They conceal themselves and quickly slither away from any threat. So, the apostles would wisely remain alert, not exposing themselves to danger but acting swiftly to avoid it. Possibly because deceit is associated with the serpent in Eden, they were reminded to maintain their innocence, not resorting to anything of an underhanded nature that would be associated with the characteristic of serpents. The harmless, inoffensive nature of doves would be more in keeping with their activity, which would never injure anyone but would always result in the greatest good possible for those who responded favorably to their proclamation about the kingdom.

Jesus then prepared the apostles for what they, in the future, could expect from men who would violently oppose their activity. He admonished them to be on guard. Opposers would hand them over to be tried by Jewish courts, and they would be scourged in the synagogues, being regarded as enemies of their own countrymen and meriting severe beating. For the sake of Christ or because of representing him, they would be dragged before governors and kings. Their appearance before these non-Jewish rulers would serve as an opportunity to testify to them about him. Besides being presented to the kings and governors, the testimony would also be heard by others, resulting in a witness to non-Jewish peoples. (Matthew 10:17, 18)

While in the process of being taken before rulers, the disciples were not to give way to worry as to how to present their case. Jesus assured them that, in that “hour” or at that time, what they needed to say would be given to them. The spirit of the heavenly Father would be speaking through them, enabling them to bear witness in an effective manner. (Matthew 10:19, 20)

In the case of Christ’s disciples, unbelieving family members would turn against them. Close relatives who formerly loved them would become hatefully hostile. A brother would betray his own brother, handing him over to ruling authorities to be executed. A father would deliver up his own child to be put to death, and children would take a stand against their parents and have them killed. On account of Christ’s name or being identified as belonging to him as his disciples, believers would come to be hated by all, evidently meaning all who persisted in unbelief. Jesus then added, “The one, however, who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:21, 22)

In view of the portrayal of intense persecution with death as a possible outcome, the “end” may signify the end of a person’s life. Salvation is assured for all who endure faithfully, loyally remaining true to the Lord Jesus Christ and not denying him when faced with bitter opposition.

When encountering persecution in a particular city, Christ’s disciples were to flee to another city, not needlessly endangering their lives by remaining in a place where opposers were intent on killing them. In the time intervening between the commencement of the work for which the Son of God had commissioned the apostles until his coming again, Christ’s followers would not run out of places to reach with the message about the kingdom. Introducing his statement with a solemn “amen” (“truly”), Jesus told the apostles that they would not “finish [their activity in] the cities of Israel.” (Matthew 10:23)

The Son of God had not yet revealed to them that their preaching and that of other disciples would extend far beyond the land of Israel. Therefore, it seems that Jesus framed his statement in keeping with what the apostles knew and would have understood. This suggests that the cities of Israel are only representative of the places to be reached with the glad tidings that focused on Jesus as the king by God’s appointment. From the standpoint of Christ’s disciples, there would never be a time prior to his return that their work would be completed. Consequently, it does not appear to be necessary to identify the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman forces as an expression of the coming of the Son of Man for judgment. His followers did not stop telling others about him after that event. Therefore, the reference could be to Christ’s coming in glory.

Disciples of Christ should not be surprised about future mistreatment. A disciple, pupil, or learner is not above the teacher, and a slave or servant is not above his lord or master. In keeping therewith, it is altogether enough or fitting that a disciple come to be like his teacher and a slave like his lord, being recipients of the same kind of treatment. The Son of God is both the Teacher and the Lord of believers. Since the householder or master of the house (which is the position of Jesus in his relationship to the household of believers) was called Beelzebul (a designation that was applied to the devil), how much more so would the members of his household be slanderously thus labeled! (Matthew 10:24, 25)

The disciples were not to be afraid of those who would seek to mistreat them. In harmony with the admonition Jesus had previously given, they would exercise due caution and not foolishly place themselves in a dangerous situation. Nevertheless, they were not to give in to fear and become silent, failing to make known the good news about Christ. Whatever is covered should be uncovered, and whatever is secret should become known. As Jesus added, “What I tell you in the darkness, relate in the light, and what you hear [whispered] into the ear proclaim from the roofs” (which were flat and accessible by means of ladders or outside stairs). (Matthew 10:26, 27)

Jesus had taught the apostles privately. What he imparted to them had been covered and hidden from others, but he did not intend for his teaching to remain covered (as if hidden in darkness) and secret. Instead, the apostles were to make it known in the “light” or openly for others to learn, and the truths they had heard from him privately they were to proclaim publicly like announcements that would be made from roofs so that all could hear. Their courageous proclamation would expose them to danger from those who would not respond favorably. Therefore, Jesus again emphasized the importance of not becoming fearful. “Fear not those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (Matthew 10:28)

Humans can render the body lifeless, but they cannot destroy the “soul” or the person as a whole and in possession of the God-given right to live in fellowship with him. The killing of the body has no effect on the future life to be enjoyed in keeping with God’s purpose and promise. Therefore, the one who should rightly be feared is the heavenly Father. He can destroy both the body and the soul or the entire person, permanently cutting off the individual from the real life of fellowship with him. That terrifying judgment is destruction “in Gehenna” and, according to Isaiah 66:24, is comparable to one’s being cast into a garbage dump where fires burn continually and maggots feed on whatever the flames do not reach.

Whereas the judgment is severe, Jesus did reveal that his Father’s will is to aid believers to maintain faithfulness because they are precious to him. The Son of God reminded the disciples that two sparrows cost but one assarion (16 of such coins being the equivalent of a daily wage). Although considered as a low-cost food item, these birds did not fall to the ground as undeserving of his Father’s notice. They had value in his sight. Indicative of his Father’s care and concern for the disciples, Jesus told them that the hairs of their head were all numbered, suggesting that everything about them was precious to his Father. They were worth more than many sparrows, and so should not give in to fear regardless of what they might yet face. (Matthew 10:29-31)

Everyone who would confess or acknowledge having a relationship with him before men, Jesus would acknowledge before his Father as being at one with him. As for the person who would disown him before men, Jesus would disown that one before his Father. (Matthew 10:32, 33)

Jesus did not want his disciples to think that he had come to bring peace upon the earth. Instead of peace, he had brought a sword. This was because of the manner in which individuals would respond to him and his message, with the opposite reactions of belief and unbelief creating serious rifts. The hostility of unbelievers would end what may formerly have been a peaceful relationship and replace it with the hostility a sword represented. Jesus, in terms similar to those found in Micah 7:6, spoke about the serious divisions that would develop on his account. A man would be against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man’s enemies would be members of his own household.

Anyone who deemed family loyalty to be of greater importance than love for Christ would lose out on everything that would result from being at one with him. Jesus said, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his beam [staurós] and follow after me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his soul will lose it, and whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:37-39)

To accord parents or children greater affection than to Christ would lead to pleasing them when their wishes and aims conflicted with loyalty to him. This failure to love God’s Son by heeding his words would make one unworthy of belonging to him as his approved disciple.

In lands under the dominion of Rome, crucifixion was the worst form of punishment. The condemned man would carry the beam (to which he would later be tied or nailed) to the place of execution, where he would be exposed to mockery and die a slow, excruciating death. Therefore, to take up one’s beam suggests to commence a course of reproach and suffering in order to follow Christ. An unwillingness to endure affliction and possibly even death for the sake of God’s Son would make one unworthy of having his recognition.

To “find” one’s soul would denote to secure one’s life through disloyalty to Christ. Losing one’s soul for the sake of God’s Son would signify losing one’s life because of being his disciple. The preservation of one’s present life through any means that dishonored Christ would lead to losing out on the real life in eternity. To lose one’s soul or life for his sake would assure one’s having the eternal life of a never-ending relationship with him and his Father.

Jesus would consider whoever “received” or welcomed his disciples as welcoming him and, to accept him, meant to receive his Father who had sent him. To receive a prophet “in the name of a prophet” would signify to welcome him because of recognizing him to be a prophet. Whoever did so would receive a prophet’s reward or a repayment like that of one who faithfully carried out his commission as a proclaimer of God’s word or message. The individual who received a righteous man “in the name of a righteous man” or because of recognizing the man to be godly or upright would receive a righteous man’s reward or come to be a recipient of the repayment the upright one deserved. (Matthew 10:40, 41)

Even what might appear to be a small gesture of hospitality extended toward a lowly disciple (“one of these little ones” or, according to other manuscripts, “least ones”) would be rewarded. The person who gave just a “cup of cold water” (a welcome refreshment on a hot day to one who is thirsty) “in the name of a disciple” or because of recognizing the person to be Christ’s disciple would in no way lose his reward or the repayment for having done so. Jesus introduced this assurance with a solemn “amen” (“truly”). (Matthew 10:42)

After receiving Jesus’ instructions, the apostles began their activity, traveling from place to place, proclaiming the glad tidings about God’s kingdom, admonishing people to repent, freeing the afflicted from demon possession, and curing the sick. (Mark 6:12, 13; Luke 9:6) According to Mark 6:13, the apostles anointed the ailing ones “with [olive] oil.” Doubtless they did this in the name of Jesus, and the use of the oil may have served to show that the healing was accomplished through them. (Compare Acts 3:6; James 5:14.)

Notes:

In Matthew 9:36, the earliest extant manuscripts contain forms of the Greek words skyllo and rhípto when describing the people as being like sheep. The term skyllo originally meant to “skin,” but, in other contexts (as here) denotes to “harass,” “weary,” or “trouble.” According to another manuscript reading, the word (instead of skyllo) is a form of eklyo, meaning to be “exhausted,” “wearied,” “faint,” “deprived of strength,” “dispirited,” or “discouraged.” The expression rhípto conveys the sense of being thrown or tossed with a forceful motion. As applying to the state of the people, this suggests a helpless or dejected state.

According to Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, Jesus told the apostles not to take a staff along, but Mark 6:8 indicates that they could do so. This difference may be understood to mean that they were not to procure a staff but could use one if that was their customary practice. In Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3, the reference to “two tunics” (chitón, the Greek term designating a garment worn next to the skin) probably means one tunic in addition to the one that would usually be worn. Mark 6:9 is more specific when mentioning that they were not to wear two tunics, implying that one would be enough. Similarly, the point about wearing sandals (Mark 6:9) and not obtaining sandals (Matthew 10:10) would relate to wearing their sandals but not taking along an extra pair for the trip.

Death of John (Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9)

During the time the apostles carried out their commission, Jesus continued teaching and preaching in various towns. (Matthew 11:1) The biblical record does not disclose just when, in relation to the commissioning of the twelve disciples, Herod Antipas the tetrarch first heard about Jesus’ miracles. (Regarding the designation “tetrarch,” see the Notes section.)

This ruler had earlier arrested John the Baptist for repeatedly censuring him regarding his marriage to Herodias and about other wrongs. (Luke 3:19, 20) To marry Herod Antipas, she had divorced her husband (Herod Philip), and he also divorced his first wife (the daughter of Aretas, an Arabian king whose dominion included Damascus) to marry her. This union was an incestuous relationship according to Jewish law, to which he was subject as a nominal Jew (whose Edomite ancestors John Hyrcanus I forced to be circumcised in the second century BCE). His fear of incurring the hostility of his subjects, who considered John to be a prophet, contributed to restraining Herod Antipas from executing him. Moreover, he knew John to be upright and holy, and this also made him apprehensive about imposing the death sentence. Herod Antipas even found a measure of delight in hearing what John said about other matters, and so he found himself in a quandary as to what he should do. (Matthew 14:3-5; Mark 6:17-20)

Herodias, however, harbored great resentment and wanted John killed. She was determined that her remaining married to Herod Antipas would never be in jeopardy. (See the Notes section for other evidence about the closeness of the attachment of Herodias to Herod Antipas.) Her opportunity to achieve her objective came when Herod Antipas celebrated the anniversary of his birth. For the occasion, he arranged a banquet to which he invited his prominent men, chiliarchs (commanders of 1,000 soldiers), and influential men of Galilee. Probably while he and his invitees were under the influence of wine, Herodias urged her daughter Salome (probably her only child by Philip) to perform a sensuous dance in their presence. Herodias must have known how her husband was likely to respond to her daughter’s dancing. (Mark 6:19, 21, 22)

Herod Antipas and his guests were delighted with the spectacle. Completely captivated by her performance, he made an oath-bound promise to give her anything she might request, “up to half of [his] kingdom.” (Matthew 14:6, 7; Mark 6:22, 23) Upon consulting with her mother, Salome asked that she immediately be given the head of John the Baptist on a platter. It would seem that Herodias wanted to be sure not to risk the possibility that her husband would change his mind and so had her daughter request immediate action. (Matthew 14:8; Mark 6:24, 25)

Although it greatly troubled him, Herod Antipas, on account of his oaths and in order not to lose face before his guests, gave the order for John to be beheaded. Upon being presented with his head, Salome took it to her mother. (Matthew 14:9-11; Mark 6:26-28)

When news about this development reached the disciples of John, they arranged to get the body and placed it in a tomb. Thereafter they informed Jesus about what had happened. (Matthew 14:12; Mark 6:29)

It seems that his having ordered the execution of John left Herod Antipas with a troubled conscience. Reports about Jesus’ miracles caused him superstitiously to reason that John had been raised from the dead and had come into possession of extraordinary powers. (Matthew 14:1, 2; Mark 6:16) Also among the people, certain ones expressed themselves to the effect that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead and, therefore, was performing miracles. Others, though, concluded that Jesus was Elijah or a prophet like one of the prophets of old. All this talk added to Herod’s perplexity. (Mark 6:14, 15; Luke 9:7-9; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Notes:

The term “tetrarch” denotes a ruler over a fourth part of a province. This designation applied to rulers of lesser rank than kings. Among the general populace, though, Herod Antipas may have been spoken of as a king, and this may explain why the terms “king” and “kingdom” are linked to him in the Scriptures. His tetrarchy embraced Galilee and Perea, a region on the east side of the Jordan River.

A later development reveals just how strongly attached Herodias was to Herod Antipas. At the time Emperor Caligula (Gaius Caesar) exiled Herod Antipas on the suspicion of treachery (based on letters from Agrippa I, the brother of Herodias), she could have enjoyed better circumstances without him. According to Josephus, she turned down Caligula’s offer to spare her, saying, “The kindness which I have for my husband hinders me from partaking of the favor of your gift, for it is not right that I, who have been made a partner in his prosperity, should forsake him in his misfortunes.” (Antiquities, XVIII, vii, 1, 2 [Whiston’s translation with minor edits])

If he had known about Jesus’ activity and miracles prior to his having John executed, Herod Antipas could not have drawn his erroneous conclusion. The existence of ignorance about the overlapping of the activity of Jesus and John in the very land where they carried out their respective ministries indicates that one should not expect to find specifics about Jesus’ work and miracles in the writings of first-century Roman historians. Not until there were believers in principal cities throughout the Roman empire would information about Jesus have become more widely known.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus commented on Herod’s political concerns as the reason for John’s imprisonment and execution. With crowds coming to John, Herod Antipas “feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion.” “Out of Herod’s suspicious temper,” John was sent as a prisoner “to Macherus” (Machaerus in Perea, situated east of the Dead Sea) and “was there put to death.” (Antiquities, XVIII, v, 2)

There is no reason to doubt that political considerations were involved. The messianic expectations aroused through the preaching of John the Baptist would have been troubling to Herod Antipas, just as his father Herod the Great regarded news about Jesus’ birth as a threat to the continuance of rule in his line and thereafter responded with violent action in an attempt to eliminate this threat. What appears to have finally prompted Herod to have John arrested and imprisoned was his being repeatedly reproved by him for his unlawful marriage to Herodias.

When commenting on the view of some Jews about the defeat of Herod’s army by the army of Aretas, whose daughter Herod Antipas had divorced to marry Herodias, Josephus wrote, “Now, some of he Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism.” (Antiquities, XVIII, v, 2)

Jesus Meets Apostles (Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:30, 31; Luke 9:10; John 6:1-4)

Jesus probably had made arrangements to meet the apostles in Capernaum after they had completed the mission on which he had sent them. (See the Notes section for additional comments.) Upon their return, they related to Jesus what they had done and taught. Possibly at this time, they first heard about the death of John. This would have greatly saddened them and appears to have been part of the reason for Jesus’ recommendation to depart for an isolated area to get some rest. Once it had become known that they had returned to the area, Jesus and his apostles had little privacy. They were unable even to eat a meal without interruption, because of the many people who were coming and going. (Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:30, 31)

The number of people probably was greater than at other times, as the Passover was near. (John 6:4) Many families in Galilee would have started to travel to the major routes leading to Jerusalem and been staying in towns and villages along the way. This would have contributed to increased talk about Jesus activity, and more people would have witnessed his curing of the sick. (John 6:2)

Jesus’ departure with his apostles did not go unnoticed. Those who saw them leave by boat quickly spread the news. A large crowd of men, women, and children from different towns then hurried to the other side of the Sea of Galilee to meet them. The walking distance may have been less than five miles, as the isolated area was near Bethsaida. (Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:32, 33; Luke 9:10; John 6:1, 2) A distance of a little over three miles separates what are believed to have been the locations of ancient Capernaum and Bethsaida. From the shore, the people would have been able to see the progress of the boat in the northern part of the Sea of Galilee.

Notes:

Capernaum would have been the logical place for Jesus and the apostles to meet. Peter and Andrew had their home there, and most of the other apostles appear to have lived in the general vicinity. The availability of a boat also points to Capernaum as the probable location. An indication that Jesus and his apostles left from there by boat is their coming to the plain of Gennesaret (south of Capernaum) upon their return to the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. (Matthew 14:34; Mark 6:53)

The time for the return of the apostles from their mission was also appropriate. With the Passover being near, Jesus and his apostles needed to make the journey to Jerusalem. Like Peter, most, if not all, of the other apostles would have been married and likely had children. Families customarily made the trip together, and there is no reason to conclude that the apostles would not have done so. (Compare Mark 1:29, 30; Luke 2:41, 42; John 2:12, 13; 7:3, 8-10; 1 Corinthians 9:5)

Jesus Provides Food for Thousands (Matthew 14:14-21; Mark 6:34-46; Luke 9:11-17; John 6:3-15)

When Jesus and his apostles went ashore on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, a large crowd was already waiting for them. Although their presence interfered with his plan for the apostles to get some rest in an isolated area, Jesus was moved with compassion for the people. He considered them to be like helpless sheep without the concern and guidance of a caring shepherd. He then began to teach them about the kingdom of God and healed the sick among them. (Matthew 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11)

The biblical accounts do not contain specifics about what Jesus taught on this occasion and whether he spoke to the multitude or taught groups of people as they came to him and raised questions. According to John 6:3, Jesus and his disciples ascended a mountainside and there seated themselves in a grassy area. (John 6:10) Just as he and his disciples found a suitable location, the thousands who had come to the area would have done likewise. Men would have started talking with other men, and women with other women. Children would have engaged in play. Likely, at various times, groups of people would have approached Jesus and then left as others came. His teaching must have prompted many conversations.

Although considerable time passed, the crowd continued to remain in the isolated location. This prompted the disciples to suggest that Jesus dismiss the people so that they could buy food for themselves in the nearby villages. (Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:35, 36; Luke 9:12)

Perhaps at this point, Jesus saw a large crowd coming to where he and his disciples had seated themselves. Knowing what he purposed to do, he tested Philip with the question, “Where are we going to buy bread for them to eat?” Being from Bethsaida (probably the closest town), Philip would have known where bread could be purchased. (John 1:44) His response reveals that he knew about how much money the disciples had in their common fund and thought that the amount would be insufficient. He replied that 200 denarii (a denarius being a day’s wage) would not buy enough bread to provide even a small amount for everyone. (See the Notes section for additional information.) Commenting on how little food he knew to be available, Peter’s brother Andrew remarked, “Here is a boy with five barley loaves and two fishes. But what do these [amount to] among so many?” (John 6:5-9; see the Notes section for additional comments.) In response to Jesus’ telling them to provide food for the multitude, the apostles questioned whether they should leave to purchase what they could for 200 denarii. (Matthew 14:16; Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13)

The abundant grass in the location made it convenient for the people to recline in order to eat. Jesus told the apostles to have the people do so in groups of a hundred and of fifty. He then took the five loaves and the two fishes, which had been brought to him, looked up to heaven, and said a blessing. After breaking the loaves, Jesus gave the bread to the disciples for distribution to the people. He did the same with the two fishes. The miraculous provision of bread and fish was sufficient for about 5,000 men, besides women and children. To prevent any waste, Jesus instructed the apostles to gather the leftovers in baskets. They filled twelve baskets, which seems to indicate that each of the apostles had taken a travel basket along. The Greek term for one of these baskets is kóphinos and appears to have been the designation for a basket smaller than the sphyrís. (Matthew 14:17-21; Mark 6:38-44; Luke 9:14-17; John 6:10-13)

When the people saw the signs Jesus performed, especially the providing of food for the multitude, they concluded that he must surely be the prophet who was destined to come into the world. This prompted them to want to forcibly make Jesus their king. Becoming aware of their intent, he took steps to be alone, recognizing that their objective was contrary to his Father’s purpose and did not reflect genuine faith in him as the promised Messiah. (John 6:14, 15) Jesus directed his disciples to board the boat, then dismissed the crowd, and headed up the mountainside. Alone on the height, he had the needed privacy to pray to his Father. (Matthew 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45, 46; see the Notes section for comments on Mark 6:45.)

Notes

The question directed to Philip seems to have served to test his faith in Jesus’ ability to provide for the people. Although perceiving that the available resources were insufficient, Philip did not appear to make the connection that Jesus would be able to provide enough for everyone, just as centuries earlier the prophet Elisha had fed 100 men to satisfaction with a limited amount of bread. (2 Kings 4:42-44)

In John 6:9, the Greek term for “boy” is paidárion. Being a diminutive form of pais, paidárion (“boy”) is often translated “little boy.” This, however, is not necessarily the significance of the designation. In the Septuagint, the term is applied to 17-year-old Joseph (Genesis 37:30) and to his younger brother Benjamin when he was already a young man. (Genesis 43:8)

Andrew’s knowledge about the youth may be an indication that he was the son of one of the disciples. With their focus being on Jesus, the biblical accounts reveal very little about the apostles and their families. That family members accompanied them on various occasions is likely. Their not being mentioned does not preclude this possibility, especially since only Matthew’s account mentions women and children in connection with this incident.

If the youth was the son of one of the apostles, he may have been entrusted with their food supply. The fish probably were dried and salted.

According to Matthew 14:17 and Luke 9:13, the apostles referred to the five loaves and the two fishes as being all they had to give to the people, with no mention being made of the youth. This would seem to lend support to the conclusion that the youngster was a son of one of the apostles. Moreover, John’s account portrays him as already being with Jesus and the apostles when the crowd approached. (John 6:5, 9)

In Matthew 14:22 and Mark 6:45, Jesus’ directing his disciples to board the boat is expressed with a form of the Greek word anankázo, meaning “force,” “compel,” or “strongly urge.” This suggests that there may have been reluctance on their part to leave. Jesus may have insisted on their leaving because of knowing how easily they could have been drawn into supporting the aim to make him king.

Mark 6:45 includes Jesus instructions for “his disciples to go on ahead to the other side, toward Bethsaida.” This may be understood to mean that the disciples were to go north toward Bethsaida and then navigate along the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee to the western shore.

According to John 6:17, Jesus had not yet come to the disciples even though it had already become dark. This could mean that he had prearranged to meet them before they would start crossing the Sea of Galilee for Capernaum. Perhaps the reference in Mark 6:45 to Bethsaida provides a possible clue about the place where Jesus planned to rejoin them. If this was the case, the disciples would have waited for a long time. When, however, it appeared that he was not coming, they decided to head for Capernaum according to the instructions he had given them.

Jesus Walks on Water (Matthew 14:23-33; Mark 6:46-52; John 6:16-21)

Late at night Jesus finished praying and looked down on the Sea of Galilee. A considerable distance from the shore, he saw the boat in which the disciples were. With a strong, unfavorable wind creating a rough sea, the boat made little progress. (Matthew 14:23, 24; Mark 6:46-48; John 6:18) Jesus descended from the mountainside and began to walk on the water.

During the fourth night watch (between three and six in the morning), the boat was about three or three and a half miles from the shore, and the disciples were struggling to row it against the wind. Fright seized them when they saw someone walking on the water in their direction and about to pass them by. Thinking that they were beholding a phantom, they cried out in fear. Then they heard Jesus’ reassuring words, “Take courage. [It is] I. Fear not.” (Matthew 14:25-27; Mark 6:48-50; John 6:19, 20; see the Notes section for comments on John 6:19.)

“Lord, if it is you,” Peter spoke up, “tell me to come to you upon the waters.” “Come!” said Jesus, and Peter stepped out upon the sea. When, however, his attention shifted from Jesus to the wind and its effect on the water, he became fearful, began to sink, and then shouted, “Lord, save me!” Jesus at once reached out with his hand, took hold of him, and said, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:28-31; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

After Jesus and Peter entered the boat, the storm ended. Amazed and deeply moved by what they had witnessed, the disciples fell to their knees, prostrated themselves before Jesus, and said, “Truly you are the Son of God.” From then onward, they no longer struggled with the oars while making little progress. (Matthew 16:32, 33; Mark 6:51) In no time, they reached the western shore. (John 6:21; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Mark 6:52 indicates that the disciples had not comprehended the significance of the miracle involving the loaves. Their “heart” or mental perception remained dull. It appears that the apostles saw each miracle as a separate event and did not draw conclusions about other areas in which Jesus would be able to manifest divine power. Although they had witnessed the miraculous feeding of thousands with just five loaves and two fishes, it did not occur to them that the sea could not prevent Jesus from joining them. Therefore, for them to see Jesus walking on water should not have been something completely unimaginable.

Notes:

According to John 6:19, the boat was about “twenty-five or thirty stadia” from the shore. A stadium is a linear measure of about 607 feet, and so the distance would have been between approximately three and three and a half miles.

Peter’s experience reveals that faith is maintained by keeping focused on Jesus, fully trusting him. Whenever troubling external factors begin to divert one’s attention, fear can take over and displace faith. Still, as in Peter’s case, the Son of God will not abandon us when we cry out in our distress.

A weak faith can easily be supplanted by fear and superstition. Whenever Jesus passes by (as when the truth about him comes to one’s attention) and there is no positive response to his voice, something that could strengthen faith may be perceived as unpleasant, troubling, or even terrifying. If, however, individuals hear his voice and then recognize and welcome him, they are freed from fear, superstition, and misapprehension. Like the apostles, they are moved to acknowledge, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

According to John 6:21, the boat “immediately” arrived at the land or the western shore. Because of viewing the term “immediately” in a very literal sense, numerous commentators have concluded that this was yet another miracle. It is more likely, however, that the term describes the progress of the trip in relation to the situation before Jesus joined the apostles.

Many Are Healed (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56)

When Jesus and his apostles disembarked on the plain of Gennesaret not far from Capernaum, those who recognized them spread the word about his arrival. The news quickly reached beyond the immediate area, and people came from surrounding towns and villages, bringing the sick on mats. The afflicted pleaded just to be able to touch the fringe of his garment and, upon doing so, were cured. (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-55)

Later, in whatever town or village Jesus entered, people would put the sick in the marketplaces for him to heal them. The ailing would then beg him for permission to touch the fringe of his garment. All who did this became well. (Mark 6:56)

Many Take Offense at Jesus’ Teaching (John 6:22-71)

The people who had stayed for the night on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee looked for Jesus in the morning. They knew that only one boat had been at the location and that he had not left with his disciples. Unable to find Jesus or any of his disciples, they decided to head back to Capernaum. To make the trip, the people boarded some boats that had come from Tiberias (a city on the western shore of the sea). Upon later finding Jesus, they asked, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” (John 6:22-25)

He did not answer their question but pointed to the real reason for their effort to find him. Introducing his words with the repetition of a solemn “amen” (“truly”), Jesus said, “You are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” His words revealed that the miracle did not engender genuine faith in them. Their earlier attempt to make him king was based on a carnal view and not spiritual perception. Therefore, Jesus urged them to work for the food that endures for eternal life, ceasing to make their prime concern the food that perishes upon being consumed and that cannot sustain life indefinitely. Speaking of himself as the “Son of Man,” he revealed that he could give them the essential food for eternal life (the real life of a permanent relationship with him and his Father). There should have been no question about Jesus’ ability to do so, for his Father had “sealed” him. The miracles the Father had empowered him to perform by means of his spirit, like an authenticating seal, undeniably established his identity as the unique Son of God. (John 6:26, 27)

In response to the people’s question about what they needed to do to carry out the “works of God,” Jesus told them to believe or have faith in the one whom God had sent. Although they had personally benefited from the miraculous provision of food, they were not satisfied with this sign, which should have led them to put faith in Jesus. They did not see in him the Messiah they wanted, for he had not cooperated with them in their attempt to forcibly make him their king. This appears to have been a factor in their seeking a heavenly sign that would have been more in line with their messianic expectations. The people challenged Jesus. “What sign are you performing, so that we might see [it] and believe you? What are you doing? In the wilderness, our ancestors ate the manna, as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (John 6:28-31)

“Amen, amen” (“Truly, truly”), Jesus replied, “Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” This “bread of God,” as Jesus explained, “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” The people, however, did not understand that Jesus himself was the bread that had come down from heaven and that through him members of the world of mankind would be granted life (the eternal life of an enduring relationship with his Father and with him). Concluding that the bread to which he had referred was comparable to manna, they replied, “Lord, always give us this bread.” (John 6:32-34)

Possibly at this point or either earlier or later, Jesus finished speaking to the people. He later resumed his discussion about “bread” while in the synagogue at Capernaum. (John 6:59)

Knowing that the people had not identified him as being the “bread of God,” Jesus expressed the point in a more direct manner, saying, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never hunger, and the one who believes in me will never thirst.” (John 6:35) Whereas food and drink are needed to sustain physical life, the real life or the eternal life depends upon coming to Jesus and putting faith in him as the Son of God. From him and him alone does the spiritual life derive the essential sustenance, never leaving the believer in a hungry or thirsty state.

Those who heard Jesus’ words had seen him and witnessed deeds revealing extraordinary divine power. Yet, as he said, they did not believe. The visible evidence did not move them to put faith or unqualified trust in him. They were not among those whom the Father had given to his Son. (John 6:36, 37)

What distinguished those who had been given to Jesus was their coming to him in faith. They recognized him as God’s Son and their Lord, and he acknowledged them as belonging to him. To his Father, they were precious and beloved, for he had given them to his Son. Jesus likewise valued and loved them and so would never reject them or drive them away. He would treat them in harmony with his Father’s will, for he had come from heaven to do, not his own will, but the will of his Father, who had sent him. (John 6:37, 38)

God’s will respecting those whom he had given to his Son was that none of them would be lost but would enjoy a permanent relationship with him. This would necessitate their being raised from the dead “on the last day.” All of them would be persons who put faith in the Son. As Jesus said, “For this is the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life.” This life is more than never-ending existence. It is life associated with all the joys and blessings of an eternal relationship with the Father and his Son. (Compare John 17:3.) The “last day” designates the future time when Jesus would raise believers from the dead, to begin enjoying the real life in the sinless state. (John 6:39, 40; see the Notes section for additional comments about the “last day.”)

Jesus’ words left no question in the minds of the hearers about the identity of the “bread from heaven,” and they objected. As far as they were concerned, he had no basis for claiming that he was the bread that had come down from heaven. They knew him to be the son of Joseph, and they knew his mother. In their view, he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary and so could not possibly be the “bread from heaven.” Becoming aware of their faultfinding talk among themselves, Jesus told them to quit murmuring and then added, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And all will be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned [from him] comes to me.” (John 6:41-45)

Through the life and activity of Jesus, the Father revealed himself. All who longed to have his favor were drawn to the Father’s self-disclosure and came to Jesus, recognizing him as the one whom the Father had sent. In the writings of the Hebrew prophets the proof could be found that the Father would draw individuals through his teaching. In Isaiah 54:13, it is written, “And all your sons [will be] taught by God.” (LXX, but “YHWH” in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah and the Masoretic Text) The prophetic word and the miracles the Father had empowered his Son to perform served as teaching, revealing Jesus’ true identity as being more than a member of the family of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, all who heard this teaching with understanding and learned it, making it their own, came to Jesus.

Calling attention to the fact that the Father’s teaching had been made available through him, Jesus added that he alone, as the one from God, had seen the Father. “Amen, amen” (“Truly, truly”), Jesus continued in a solemn manner, “I say to you, Whoever believes has eternal life.” The response in faith resulted in an approved relationship with the Father and his Son, and the enduring nature of this relationship constitutes eternal life. Therefore, Jesus could speak of this life as coming into the possession of believers, although they would not enjoy it to the full until being granted their glorified sinless state. (John 6:46, 47)

Emphasizing that eternal life could only be attained through him, Jesus repeated, “I am the bread of life.” Although it came from a heavenly source, the manna did not indefinitely sustain the life of the Israelites in the wilderness. As Jesus said, “They died.” The individual eating of the bread that had come down from heaven in the person of the Son, however, would not die. By putting faith in the Son and all that his life and ministry embraced, believers would become sharers in Christ and come to have eternal life. The relationship inherent in this life would not end at death but would continue upon the believer’s being resurrected in glory. Because death does not bring an end to eternal life, all who through faith share in Christ (the way persons can share a meal) do not die. (John 6:48-50)

Again Jesus made the unmistakable identification, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.” He then expanded on this vital truth. “If anyone eats from this bread, he will live eternally, and my flesh is the bread that I give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51) Jesus thereby indicated that he would die sacrificially for the world of mankind and that all who would accept his sacrifice for them would be granted eternal life.

Jesus’ words gave rise to controversy among his Jewish hearers. They objected, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” He then replied in terms that were even more graphic. “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The one who consumes my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever consumes my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, I also live because of the Father, and whoever consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like [the manna your] ancestors ate and died. The one who consumes this bread will live eternally.” (John 6:52-58; the bracketed words are found in numerous later manuscripts but are missing in the oldest extant manuscripts.)

Eternal life is only attainable by partaking of the benefits made possible through Jesus’ sacrificial death (the surrender of his flesh and the pouring out of his blood). Apart from Jesus’ flesh and blood, individuals may exist but they do not have the real life as divinely approved persons. The eternal life that believers come to possess through their faith in the Son guarantees their resurrection. Jesus’ flesh and blood are true food and drink in that they have a direct bearing on eternal life, just as food and drink do on one’s physical life.

In the quotation of Jesus’ words, the Greek term for “consume” is trógo and appears in ancient writings as a term used when speaking of animals as biting or chewing their food. Perhaps the thought conveyed is that of the kind of eating characteristic of hungry animals and, therefore, could suggest the eager response to Jesus as the one who surrendered his flesh for the life of the world.

To abide in Jesus would signify to be at one with him, and Jesus would be united to the individual in continued fellowship. The Father lives and is the possessor of life-giving power. Therefore, Jesus described himself as living because of his Father, to whom he was united in an eternal relationship. Likewise, the one who would share in communion with Jesus through faith (as one would participate in fellowship when partaking of a meal) would live on account of him. Unlike the manna that could not keep the ancestors of the Israelites alive indefinitely, all who become sharers in Christ, “the bread that came down from heaven,” will live eternally.

Even among those who had followed Jesus as his “disciples” or learners, many found this “word” or teaching “hard,” troublesome, or intolerable. They responded, “Who can listen to it?” The teaching proved to be unacceptable and offensive to them. (John 6:60)

Sensing that these disciples were murmuring about his teaching, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What, then, if you were to behold the Son of Man ascending to where he had been formerly?” (John 6:61, 62) Jesus’ question about the ascension served to show that they had no valid reason for being offended. If they were to see him ascending to the location he had been previously, this would prove that he had indeed come down from heaven.

Clarifying that he had not been speaking in literal terms, Jesus continued, “The spirit is what makes alive; the flesh is of no use at all. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63) In the case of the fleshly organism, the “spirit” gives life to the body of flesh, animating it. Without the life force, the flesh is useless. Jesus’ words were of a spiritual nature. Responding to them in faith by accepting him as the “bread of life” would have led to coming into possession of the real life. His words had animating and life-giving power.

Fully aware of the lack of faith among certain ones who had followed him, Jesus said, “Among you are some who do not believe.” The account then continues with an explanatory comment. From the “beginning,” Jesus knew those who did not believe and the one who would betray him. This indicates that Jesus discerned from the start when outward expressions did not reflect genuine faith in him. Real faith is an inward response to the Father — to his drawing of individuals through his self-disclosure. This is why Jesus said, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father has granted it to him.” (John 6:64, 65)

At this point, many who had followed Jesus stopped doing so and returned to their former routine of life. This prompted Jesus to ask the twelve apostles, “Do you also want to go away?” Peter replied, “Lord, to whom are we to go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and known that you are the Holy One of God.” Even among the apostles, however, not all shared this unqualified trust in and attachment to God’s beloved Son. Although he had chosen the twelve, Jesus identified one of them as a “devil” or “slanderer.” This was Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, who would later betray him. (John 6:66-71; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Notes:

The expression “eternal life” primarily relates to its quality or nature rather than to its duration. According to John 17:3, eternal life is “knowing” the true God and the one whom he sent. This “knowing” means having a relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. It is a family relationship, with those having faith in Jesus being recognized by the heavenly Father as his approved children. Once that relationship comes into being, children of God have “eternal life,” but its full enjoyment is yet future. Death does not sever the permanent family relationship and, therefore, does not mean the loss of the real life that came into the possession of believers. For all children of God who have died, resurrection is a certainty and will mean their continuing to enjoy the real life in the glorified state of their sinless resurrection bodies. The heavenly Father is eternal, and the life of all with whom he has a relationship is therefore also eternal.

Jesus referred to the resurrection as taking place on the “last day.” This is the climactic point in history, which the Scriptures associate with Jesus’ return in glory to render judgment upon the world of mankind. At that time, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the dead in Christ will rise. It is likely that Jesus’ hearers associated the resurrection on the “last day” with the promise to Daniel (12:12, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]), “You shall rest, and arise to your destiny at the end of the days.”

Peter’s confession reveals that being a disciple of God’s Son means being devoted to him and a willingness to follow his example and teaching even when that may appear to be difficult. Christian discipleship is not a matter of membership in a “church” or movement that claims to be in possession of the “truth.” This discipleship is not linked to a particular place, and Christian fellowship is based on the family relationship that Jesus Christ has made possible. It is a fellowship among those who recognize others as fellow children of God by reason of their faith in his Son.

The later betrayal of Judas did not come as a surprise to Jesus. As God’s unique Son, he knew what none of the disciples could have known. The other apostles had no idea that Judas would betray their Lord, but Jesus discerned from the outset when Judas’ devotion to him was not what it should have been. Therefore, on this occasion, Jesus referred to him as a “devil” or “slanderer.” The other apostles, however, did not know whom he meant.

Pharisees and Scribes Challenge Jesus About Tradition (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23)

For the time of the Passover and the seven-day festival of unleavened bread, the biblical accounts provide no information about Jesus’ activity. The next narrated event involved a confrontation with scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem. They appear to have come to Galilee to spy on him.

Having observed that some of his disciples ate without first ceremonially washing their hands, they objected, “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” The scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem considered it offensive for him to allow his disciples to eat bread with defiled or ceremonially unclean hands. (Matthew 15:1, 2; Mark 7:1, 2, 5; regarding Mark 7:3, 4, see the Notes section.) Jesus countered with his own question, “Why do you transgress the command of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3)

God’s law required children to honor their parents, and that included the duty of grown children to help them in time of need. Gross disrespect for parents constituted a serious sin. A son or daughter who cursed or reviled either father or mother committed a capital offense. (Exodus 20:12; 21:17; Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 5:16; Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10)

A traditional regulation about property devoted to God, however, came to take precedence over the obligation to aid needy parents. According to the “tradition of the elders,” whatever a person might declare to be “corban” or an offering for God could not be given to parents to relieve their plight. Even if grown children had rashly set apart all their property to God, they (according to ancient Jewish sources) could not give any part of it to a needy father or mother. The children, though, retained control over the property throughout their life. Accordingly, as Jesus pointed out, the scribes and Pharisees, on the basis of tradition, had nullified the divine command for children to honor their parents. For the sake of their traditions, they did many other things like this. While they claimed to honor God, their adherence to traditions dishonored him. This made them hypocrites, for they represented themselves as honoring God when, in fact, they failed to do so by disregarding his commands. Their course proved to be described in the words of the prophet Isaiah, “This people honors me with [their] lips, but their heart is far away from me. And they revere me in vain, teaching the commands of men as doctrines.” (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:5-9; Mark 7:11-13; for comments on the Isaiah passage, see the Notes section.)

In the case of the scribes and Pharisees, they attached greater weight to the “tradition of the elders” than to the commands of God. With their lips, they honored the Most High. On account of their traditions, however, this honor did not involve their “heart” or inmost self. Their concern for scrupulous observance of tradition distanced them from God, negating his commands and interfering with their showing proper love and regard for him. Love for the Most High is demonstrated by loyal obedience to his commands. As a consequence, the professed reverence of God was vain, empty, or hollow. The teachings of the Pharisees were derived, not from divine revelation, but from men, and set aside the clearly expressed word and will of God.

Jesus next directed his attention to the crowd that had earlier gathered about him and had heard his response to the scribes and Pharisees. Admonishing all of the people to listen to him and to get the sense of his words, he told them that defilement has its source in what comes out of the mouth and not from what enters the mouth. (Matthew 15:10, 11; Mark 7:14, 15 [which passage refers to the defilement as not originating from “outside of the man”])

After leaving the crowd, Jesus entered a house with his disciples. In the privacy of the home, they expressed their concern about the reaction of the Pharisees, saying to Jesus, “Do you know that the Pharisees who heard [your] words took offense?” His reply indicated that this should not trouble them, for his Father had not “planted” these unbelieving Pharisees. “Every plant” that his heavenly Father had not planted would be uprooted. “Let them go [their way],” Jesus continued. “They are blind guides [of the blind, according to numerous manuscripts]. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Accordingly, the disciples had no reason to be disturbed by what the unbelieving Pharisees thought, for their guidance would prove to be ruinous to those who followed it. (Matthew 15:12-14; Mark 7:17 [which text speaks of Jesus having entered the house after leaving the crowd])

Peter then asked Jesus to explain what he had meant by his parable about the source of defilement. (Matthew 15:15; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Indicating that the disciples should have understood his words, he replied, “Are you also still lacking in comprehension? Do you not understand that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him, for it does not enter into the heart but into the belly and goes out into the sewer.” Food does not affect the individual’s inmost self, altering his moral character. (Matthew 15:16; Mark 7:18, 19; compare Matthew 15:17, where “mouth” appears instead of “man.”)

The language Jesus used about what a person might eat allowed for a broad application. Commenting on his words, Mark added that Jesus had pronounced all foods clean, as the bodily processes subsequent to eating are the same for all foods. (Mark 7:19; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

The expressions of the mouth come from the heart or the inmost self of the individual, and can reveal internal corruption or defilement. As Jesus said, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false testimony, and blasphemy. These are the things that defile a man, but eating with [ceremonially] unwashed hands does not defile a man.” The impulses to act in a corrupt manner originate with the individual and reveal his moral condition. A failure to comply with a humanly devised precept about ceremonial cleanness, however, did not make the food unclean and the eater a corrupt person. (Matthew 15:18-20; Mark 7:20-23 [which passage also mentions greed, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, a wicked eye (one that looks with evil or corrupt intent), arrogance, and folly]; both in Matthew and Mark the wrongs mentioned are plural in the Greek text.)

Notes:

Ancient Jewish sources set forth various requirements for the ceremonial washing of hands. The water had to be poured from a utensil not consisting of prohibited material. A quarter of a log was the stipulated amount of water to be used. This would have been roughly one-third of a cup, the log measure being about two-thirds of a pint. If poured water ran back over any part of the hand over which it had flowed, the hand was regarded as unclean. The poured water had to reach up to but not beyond the wrist. (Tosefta, Yadayim, 1:1, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 2:2, 2:4, 2:5) Failure to observe the ceremonial washing of hands came to be regarded as a serious offense, comparable to having relations with a prostitute. (Babylonian Talmud, Sota 4b)

According to a literal reading of the majority of extant Greek manuscripts of Mark 7:3, the hands were washed “to the fist” (pygmé). Perhaps, based on the background Jewish sources provide, “fist” (if this is the original reading) means to the limits of the fist or up to the wrist.

Fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and the fifth-century Freer Gospels read pykná (“often”), and the Vulgate says crebro (“repeatedly”). The passage is not preserved in any of the earlier extant papyrus manuscripts, and the limited manuscript support for the reading pykná makes it questionable that it is the original one.

Modern translations commonly paraphrase the words of Mark 7:3 and do not include the word “fist.” “The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing.” (NIV) “They always wash their hands in the proper way before eating.” (CEV) “For Pharisees and Jews in general never eat without washing their hands.” (REB) “The Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews, will never eat unless they have washed their hands in a particular way.” (Phillips) “The Pharisees and all the Jews never eat before washing their hands in a special way according to their unwritten laws.” (NCV)

Mark 7:4 sets forth additional clarifying information for the benefit of non-Jewish believers. When returning from the market, the Pharisees and other Jews would sprinkle themselves with water, thereby cleansing themselves ceremonially from any uncleanness with which they may inadvertently have come in contact. They also observed many other traditions. These included procedures for immersing cups, pots, and bronze vessels to cleanse them ceremonially.

In the time Isaiah prophesied, the Israelites worshiped at the temple in Jerusalem. Their worship, however, was but an outward expression and not a reflection of the heart or the deep inner self. With their mouth, they had approached YHWH. At the temple, they made expressions of praise and thanksgiving and thus glorified him with their lips. Lacking genuine affection for YHWH, the people approached him without their heart or inmost self being involved. They had a kind of fear, awe, or reverence for God, but it did not spring from a proper appreciation of him and his ways. The source of their fear was the commandment of men.

King Hezekiah, for example, undertook an extensive campaign against idolatry and instituted sweeping reforms respecting worship. The reforms, though, did not appear to have brought about lasting changes in the spiritual state of the majority. After the death of Hezekiah, a period of rampant idolatry followed. This suggests that what the people did during Hezekiah’s reign did not stem from internal conviction respecting the rightness of honoring YHWH but was the result of complying with royal decree. (2 Kings 18:1-6; 21:1-9)

In Matthew 15:15, Peter is represented as requesting Jesus to explain the parable, but the parallel account (Mark 7:17) says that the disciples were the ones who asked for an explanation. It appears that Peter spoke representatively for the other disciples, as his words “explain to us” indicate. Jesus response was directed to all of them. The pronoun “you” in the next verse is plural, not singular.

At the time the disciples heard Jesus’ words about food, they would not have understood them to mean that the dietary requirements contained in the law no longer applied. Even after Jesus’ resurrection, Jewish believers did not eat food that the law designated as unclean. In response to a vision directing him to slaughter unclean animals and to eat the meat, Peter protested, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled or unclean.” (Acts 10:14; 21:20, 21) Consequently, the comment (in Mark 7:19) that Jesus indicated all foods to be clean reflected the circumstance of a community of believers composed of Jews and non-Jews. His words reveal that he did not authorize imposing dietary restrictions on those who would become his disciples.

Although Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23 relate to the same incident, there are differences in the wording and in the order in which the conversations are narrated. The basic thoughts, however, are the same. As in other cases, the quoted conversations convey the meaning but do not preserve the exact words, which were not spoken in the Greek language. With the exception of minor differences, the quotations from Exodus 20:12; 21:17[16], and Isaiah 29:13 follow the wording of the extant Septuagint text.

The oldest extant manuscripts do not include, “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.” These words of Mark 7:16, however, do appear in many later manuscripts.

Response to a Syrophoenician Woman (Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30)

With his disciples, Jesus left Galilee and came to the region of Tyre and Sidon. Although he did not want it to become known that he was in the area, the news spread about his arrival and the house where he was staying. A woman who believed her daughter to be suffering because of an “unclean spirit” heard about Jesus and immediately came to him. Seeing Jesus and his disciples, she began crying out, “Take pity on me, Lord, Son of David. My daughter is badly demonized.” (Matthew 15:21, 22; Mark 7:24, 25)

This woman was not Jewish but Greek (either meaning of Greek or of Gentile descent). The reference to her Syrophoenician or Canaanite origin may be understood to denote that she was born in Phoenicia of Syria (the Roman province) or in the land also known as Canaan. (Matthew 15:22; Mark 7:26)

When Jesus did not respond to her pleas, the disciples asked him to send her away, as she persisted in calling out after them. He, however, did not dismiss her but said, “I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” She fell to her knees before him and prostrated herself at his feet, pleading for him to cast out the demon from her daughter. “Lord, help me,” she begged. (Matthew 15:23-25; Mark 7:25)

Jesus then told her that the children would have to be fed first and that it would not be right to take bread away from them and to toss it to little dogs. Whereas the Jews regarded non-Jewish peoples like unclean dogs, Jesus, in the biblical accounts, is not represented as using such harsh language. In this case, the Greek word for “dog” is kynárion (a little dog or one kept in the house) and not kyon (a fierce scavenger dog roaming the streets). Still, the words would have tested the genuineness of the woman’s faith — whether she really believed Jesus to be the “Son of David” or the Messiah who could bring relief to her daughter. With full trust that Jesus could cure her daughter, she used the opening his words provided as a basis for having her request granted. The woman replied, “Yes, Lord, but the little dogs also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters.” (Matthew 15:26, 27; Mark 7:27) Or, according to Mark 7:28, these little dogs would be under the table of their owner and eat of the crumbs the children would drop.

Her reply gave evidence of an unqualified trust in Jesus’ ability to heal her daughter. Therefore, he acknowledged her great faith and added, “Let it happen to you as you desire.” He assured her that, because of having expressed herself as she did, her daughter had been freed from the demon that plagued her. When the woman returned to her home, she found her child lying on the bed and liberated from the demon. (Matthew 15:28; Mark 7:29, 30)

Note:

This non-Jewish woman’s faith contrasted sharply with the unbelief of many Jews. She persisted in appealing to Jesus for help, whereas many Jews, especially in Nazareth and the immediate vicinity, did not even come to him to be healed. (Compare Mark 6:1-6.)

Many Healed and Thousands Fed (Matthew 15:29-39; Mark 7:31-37; 8:1-10)

Jesus left the area of Tyre and Sidon and, with his disciples, headed eastward for the Decapolis region. (Matthew 15:29; Mark 7:31) As soon as they were seen near the Sea of Galilee, the word must have spread that Jesus was back in the area. The later mention of a boat (Matthew 15:39) suggests that he and his disciples first came to Capernaum, the home of Peter and Andrew. Then they probably obtained provisions for a short stay in the Decapolis region and used Peter’s boat to cross the sea. (Compare Matthew 15:34; Mark 8:5.)

Upon learning about Jesus’ whereabouts, many people went to the location. While he was seated on a mountainside, they arrived, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, and the mute. The people placed the afflicted at Jesus’ feet, and he cured all of them. (Matthew 15:29, 30)

Those who saw the lame walking, the blind seeing, the crippled being made whole, and the mute speaking were filled with amazement and “glorified the God of Israel.” (Matthew 15:31) Convinced of the operation of divine power, they praised the Most High.

Among the afflicted who were brought to Jesus was a deaf man with a speech impediment. Those concerned about the plight of this man begged Jesus to lay his hands on him. (Mark 7:32)

Jesus led him away from the crowd, put his fingers in the man’s ears, spat, and, with the spittle on his hand, touched the man’s tongue. He looked up to heaven, indicative of his making an appeal to his Father, sighed, and said, “Ephphatha” (“Be opened”). The man’s hearing was restored immediately, and he was also able to speak clearly. (Mark 7:33-35)

After having lived in a world of complete silence, the man could have been overwhelmed by the noise from the crowd. So it was truly an act of kindness and consideration for Jesus to perform the miracle away from the multitude. By means of physical touch, he made it clear to the man that the restoration of hearing and the ability to speak clearly came through him. Jesus’ looking up to heaven would have enabled the man to discern that the miracle had a divine source. The sigh, although not audible to the man, may have been accompanied by facial expressions that reflected deep compassion. It would appear that the sigh revealed the depth of Jesus’ feeling for human suffering and the sadness it caused.

Although Jesus instructed that his miracles should not be made known, people would, to an even greater extent, talk about them. All who witnessed Jesus’ miracles were greatly astonished and acknowledged that he had done everything well, enabling the deaf to hear and the mute to speak. (Mark 7:36, 37)

With the passage of time, Jesus became concerned about the physical needs of the thousands who had remained in the area to be near him. After a period of three days, he voiced his compassion for the people to his disciples. He did not want to send the crowds away without having eaten anything, as they might become faint on the way home. Jesus knew that some of the people would have to travel a considerable distance. (Matthew 15:32; Mark 8:1-3)

Being in an isolated area, the disciples could not imagine how they would be able to supply food for the multitude. In response to Jesus’ question about how many loaves they had, the disciples said, “Seven, and a few fishes,” which were probably dried and salted. (Matthew 15:33, 34; Mark 8:4, 5)

He directed the people to recline on the ground. Taking the seven loaves and the fishes, he gave thanks and broke them into portions, which he then had his disciples distribute to about 4,000 men and many women and children. All had enough to eat, and the leftovers filled seven baskets. (Matthew 15:35-38; Mark 8:6-9) Based on the Greek term (sphyrís) for these baskets, they appear to have been large (big enough to hold a man [Acts 9:25]).

After dismissing the people, Jesus and his disciples boarded the boat and went to the region of Magadan (Magdala or Magedan, according to other ancient manuscripts). This region along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee probably embraced the town of Magdala and its vicinity and lay some six miles southwest of Capernaum. (Matthew 15:39) According to Mark 8:10, Jesus and his disciples came into the region of Dalmanutha. Possibly Dalmanutha was another name for Magadan. A few ancient manuscripts read Magdala, Mageda, Magedan, or Melegada, but these readings may have arisen from an attempt to make Mark 8:10 agree with Matthew 15:39.

Demand for a Sign (Matthew 16:1-4; Mark 8:11-13)

To test Jesus, the Pharisees and Sadducees asked for a sign from him. This was a faithless demand for Jesus to provide a heavenly sign in keeping with their view of how the Messiah should identify himself. It may have been their intent to discredit him because of his inability to do so. (Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11; see the Notes section for additional comments on Mark 8:11.)

Jesus, however, did not yield to their insincere request. According to the reading of numerous manuscripts, he exposed their unwillingness to accept the evidence that was available to them. Based on seeing a red evening sky, they concluded that it would be fair weather. If, though, the sky was red and overcast in the morning, they expected a stormy or wintery day. Their ability to draw conclusions about the weather based on the appearance of the sky indicated that they possessed evaluation powers. In the case of Jesus and his activity, including his many miracles, they refused to draw the right conclusion from the undeniable evidence and to respond in faith. They manifested themselves as unable to interpret the “signs of the times” as they related to the Messiah. (Matthew 16:2, 3; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

In his response, Jesus referred to these unbelieving Pharisees and Sadducees as being part of a “wicked and adulterous generation.” They were wicked in rejecting the evidence of God’s power operating through Christ and attributing it to a demonic source. When persisting in unbelief, they proved themselves to be unfaithful to God, to whom the law covenant bound them like a wife to a husband. Their unfaithfulness constituted adultery. (Matthew 16:4)

The refusal of the unbelieving generation to accept the abundant evidence that could have led to their being divinely approved greatly grieved Jesus. In his “spirit” or within himself, he sighed deeply and then said, “Why does this generation seek a sign?” As on an earlier occasion, Jesus solemnly declared that they would not be given the sign they were seeking. The only sign to be given them was that of Jonah. Just as Jonah came out of the belly of the great sea creature after three days and three nights, so Jesus would come forth from the tomb after parts of three days. With his disciples, he then left. (Matthew 12:38-40;16:4; Mark 8:12, 13)

Notes:

Mark 8:11 does not mention the Sadducees, as does Matthew 16:1. This may be because the Pharisees were primarily responsible for demanding a sign, with the Sadducees joining them in challenging Jesus. Although the Pharisees and Sadducees differed greatly in their beliefs, they were united in their opposition to him.

According to the reading of the oldest extant manuscripts, Matthew 16:2 ends with the words, “but he said to them,” and the text of verse 3 is missing. For this reason, the Revised English Bible rendering follows the abbreviated text. “He answered: ‘It is a wicked, godless generation that asks for a sign; and the only sign that will be given it is the sign of Jonah.’ With that he left them and went away.”

Disciples Misunderstand Jesus’ Words About Leaven (Matthew 16:5-12; Mark 8:14-21)

Jesus and his disciples boarded the boat to cross the Sea of Galilee and headed for Bethsaida on the northeastern shore of the lake. During the crossing, he admonished them to be alert and watch out for the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (“leaven of Herod” [instead of Sadducees], according to numerous manuscripts of Mark 8:15). The disciples mistakenly took his words to be a subtle reminder about food. They had forgotten to take bread for the trip and had only one loaf in the boat. Among themselves, therefore, they talked about not having brought a supply of loaves, perhaps even trying to fix blame for the neglect. (Matthew 16:5-7; Mark 8:14-16)

Becoming aware of their wrong reasoning, Jesus spoke of them as having little faith and a “heart” or mind that was dull, hard, or impervious to proper understanding. After asking them whether they could not see with their eyes and hear with their ears, he reminded them about the provision he had made with five loaves for five thousand men and with seven loaves for four thousand men. Jesus also had them answer how many baskets of leftovers they had collected afterward. In view of all they had witnessed, “How,” as he continued, could they not have understood that he had not spoken to them about loaves? The disciples then comprehended that he had not referred to the “leaven of the loaves” but to the “teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:8-12; Mark 8:17-21)

Based on the miracles they had seen, the disciples should have been able to conclude that Jesus’ ability to look after their needs was not dependent on external factors. Seemingly, they had not reached the point where they drew conclusions solidly grounded on their faith in him as the Son of God. They often viewed matters according to what the external circumstances suggested, and the influence of the prevailing thinking of the time interfered with their comprehension of Jesus’ words.

The “leaven” or teaching to which Jesus referred affected the people generally. Its permeating influence was harmful, as it hindered many from accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. In the case of the disciples, this “leaven” would have been detrimental to their spiritual well-being, and they needed to guard against it.

Although claiming to uphold God’s law, the Pharisees misrepresented its requirements, giving precedence to the tradition of the elders. Because Jesus did not share their exalted view of the ancient traditions and did not provide the “sign” they expected from the Messiah, the unbelieving Pharisees opposed and misrepresented him. The teaching of the Pharisees minimized the importance of love, justice, and mercy, which conflicted with Jesus’ teaching. (Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42) To grow in being more like him as loving, just, and compassionate persons, the disciples needed to be on guard against the teaching of the Pharisees.

The Sadducees rejected much of what had been conveyed through the ancient prophets. (Acts 23:8) Therefore, their teaching likewise interfered with accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah and continuing to develop ever-greater faith in him.

Herod, specifically Herod Antipas of the Herodian dynasty and his supporters, had political objectives. With the emphasis on position and power, this “leaven” needed to be avoided. Repeatedly, Jesus had to make clear to his disciples that greatness in the realm where he was king did not mean occupying a prominent position for wielding authority over others but required laboring as a lowly servant. (Matthew 18:1-6; 23:11, 12; Mark 10:35-37; Luke 9:46-48; 22:24-27; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Notes:

Both Matthew and Mark mentioned the “leaven of the Pharisees” first. This may indicate that their teaching posed the greatest danger for the disciples. The influence of the Sadducees does not appear to have been as great on the people generally. According to first-century Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities, XIII, x, 5), so great was the influence of the Pharisees “over the multitude” that, “when they say anything against the king or against the high priest, they are presently believed.”

There is a possibility that the reference to the “leaven of Herod” or the “leaven of the Herodians” (according to other manuscript readings of Mark 8:15, including third-century P45) may be a parallel designation for the “leaven of the Sadducees” mentioned in Matthew 16:6. If so, the “leaven of the Sadducees” would apply to the teaching or beliefs of Sadducees who supported the Herodian dynasty.

Progressively Restoring a Blind Man’s Sight (Mark 8:22-26)

Jesus and his disciples disembarked from the boat at the village of Bethsaida. Their arrival did not go unnoticed. Soon some of he villagers brought a blind man, entreating Jesus to touch him to restore his sight. He, however, chose not to do so in their presence. Taking the blind man by the hand, he led him outside the village. (Mark 8:22, 23)

After spitting on the man’s eyes and placing his hands “on him,” Jesus asked whether he saw anything. Unable to see clearly when he looked up, the man answered that he saw men who looked like trees walking about. His mention of trees suggests that he had not been blind from birth and, therefore, could speak of people having the appearance of trees. After Jesus again put his hands on the man’s eyes, he could see clearly. Jesus then sent him to his home, telling him not to go into Bethsaida. (Mark 8:23-26)

Notes:

Mark 8:25 says that Jesus “again” placed his hands on the man’s eyes. This suggests that Jesus’ initial laying of his hands upon the man (verse 23) referred to his doing so on his eyes.

The blind man did not live in Bethsaida. Possibly he had gone to the village to beg, and people who took pity on him decided to take him to Jesus and entreat him to restore his sight.

At the time, the man may not even have had faith in Jesus, as there is no reference in the account indicating that he spoke or acted on his own initiative. Perhaps the manner in which Jesus chose to restore his sight helped him to come to have faith and to grow in faith (comparable to the progressive recovery of his sight). The interaction with him would have revealed to the man that the miracle had been effected through Jesus.

The directive that the man not return to the village did not differ from Jesus’ usual instructions to those who were cured of their afflictions. To the extent possible, Jesus wanted to avoid the kind of publicity that caused large crowds to form but did not lead individuals to genuine faith in him.

In the Vicinity of Caesarea Philippi

About 25 miles north of Bethsaida lies the site of ancient Caesarea Philippi at an elevation of some 1,150 feet above sea level. The water flowing from a nearby cavern is one of the main sources of the Jordan River and passes through a beautiful green plain. To the northeast, Mount Hermon rises to an elevation in excess of 9,200 feet above sea level.

Notes:

See http://bibleplaces.com/banias.htm for pictures and comments regarding Caesarea Philippi.

See http://bibleplaces.com/mthermon.htm for pictures and comments about Mount Hermon.

Peter’s Confession and Christ’s Response (Matthew 16:13-19; Mark 8:27-29; Luke 9:18-20)

On the way to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus appears to have walked a short distance away from his disciples, seeking privacy for prayer. When they thereafter approached him, he asked them who people thought the Son of Man was. Based on their interaction with others, they responded that some believed him to be John the Baptist raised from the dead, others that he was Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the other ancient prophets who had been resurrected. He then asked, “But who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:13-15; Mark 8:27-29; Luke 9:18-20; see the Notes section regarding Luke 9:18.)

With full conviction, Peter spoke up, “You are the Christ [the Messiah], the Son of the living God.” Jesus pronounced him happy or fortunate, referring to him as Simon son of Jonah (Simon bar-Jonah). On account of his faith, Peter was fortunate, finding himself in a truly desirable or enviable state. Pointing to the reason for his faith, Jesus continued, “Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in the heavens [did].” The faith in Jesus to which he had come did not have a human source (“flesh and blood”). He had not been won over by means of someone’s impressive argumentation. It was through Jesus that he had seen the works of his Father, and Simon responded in faith to the divine revelation. (Matthew 16:16, 17; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20)

As Simon had identified Jesus as the “Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus identified Simon by the name he had given him, “You are Peter [or Cephas].” (Matthew 16:18; John 1:42) The name “Peter” or “Cephas” means “rock.” Simon, when expressing his unqualified conviction respecting Jesus, revealed that he had been rightly given the name Peter. Although many had abandoned Jesus, Peter had continued to prove himself to be firm as a rock in his faith or trust.

After saying, “You are Peter,” Jesus added, “And upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in the heavens.” (Matthew 16:18, 19)

The “church” is the congregation or the community of believers. According to the book of Acts (2:14-41; 3:11-26, 4:4; 5:14-16, 42; 6:2, 7), Peter’s testimony led thousands to put faith in Jesus. Then, in association with the other apostles, he devoted himself to teaching fellow believers. Therefore, one could conclude that Peter is the rock on which the church is built, for it was his witness to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, that set the new community of believers on a solid foundation.

The testimony of the Scriptures as a whole, however, indicates that Jesus is the primary foundation on which the community of believers is built. (1 Corinthians 3:10, 11; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-8) Therefore, Jesus’ words may be understood as meaning, “And on this rock [the one whom you acknowledged to be the Christ, the Son of the living God], I will build my church.” In that case, the language would somewhat parallel an earlier statement of Jesus, “Pull down this temple, and in three days I will raise it.” The unbelieving Jews misinterpreted these words to mean that Jesus was referring to the literal sanctuary, whereas he meant “the temple of his body.” (John 2:19-21) Accordingly, just as Jesus could refer to himself when saying “this temple,” he could also have done so when using the expression “this rock.”

At death, believers come to be in Hades or the realm of the dead. From a human standpoint, they then find themselves in a place comparable to one that is locked by gates and from which they cannot escape. Because their resurrection is certain, however, the “gates of Hades” cannot prevail against them (as members of the community of believers) or keep them permanently sealed off from life.

The “keys of the kingdom of the heavens” would be “keys” that unlocked the opportunity to become part of the heavenly kingdom, the realm where God is Sovereign and reigns by means of his appointed king, Jesus Christ. (Compare Isaiah 22:22, where Eliakim is spoken of as receiving the “key of the house of David”; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Entrusted with the testimony about the Son of God, Peter came into possession of the “keys of the kingdom” and on the day of Pentecost (after Christ’s resurrection) used them as he bore witness to Jews and proselytes. (Acts 2:14-40) Later, he was divinely commissioned to use them again in being first to testify about Jesus to Gentiles. (Acts 10:9-43)

The context does not specifically identify the nature of the binding and loosing. One might conclude on the basis of Peter’s having the keys that this would involve opening or closing the opportunity to enter the realm where God reigns through Christ and that the spirit-directed action of Peter would be confirmed in heaven.

In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, for example, Peter’s judgment of them (based on what God’s spirit enabled him to discern about their lying) was confirmed in heaven. The use of his “binding” authority led to their death and kept them out of the kingdom of the heavens. Moreover, it served to frighten many who were not genuine in their faith from associating with the community of believers. (Acts 5:1-11, 13) So, while the testimony about Christ, accompanied by validating miracles, unlocked the opportunity for entrance into the kingdom of the heavens, the disciplinary measures served to lock out persons who would have corrupted the community of believers.

In Matthew 18:15-19, the context regarding binding and loosing relates to sin committed within the community of believers. The “loosing” refers to forgiving an individual’s sin, whereas the “binding” denotes letting the record of sin stand against the person. Anyone who was “loosed” remained in the community of believers, but those who were “bound” ceased to be a part thereof and so had no share in the kingdom or the realm where God reigns by means of his Son.

Notes:

Only Luke 9:18 mentions that Jesus was alone while praying. Most manuscripts of Luke use a form of the word syneimi, meaning “be with” when commenting about the disciples. This suggests that, although Jesus was alone, the disciples were with or near him. Some manuscripts, however, have a form of synantáo, meaning “meet,” “come upon,” or “happen,” indicating that the disciples approached him after he had finished praying.

In the case of Eliakim, his being entrusted with the “key of the house of David” seems to indicate that he had oversight of the king’s chambers. He must have possessed the authority to determine who might or might not be accepted into royal service or who might be granted or denied access to the palace complex. Similarly, in Peter’s case, the “keys” Christ gave him related to his being entrusted with full knowledge of the requirements for entering the kingdom of the heavens.

The community of believers, though solidly built on Christ, benefited from the authority with which Peter had been entrusted. In its infancy, the congregation needed to be protected from corrupt elements that could have impeded its being firmly established within and beyond the borders of Israel and that could have brought about its ruin. Once the kind of authority Peter exercised under the guidance of holy spirit (as did the other apostles, including Paul) no longer existed, sham believers, although continuing to increase in numbers, could not destroy the true congregation. Throughout the centuries, persons with genuine faith in Christ have continued to point others to the apostolic testimony (first conveyed through Peter) that has been preserved in the Scriptures.

The Greek passive participles for “bound” and “loosed” are in the perfect tense. Therefore, some have concluded that Peter would be carrying out what had already been determined in heaven. In his expanded translation, Kenneth S. Wuest conveyed this significance with his rendering, “shall have been already bound in heaven” and “shall have already been loosed in heaven.”

Under the guidance of God’s spirit, the “binding” and “loosing” always would have harmonized with God’s will. This “binding” and “loosing” would not have meant that acts stemming merely from the exercise of human authority would afterward have been divinely confirmed or sanctioned.

Jesus’ Future Suffering and Transfiguration (Matthew 16:20-28; 17:1-13; Mark 8:30-38; 9:1-13; Luke 9:20-36)

Jesus firmly charged the disciples not to tell others that he was the “Christ of God.” He then spoke openly about what lay ahead of him in Jerusalem. He would be subjected to much suffering. The elders of the nation, chief priests, and scribes would reject him. He would be killed but would rise from the dead on the third day. (Matthew 16:20, 21; Mark 8:30-32; Luke 9:20-22)

The disciples could not imagine that this could possibly take place. Peter took Jesus aside, intending to correct his thinking. “Gracious to you, Lord [May God be favorably disposed to you; may God mercifully spare you; or, God forbid],” said Peter. “Never will this happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22; Mark 8:32)

His well-meaning rebuke conflicted with God’s will respecting his Son, and Jesus responded with a strong rejection. He turned and, with his eyes focused on the disciples, rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me, for you are not thinking the things of God, but those of men.” (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33) Unwittingly, Peter had made himself like Satan, a resister or opposer. His messianic expectations were much like that of other fellow Israelites, and so he could not envision a rejected and suffering Messiah. Not as yet having come to fully grasp the things of God, he acted like an obstacle that stood in Jesus’ way. The Son of God determined to let nothing sway him from doing his Father’s will, which included laying down his life.

According to Mark 8:34, the disciples were not the only ones who had been following Jesus, and he called both the disciples and many others to him to speak to them about the requirements of discipleship.

To follow Jesus meant to disown or deny oneself, accepting him as Lord or Owner and living in harmony with his example and teaching. That could include suffering for his sake. Jesus said that the individual would have to “lift up his beam [staurós daily, Luke 9:23] and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34)

Those who heard his words knew that crucifixion was a dreadful punishment. The condemned man would be forced to carry the beam (to which he would later be nailed or tied) to the place of execution, where he would be subjected to mockery and die an agonizing death. Accordingly, to lift up the beam meant to start a course that would lead to reproach and suffering as a follower of Christ.

To save one’s soul would signify to preserve one’s life in a manner that would dishonor Christ and, therefore, would lead to the loss of life as one whom he approved. It would denote the forfeiture of the real life that is associated with the enjoyment of an enduring relationship with the Son of God and his Father. (Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24)

Whoever lost his soul or life for the sake of Christ and the “glad tidings” (the message that focused on the Son of God) would find it, as the individual would have secured his hold on eternal life, maintaining a never-ending relationship with God and his Son. His resurrection would be a certainty. (Matthew 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24)

Emphasizing how great the loss would be if one lost his soul, Jesus continued, “What benefit would it be for a man to gain the whole world but to forfeit his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Nothing in the mundane system would be worth the forfeiture of the soul or the real life. All the valuables of the world would be insufficient to redeem it. There is no price that could be offered in exchange for one’s soul. (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36, 37; Luke 9:25)

For Jesus’ hearers, this was a matter for sober consideration. He, the “Son of Man,” would “come in the glory of his Father.” Accompanied by angels, he would act in judicial capacity, recompensing each person according to his conduct. He would then be ashamed of the people of that generation who had been ashamed of him and his words or teaching, having revealed themselves to be adulterous (unfaithful to God) and sinful by persisting in unbelief despite the evidence that he was indeed the Son of God. (Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26)

On becoming a man, Jesus had given up the glory or splendor associated with his existence in the very form of his Father. (Philippians 2:6, 7; Hebrews 1:3) Upon his return, however, he would again be in possession of that splendor or the glory that his Father has. As the exalted Lord and Judge by his Father’s appointment, he would recompense his faithful disciples and pass condemnatory judgment on those who sought to preserve their soul by denying him.

Among those who heard his words, some would not “taste” or experience death before they had seen the “Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” the “kingdom of God coming in power,” or (according to one fifth-century manuscript reading of Luke 9:27) the “Son of Man coming in his glory.” (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; see the Notes section regarding Luke 9:27)

Jesus’ words have been variously interpreted, with some concluding that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in 70 CE proved to be the manifestation of the judgment of the glorified Christ. It should be noted, however, that believers then living did not experience relief from all distress but continued to suffer for the sake of Christ. The horrible suffering the Jews in besieged Jerusalem experienced did not prove to be a recompense according to individual behavior. The horrors of famine and war indiscriminately affected everyone, with no distinction being made between the vilest of men and those who had tried to live uprightly based on their knowledge of God’s law and who had come to Jerusalem to observe the Passover.

Based on the narrative that follows, it appears preferable to view the fulfillment to have been the transfiguration that Peter, James, and John witnessed. Linking Jesus’ words to the transfiguration would also fit the comment in 2 Peter 1:16-18 (NRSV). “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain” Then, specifically indicating that the transfiguration constituted a confirmation or preliminary fulfillment of Jesus’ coming in glory, 2 Peter 1:19 (NRSV) says, “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.” In his translation, J. B. Phillips paraphrased Peter’s words, “The word of prophecy was fulfilled in our hearing!”

About a week after having spoken the previously recorded words, Jesus took Peter, James, and John to a high mountain. (Regarding the difference in the number of days, see the Notes section.) As there is no mention of travel away from the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, this mountain likely was one of the lower elevations of Mount Hermon and not its snowcapped top. At the location where they halted their ascent, Jesus prayed, and Peter, James and John rested and fell asleep. On waking up during the night, they saw Jesus transfigured before them. His face shown more brightly than the sun, and his garments appeared whiter than any laundryman could have made them. In the darkness, the brilliance of Jesus’ face and the dazzling whiteness of his garments must have been exceptionally impressive. With Jesus, Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke about the “exodus” he would experience at Jerusalem. (Matthew 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-4; Luke 9:28-32)

The “exodus” probably referred to Jesus’ death at Jerusalem, which led to his subsequent departure from the earth after his resurrection. Moses, through whom the law was given to Israel, could fittingly represent the law, and Elijah could represent the prophets. Both the law and the prophets pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah and provided the needed information to identify him.

When Moses and Elijah were about to part from Jesus, Peter spoke up, “Lord [Rabbi, Mark 9:5; Master, Luke 9:33], it is good for us to be here.” He then suggested erecting “three tents,” one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. Considering the location, these “tents” could only have been shelters made from branches and foliage, possibly resembling the kind of booths made for the festival of tabernacles. (Matthew 17:4; Luke 9:33)

According to the account, Peter, in his overwhelmed state of awe, did not know what to say. Possibly the idea of “tents” suggested itself to him because he wanted the experience to continue. (Mark 9:6; Luke 9:33)

The sight made Peter, James, and John fearful. It must have resulted in a sense of great wonderment and awe. While Peter was still speaking, a luminous cloud appeared above them and began to descend. As the disciples entered the cloud, fear gripped them. From the cloud, they heard the words, “This is my Son, the beloved [the chosen one, Luke 9:35), with whom I am pleased. Listen to him.” (Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34, 35; see the Notes section regarding Luke 9:35.)

The disciples fell to their knees and prostrated themselves, with their faces touching the ground. They were very fearful or filled with extraordinary awe. Jesus approached them and touched them, reassuring them with the words, “Get up and fear not.” When they looked around, they only saw Jesus. (Matthew 17:6-8; Mark 9:8)

During the descent from the mountain with Peter, James and John, Jesus instructed them to say nothing to anyone about the vision they had seen until he would rise from the dead. They heeded his directive, but among themselves talked about what this rising from the dead could mean. The three disciples had not as yet grasped the clear message that Jesus would be put to death but would thereafter rise on the third day. (Matthew 17:9; Mark 9:9, 10; Luke 9:36)

Having seen Elijah, the disciples asked why the scribes said that he must come first (that is, before the Messiah). In reply, Jesus acknowledged the reality of Elijah’s coming and his restoration of all things (as had been written regarding him [in Malachi 4:5, 6]). Pointing out that Elijah had already come but had not been recognized, Jesus added that the people did to him all they wanted and paralleled his own future suffering with what had befallen the foretold Elijah. Peter, James, and John correctly concluded that Jesus had spoken to them about John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13)

John’s message of repentance served to “restore all things,” leading responsive ones to mend relationships with fellow Israelites, family members, and, most importantly, with God. (Compare Malachi 4:6; Luke 1:76-79.) The majority, however, did not respond with genuine faith to the message John proclaimed, began to find fault with him, and misrepresented him. (Matthew 11:16-18) Herod Antipas had John arrested and, later, ordered to have him executed in keeping with his oath-bound promise to the daughter of Herodias. (Matthew 14:3-11)

Notes:

Most manuscripts of Luke 9:27 read, “see the kingdom of God,” which is an abbreviated version of Mark 9:1.

Both Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 indicate that the transfiguration took place “six days” after Jesus’ previously recorded words, but Luke 9:28 says that it was “about eight days” later. Possibly, the period of “about eight days” includes the day on which Jesus spoke and the day of the transfiguration, whereas “six days” only refers to the time intervening between the two occurrences.

The oldest extant manuscripts of Luke 9:35 say “chosen one,” but later manuscripts read “beloved.”

Curing an Epileptic Boy (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43)

Likely, when it became day, Jesus and his disciples descended from the location where he had been transfigured. Arriving where his other disciples were, he saw a large crowd around them. Certain scribes were disputing with his disciples. Possibly these scribes tried to discredit Jesus on the basis of the inability of his disciples to cure a boy in his name. Jesus’ unexpected arrival appears to have startled the crowd. Seeing Jesus, the people began to run toward him to greet him. In response to his inquiry about their disputing, a man in the crowd spoke up, “Teacher, I brought my son to you; he has a spirit of muteness.” After telling about the boy’s afflictions, the man added, “I brought him to your disciples, but they were unable to cure him.” (Matthew 17:16; Mark 9:14-18; Luke 9:37-40)

Possibly, after first speaking out from the midst of the crowd, the man knelt before Jesus, pleading, “Lord, pity my son, for he is an epileptic [literally, “moonstruck].” (Matthew 17:14, 15; Luke 9:38; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

The boy was his only son. He would scream, fall to the ground, and be violently convulsed. Foam would flow from his mouth, and he would grind his teeth and lose his strength. The falls and convulsions would leave him bruised. His seizures, when occurring near an open fire or a body of water, endangered his life, causing him to fall into the fire or the water. Besides suffering from severe epileptic seizures, the boy was deaf and mute. (Matthew 17:15; Mark 9:17, 18, 25; Luke 9:38, 39)

Jesus’ response, which was directed to the people (including the scribes), suggests that the inability of his disciples to bring about a cure appears to have been taken as a validation for their unbelief. He addressed them as a faithless or unbelieving and crooked (not upright) generation, asking how much longer he would have to remain with them and to put up with them. Jesus then requested that the boy be brought to him. (Matthew 17:17; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41)

As the father had been speaking to Jesus, some from among the people must have brought his son. Then, in front of Jesus, the boy experienced a severe seizure. He fell to the ground, continued to roll around, and foamed at the mouth. (Mark 9:20; Luke 9:42)

In answer to Jesus’ question about how long this had been happening to the boy, the father replied, “From childhood,” adding that he had been repeatedly thrown into fire or water. The father pleaded, “If you can do anything, pity us and help us.” (Mark 9:21, 22)

The father’s expression “if you can” revealed a measure of doubt. Therefore, Jesus, in his reply, stressed the need for faith, saying, “If you can? All things are possible to one who believes.” (Mark 9:23)

Aware of a weakness in his faith and sincerely desiring more faith, coupled with the desperation of wanting his son to be freed from his terrible suffering, the man replied, “I believe; help me with my unbelief.” (Mark 9:24)

Observing people gathering in greater numbers, Jesus acted quickly, doubtless to avoid even more attention. He commanded the “demon” or the agent responsible for the boy’s suffering to leave and never to afflict him again. Then followed screams from the boy and violent seizures. When the convulsions stopped, he lay motionless, causing observers to conclude that he was dead. Jesus took hold of his hand, raised him, and the boy stood up. Thereafter Jesus presented the healed son to his father. (Matthew 17:18; Mark 9:25-27; Luke 9:42) The impressive manifestation of God’s power overwhelmingly amazed all the observers. (Luke 9:43)

Later, his disciples asked Jesus privately why they had been unable to drive out the demon. He told them that it was on account of their little faith and that only prayer would have accomplished the cure. This suggests that when the disciples did not see immediate results from their efforts to free the boy from his affliction, they gave way to doubt and did not persevere in prayer. They failed to continue to look to their heavenly Father to effect the cure by means of his spirit and so failed to maintain a strong faith. (Matthew 17:19, 20; Mark 9:28, 29; see the Notes section for comments on Mark 9:29.)

Jesus then said to them that even a little faith, the size of a mustard seed (the smallest seed of the plants the Israelites commonly cultivated), could have moved a mountain or what appeared to be an insurmountable obstacle. With faith, his disciples would find that nothing would be impossible for them to carry out their commission. (Matthew 17:20; see the Notes section for comments on Matthew 17:20, 21.)

Notes:

According to Matthew 17:14, the father of the epileptic boy approached Jesus and knelt before him. This is not mentioned in the accounts of Mark and Luke, which refer to the man as speaking after Jesus asked the crowd about the disputing. Unless Matthew 17:14 relates to the same interchange with Jesus, the man first spoke out from the crowd and then approached Jesus.

Jesus comment about nothing being impossible for the disciples (Matthew 17:20) should be understood in a relative sense. They had been commissioned to proclaim the message about God’s kingdom and empowered to perform miracles. Consequently, when it came to accomplishing all that their commission required of them, nothing would prevent them from doing so if they maintained their faith.

Matthew 17:21, which refers to prayer and fasting, is missing from the original text of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and other ancient manuscripts. Therefore, it is also missing from the main text of many modern translations.

In Mark 9:29, many manuscripts add “and fasting” after “through prayer.” Modern textual scholarship, however, favors the shorter reading of fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and this is reflected in the omission of “and fasting” in many translations.

The father attributed his son’s suffering to demon possession, and this is also how the disciples and the people regarded the boy’s affliction. Whether this was the actual cause of the epilepsy, the deafness, and muteness cannot be determined. Jesus never spoke about the physical causes of the various ailments and diseases he cured. His expressions accommodated the existing understanding of his contemporaries. There would have been no value in his providing explanations that they could not have comprehended. Therefore, the narratives accurately reflect the prevailing views and do not necessarily identify the actual causes for various ailments and diseases.

Jesus Returns to Galilee and Teaches His Disciples (Matthew 17:22, 23; Mark 9:30-32; Luke 9:43-45)

All who had observed what Jesus did in the area of Caesarea Philippi were filled with amazement. (Luke 9:43) None of the accounts, however, provide any specifics about any miracles other than the one involving the epileptic boy. Moreover, no direct mention is made of Jesus’ departure with his disciples.

After having returned to Galilee, he again told his disciples what lay ahead for him. He would be arrested (literally, “delivered into the hands of men”) and killed but would rise on the third day. Although there was nothing ambiguous about Jesus’ words, the disciples could not bring themselves to accept their plain meaning. They found it impossible to believe that he would suffer and die, for this did not agree with their messianic expectations. (Matthew 17:22, 23; Mark 9:30-32; Luke 9:44) As Luke 9:45 indicates, the meaning of Jesus’ words was hidden from the disciples, preventing them from perceiving their full significance.

Still, they were apprehensive about asking him about his comments, perhaps feeling that they should have understood what he meant. (Mark 9:32) At the same time, the disturbing nature of his remarks did grieve them greatly. (Matthew 17:23)

Jesus wanted them to understand. According to Luke 9:44, he requested that his disciples “put” his words into their ears or listen attentively.

The Temple Tax (Matthew 17:24-27)

After Jesus returned to Capernaum with his disciples, Peter was approached about the payment of the temple tax. Possibly while they had been in Caesarea Philippi, this annual tax of two drachmas (one didrachma; approximately two days’ wages) began to be collected. (Matthew 17:24)

Asked if his “teacher” (Jesus) paid the tax, Peter replied, “Yes.” Upon entering “the house,” likely his own home, he did not have an opportunity to mention the incident. Aware of what had taken place, Jesus brought up the subject, asking Peter whether earthly kings receive tax or tribute from their own sons or from strangers. “From strangers,” Peter replied, and Jesus added that the sons, therefore, are free of this obligation. Thereby Jesus implied that he, as the Son of God, was not required to pay the temple tax, for the temple was his Father’s house. To avoid giving offense respecting this matter by asserting his right not to pay the tax, Jesus arranged for his and Peter’s share to be obtained in a manner that harmonized with his being God’s unique Son. He instructed Peter to go to the Sea of Galilee and cast a fishhook into the lake. In the mouth of the first fish he would catch, he would find a stater coin (valued at four drachmas), with which he would then pay the tax. (Matthew 17:24-27) Likely the fish would have been Chromis simonis. This mouth-breeding variety of fish has a mouth large enough to accommodate a coin. The male of Chromis simonis takes some 200 eggs into its mouth, and the hatched fish continue to be sheltered there for a number of weeks.

Jesus’ Teaching About Greatness (Matthew 18:1-5; Mark 9:33-37; Luke 9:46-48)

While on the way to “the house” in Capernaum (likely the home of Peter and Andrew), the disciples argued about who among them was the greatest. After Jesus and the disciples entered the house, he brought up the subject of greatness. Although he was fully aware of their discussion among themselves, he asked them what they had argued about on the road. They appear to have been embarrassed about the incident and did not respond. (Mark 9:33, 34; Luke 9:46; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 18:1.)

Jesus then used the opportunity to teach them about the meaning of greatness in the “kingdom of the heavens,” the realm where his Father is Sovereign. He seated himself and invited the twelve apostles to come to him. In the “kingdom of the heavens,” greatness differed markedly from the kingdoms of the world, where those in positions of prominence and power issued commands and had inferiors serve them. On account of the environment in which they had grown up, the apostles shared this view of greatness. According to Luke 9:47, Jesus knew the “reasoning of their heart,” suggesting that their understanding of greatness reflected their inmost thoughts. Therefore, it must have been very startling for them to hear Jesus’ explanation of greatness. Anyone who wanted to be first or occupy the foremost position would have to conduct himself as being “last of all” or the most insignificant and make himself the “servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)

To provide the apostles with an object lesson about true greatness, Jesus asked a child in the home to come to him. This may have been Peter’s son and, therefore, a youngster whom the apostles knew. The boy would have been an example of the essential attributes Jesus wanted his disciples to associate with greatness in God’s kingdom. In expression of his affection for the boy, Jesus had him stand beside him and put his arms around him. (Matthew 18:2; Mark 9:36; Luke 9:47)

After focusing attention on the youngster, Jesus solemnly declared with an introductory “amen” (truly) that, if the disciples did not “turn” or change and become like children, they would not enter the kingdom of the heavens. They needed to rid themselves of all feelings of superiority and reflect the lowly spirit of a child that recognizes and is responsive to parental and other adult authority. (Matthew 18:3) The person who would humble himself, proving himself to be like a responsive, unassuming child would be truly great in the kingdom of God. Moreover, whoever, in Christ’s “name,” received or welcomed such a child or a person manifesting the disposition of an unassuming youngster would be regarded as having welcomed God’s Son and, therefore, also his Father who had sent him. This welcoming in Christ’s name would denote doing so because of recognizing the individual as one who belonged to the Son of God. Jesus’ teaching revealed that the one who made himself the most serviceable or the least one through unassuming laboring for others would prove himself to be great. (Matthew 18:4, 5; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 18:6.)

Notes:

According to Matthew 18:1, the disciples approached Jesus with the question about who would be the greatest in the “kingdom of the heavens.” In Luke 9:47, this question is represented as a “reasoning of their heart,” and Mark 9:34 indicates that they remained silent about their argument regarding greatness. Thus both Luke 9:47 and Mark 9:34 suggest that the disciples would have wanted to ask Jesus about greatness but were apprehensive about doing so. Therefore, in view of Jesus’ awareness of their unspoken question, Matthew 18:1 could appropriately refer to the disciples as having raised it.

Based on Matthew 18:6 alone, one could conclude that Jesus’ point about stumbling others or giving occasion for offense was part of the discussion relating to greatness. This is, however, not the case. While preserving the content of Jesus’ teaching, Matthew’s condensed account does not include John’s remark, which, according to Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:49, preceded the comments about stumbling.

Warning About Stumbling (Matthew 18:6-9; Mark 9:38-50; Luke 9:49, 50)

John told Jesus about a man whom he and other disciples had observed using Jesus’ name to expel demons. Not being in their immediate company, they tried to prevent him from doing so. Possibly John thought that this effort to stop the man was commendable and, in view of the corrective admonition about greatness, may have felt the need for a reassuring favorable response from Jesus. In reply, the Son of God said that the man should not be prevented from doing good work in his name, for no one who did a work of power in his name would quickly change and begin to speak evil of him. “Whoever is not against us,” Jesus continued, “is for us.” (Mark 9:38-40; Luke 9:49, 50)

As a fellow Israelite, the man was one of God’s people and recognized the divine authority inherent in Jesus’ name. Therefore, when expelling demons on the basis of the authority the name represented, the man revealed himself to be for Christ and working in concert with other believers.

Any action that proved to be supportive of Christ and his disciples would not go unnoticed and would be recompensed. Even a small gesture of hospitality, such as offering a cup of water to Jesus’ disciples, based on a recognition of their belonging to him, would be rewarded. This would be because the Son of God would regard a kind act as being done to him. With a solemn introductory “amen” (truly), he declared, “I say to you, he positively will not lose his reward.” (Mark 9:41)

Jesus considered all of his disciples, including the most insignificant from the human standpoint, as very precious. Therefore, to stumble one of the little or insignificant ones who believed in Jesus, injuring them in a manner that could cause them to stumble into sin or to erode their faith in him would be very serious. (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42) When the disciples tried to stop a fellow Israelite from doing good in Jesus’ name, they could have harmed him spiritually. This appears to have been a factor in Jesus’ use of strong words when speaking to the disciples.

The Son of God indicated that it would be better for one who made himself responsible for causing stumbling to have a heavy millstone (one requiring a donkey to turn) tied around his neck and to be cast into the sea than to have to face the resultant severe judgment. (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42) Certain death by drowning would be preferable to the dreadful punishment awaiting those who lead others into sin or wreck their faith.

Jesus mentioned that there would be “woe,” distress, or grief for the world of mankind on account of those who would cause stumbling or give offense. It would be inevitable that such persons would exist and exercise their baneful influence. “Woe,” as Jesus continued, would come upon any man who proved himself to be the cause for stumbling or offense. (Matthew 18:7)

In his teaching about avoiding personal stumbling or the committing of serious sin, Jesus emphasized the need for one to get control over one’s body members. It would be better to cut off one’s hand, deadening it respecting wrong use, than to have two hands and end up being tossed into the flames of Gehenna. Likewise, if one’s foot were to be the cause of stumbling, being turned to follow a sinful course, it would be better to cut it off, deadening it with reference to wrong desire, than to retain two feet and be found deserving of the fiery Gehenna. Whenever the eye focuses on impure desires, leading to stumbling into sin, it would be better to pluck it out, ridding oneself of the sinful inclination, than to keep two eyes and then to be thrown into the fire of Gehenna, “where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished.” (Matthew 18:8, 9; Mark 9:43-48; see the Notes section regarding Mark 9:44, 46.)

The desirable course is to gain the mastery over the members of the body. This requires diligent effort and sacrifice, comparable to cutting off a body member, to avoid having a seriously misused hand, foot, or eye. How much better it would be for the person to have been willing to sacrifice the wrong desires and, as one without an offending body member and so appearing as crippled and lame or with one eye, to enjoy the real life, entering into God’s kingdom or the realm where the Most High rules by means of his Son! (Matthew 18:8, 9; Mark 9:43-48)

Jesus’ words about Gehenna parallel those of Isaiah 66:24. There the reference is to the dreadful judgment to befall those who defiantly transgressed God’s commands. That judgment is comparable to being thrown into a refuse dump, where fire burns continually and maggots consume whatever the flames do not reach. Like the fire that burned continually, maggots would always have been visible on the carcasses that were not in direct contact with the fire, and this may be the reason behind the expression that “their worm does not die.” A person’s being committed to the fiery Gehenna appears to be the same judgment as the one the book of Revelation refers to as being cast into the “lake of fire.” This is the final judgment that takes place after the resurrection. (Revelation 20:11-15)

After the sobering comments about stumbling, Mark 9:49 quotes Jesus as saying, “For everyone will be salted with fire.” If these words relate to the fire of Gehenna, all who lead others into sin or who themselves live a life of sin would be subject to that fire, as if applied to them like salt. (See the Notes section for additional comments about Mark 9:49.)

There is a possibility, however, that the expression “salted with fire” has another significance. Salt can be used as a purifying agent, a preservative, and a seasoning, and fire often relates to condemnation or refining. In the Scriptures, trials and hardships are mentioned as serving to test or refine. (Compare James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:6, 7; 4:12, 13.) If the expression about being “salted with fire” is to be linked to purifying and refining, this could denote that everyone will be submitted to difficulties in life. These distressing circumstances can have a wholesome effect (as when salt is used as a purifying agent, a preservative, or a seasoning) and, like fire, serve to refine individuals, leading to their becoming more compassionate and caring persons who rely on God for strength to endure. In other cases, the salting with fire would have the opposite effect, hardening and embittering the individuals and revealing them to be valueless dross and devoid of all faith in God.

Salt is a good substance because of the beneficial purposes for which it can be used. The impure salt known to Jesus’ disciples could lose its saltiness in a humid environment. Once the sodium chloride had been leached out, it could not be restored and the remaining substance would be useless. (Mark 9:50)

For the disciples to have salt in themselves would have meant for them to serve as a force or influence for good. Their praiseworthy disposition, words, and deeds would counteract the tendency toward moral decay in others and contribute to making life more pleasant for those with whom they had personal dealings. In this way, their life, like salt, would serve as a valuable preservative and a desirable seasoning. (Mark 9:50)

The disciples’ argument about who among them was the greatest would not have served to preserve peace. It would have been divisive and given rise to resentment. Therefore, they needed to have within themselves the beneficial properties of salt and maintain peace or good relationships among themselves. (Mark 9:50)

Notes:

Modern translations commonly omit verses 44 and 46. These words are missing in the most ancient manuscripts and repeat verse 48 (“where their worm does not die and the fire is not extinguished”).

In Mark 9:49, fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and many later manuscripts add, “and every sacrifice will be salted with salt.”

The Preciousness of “Little” or Insignificant Ones (Matthew 18:10-20)

Jesus commanded his disciples not to disdain the “little ones.” Emphasizing the preciousness of those whom others may regard as insignificant, he revealed that “their angels in heaven” always beheld his Father’s face. This indicates that angels in the presence of the Most High are personally concerned about the welfare of believers and take note of any injury that may be inflicted upon them and are willing to aid them in their time of need. The closeness of these angels to the heavenly Father also shows that any kind of mistreatment would be known to him and would merit condemnatory judgment. (Matthew 18:10)

With a parable, Jesus then illustrated his Father’s loving concern and care for believers. A man owning 100 sheep would leave the 99 to pasture on the heights and search for the one that had wandered off. “Amen” (truly), said Jesus, on finding the one lost sheep, he would rejoice more over it than over the 99 that had not strayed. Applying the point of the parable, the Son of God said that it was not his Father’s will that one of the insignificant ones be lost. (Matthew 18:12-14; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 18:11.)

In harmony with God’s will, every effort should be made to restore a “brother” or a believer who may have stumbled into sin. When sinned against, the injured believer should go to the offender and, to him alone, expose the wrong, reproving him. If the transgressor listens and acknowledges his sin, he would be “gained” as a brother or helped to remain a brother or beloved fellow believer. If, however, he refuses to listen, the injured believer should take one or two fellow believers along to speak to the transgressor. This action would be in keeping with the legal principle that every matter be established “by the mouth of two or three witnesses.” If the offender still refuses to acknowledge his guilt and to seek forgiveness, the wrong should come before the community of believers. If even then the erring one cannot be persuaded to acknowledge his sin and be motivated to change, he would be regarded like a tax collector or a man of the nations. This would signify that the community of believers would not choose to have close fellowship with him, as he did not want to be forgiven of his sin and, therefore, had no desire to be, or remain, a “brother.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

The “binding” and “loosing” about which Jesus next spoke is one in which believers share as a community. (Matthew 18:18) If the transgressor persisted in his sinful course despite all efforts to help him to come to repentance, the “binding” would indicate that his conduct could not be tolerated and he would be shut out from close fellowship with the community of believers. The “loosing,” on the other hand, would indicate that he had been forgiven and remained a part of that community. (For comments on Matthew 16:19, see the section “Peter’s Confession and Christ’s Response” and the accompanying “Notes”; for additional information on Matthew 18:18, see the Notes section.)

According to numerous manuscripts, Jesus’ next words include the solemn “amen” (truly) before “I say to you.” The subject is prayer. If two believers “agree on earth” to unite in a specific petition respecting any matter, the heavenly Father would respond. (Matthew 18:19) As believers, their request would be in harmony with God’s will, and this assured that they would be granted a favorable hearing. In view of the context, prayer concerning an erring brother would have been an appropriate matter. (Compare 1 John 5:14-16.)

Even when two or three believers are assembled in his “name,” the Son of God promised to be in their midst. (Matthew 18:20) Their being gathered in his name would indicate that their fellowship with one another is based on a recognition of Christ as their mutual Lord. Therefore, in spirit, he would be with them, assuring that their prayers would be heard.

This also points to the fact that any “binding” and “loosing” would be in harmony with God’s will, as Jesus would be with the community of believers in all actions guided by holy spirit. Decisions that are merely the product of the exercise of human authority would not be confirmed in heaven, as any gathering where such decisions are reached could not be considered as having taken place in Jesus’ name. In such a case, his authority would not have been recognized and his guidance would not have been followed. (Compare 1 Corinthians 5:1-5.)

Notes:

The words of Matthew 18:11 (“the Son of Man came to save the lost”) are missing in the oldest extant manuscripts but are found in many later manuscripts.

As in Matthew 16:19 (also here at Matthew 18:18), the Greek passive participles for “bound” and “loosed” are in the perfect tense. For this reason, some regard the binding and loosing as already having taken place in heaven. Kenneth S. Wuest, in his expanded translation expressed this meaning with his rendering, “Whatever you forbid [bind] on earth, shall have already been forbidden [bound] in heaven. And whatever you permit [loose] on earth, shall have already been permitted [loosed] in heaven.”

Forgiveness (Matthew 18:21-35)

Probably Jesus’ words about gaining an erring brother prompted Peter to wonder concerning how often forgiveness should be extended. He asked whether up to seven times might be the limit. Jesus answered, “Not up to seven times, I say to you, but up to seventy times seven [or, seventy-seven] times.” (Matthew 18:21, 22) This reply indicated that harboring grudges or resorting to any kind of reckoning in relation to forgiveness would be wrong.

To stress the importance of maintaining a forgiving spirit, Jesus related a parable. He likened a feature of the “kingdom of the heavens” to a “man,” a “king,” who determined to settle accounts with his slaves. (Matthew 18:23)

One slave owed him the astronomical sum of 10,000 talents. With a Tyrian talent being 6,000 denarii (the wages a laborer would earn in 6,000 days), this huge sum could not be earned in the course of many lifetimes. To pay off what would have been only a small portion of the debt, the king decreed that the slave, his wife and children, and everything he possessed be sold. At that, the slave prostrated himself before his master, pleading to be shown patience in order to have time to repay his debt. Compassionately, the king canceled the entire debt, one that would have been impossible for the slave to repay. (Matthew 18:24-27)

After having been the recipient of extraordinary mercy, this slave found a fellow slave who owed him 100 denarii (a minuscule fraction of the debt the king had canceled), grabbed him, and started to choke him, demanding that he pay back all that he owed. This slave then prostrated himself, pleading to be shown patience until such time as he could pay off the debt. The creditor slave, however, refused to respond compassionately to his fellow slave but had him imprisoned until such time as the debt would be paid off. (Matthew 18:28-30) As a prisoner, the slave would have been unable to earn any money. Only relatives or friends could have freed him from prison by paying off the debt.

Having observed this merciless treatment, other fellow slaves were greatly distressed. This prompted them to report to the king what had happened. (Matthew 18:31)

He called for the harsh slave to appear before him, condemned him as wicked, and asked whether he should not have had compassion for a fellow slave in view of the compassion that had been shown him. Greatly angered, the master handed him over to the “tormentors” (the jailers who often inflicted torment on prisoners), until such time as he would pay back his debt. (Matthew 18:32-34) Repayment would, of course, have been an impossibility, as no friends or relatives would have had such great wealth at their disposal.

Revealing the serious consequences for being unforgiving, Jesus said that his heavenly Father would deal like the king of the parable with his disciples if they did not forgive a brother’s transgressions from their hearts or in all sincerity from their deep inner selves. (Matthew 18:35) The tremendous debt of sin that God is willing to forgive everyone who repents and asks for mercy makes any sin a brother or fellow believer might commit against one appear minuscule (a debt of just 100 denarii alongside a forgiven debt of 60,000,000 denarii). Accordingly, all who would have a share in the “kingdom of the heavens” or in the realm where the heavenly Father rules by means of his Son must be forgiving as he is.

To Jerusalem (John 7:1-10; Matthew 8:19-22; Luke 9:51-62) and Then at the Temple

In Judea, Jesus’ life was seriously endangered. For this reason, he centered his activity mainly in Galilee. (John 7:1)

His brothers, James, Joseph (Joses), Judas and Simon (Mark 6:3), did not appear to have been aware of the threat to his life. They did not have faith in him as the Messiah or Christ, the Son of God. In their estimation, he was a worker of miracles who wanted to be more extensively known but had avoided the very region where he would have received greater public attention. Therefore, with the approach of the Festival of Tabernacles in the month of Tishri or Ethanim (mid-September to mid-October), they recommended that he go to Judea and there let his disciples see the work that he was doing. As far as they were concerned, no man acts in secret if his aim is to be widely known. Their advice to Jesus was, “Show yourself to the world.” (John 7:2-5)

Rejecting their recommendation, he pointed out that it was not yet his time to act but that, for them, the time was always opportune. This was because the “world” or the unbelieving populace could not hate them, implying that his brothers had not done or said anything that would incur hostility. He, however, had become the object of the world’s hatred, for he had presented the testimony that exposed the works of the unbelieving people as bad. (John 7:6, 7)

Jesus then told his brothers to be on their way to the festival without him. His time for going had not yet arrived. After his brothers had left, Jesus remained in Galilee for a time and then, with some of his close disciples, headed for Jerusalem. He chose to do so at a time when most of the people had already left Galilee to attend the festival, which would have made it possible to avoid having the news about his departure spread. Thus he left Galilee in secret, not openly. (John 7:9, 10)

In his going to Jerusalem, Jesus was aware that the time was drawing near for his being “taken up.” This being “taken up” likely refers to his return to his Father, which would be preceded by his being rejected, abused, and mocked, suffering an agonizing death, being resurrected, and then ascending to heaven. Although he knew what lay ahead for him in the comparatively near future, he was determined (literally, “set his face”) to go to Jerusalem. He chose to travel the more direct and less commonly used route through Samaria and sent messengers ahead of him to find a place where he could stay for the night. When the inhabitants of the Samaritan village learned that Jesus intended to go to Jerusalem, which city they regarded as a competing center of worship to their sacred mountain (John 4:20), they refused to extend hospitality. (Luke 9:51-53)

The response of the people in this Samaritan village infuriated James and John. They asked Jesus whether they should call down fire from heaven upon them and destroy them. (Luke 9:54) James and John knew what Elijah had done when he was addressed disrespectfully by two captains and their 50 men, demanding that he come with them to King Ahaziah. On each of these captains and their subordinates, Elijah called down fire from heaven, and they perished. (2 Kings 1:9-12; see the Notes section regarding Luke 9:54.)

Based on this example from past history, James and John felt justified in seeking the destruction of the Samaritan village. Jesus’ teaching about loving and praying for enemies had not as yet taken firm root within them. (Matthew 5:44-48) Jesus turned and then rebuked them for suggesting the fiery destruction of the inhospitable Samaritans. With the disciples, he headed for another village. (Luke 9:55, 56; see the Notes section for the expanded reading found in later manuscripts.)

On the way, a certain scribe expressed his willingness to follow Jesus wherever he might go. In reply, Jesus indicated that this decision would not lead to apparent gain. Unlike foxes that had dens and birds that had roosts, the Son of Man did not have a place where he could lay his head. He had no permanent residence. (Matthew 8:19, 20; Luke 9:57, 58)

Jesus’ reply suggests that this scribe’s words were not the product of serious reflection but stemmed from surface emotion. Possibly knowledge about Jesus’ miracles had led the scribe to think that much was yet to be gained from close association with Jesus, including the benefit of being in the presence of a remarkable teacher.

To another man, Jesus extended a direct invitation to follow him. While not declining it, the man asked for permission to first bury his father. As it was customary to bury the deceased on the day of their death, it does not appear that the father had actually died. Otherwise, the son would have been in mourning and attending to the burial. Possibly the father was advanced in age or ailing. Whatever the circumstances, the man basically revealed that he was not yet ready to follow Jesus. (Matthew 8:21; Luke 9:59)

In response, the Son of God told him, “Let the dead bury their dead,” and urged him to proclaim the “kingdom of God.” He was not to postpone accepting the call to follow Jesus as an active disciple, stalling for time to look after his father in the declining part of his life until he actually died. The spiritually dead, those dead in sin on account of their unbelief in Jesus, could attend to the burial of their own dead, removing any valid basis for delaying acceptance of the invitation to fulfill the requirements of discipleship. This involved proclaiming the message that centered on Christ and the need for repentance to become part of the realm where God reigns by means of his Son. (Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60)

Still another man acknowledged Jesus as Lord and agreed to follow him but first wanted the opportunity to say farewell to those of his household. Jesus admonished him not to delay, telling him that one who had put his “hand to the plow” was unfit for the kingdom of God if he looked back to the things behind. Putting the “hand to the plow” indicated setting out on a particular pursuit. The person who accepted the call to be a disciple should not look back, giving in to second thoughts. For the man to have talked about his decision with relatives and friends could easily have led to their seeking to dissuade him from following through on the commitment he had made. (Luke 9:61, 62)

Notes:

In Luke 9:54, many later manuscripts add “even as Elijah did” when referring to the calling down of fire from heaven.

In Luke 9:55, 56, a number of later manuscripts add words of rebuke. “You do not know of what spirit you are, for the Son of Man came not to destroy [the] souls of men but to save [them].”

The chronological placement of the events narrated in Matthew 8:19-22 and Luke 9:57-62 is based on Luke’s account, which seems to follow the chronological order more closely than does Matthew’s account.

At the Festival of Tabernacles (John 7:11-52 [also 7:53-8:11])

In Jerusalem, many who knew about Jesus tried to find him and wondered where he was. Among their trusted acquaintances, they engaged in considerable subdued talk about him. Some said that he was a good man, whereas others disagreed, maintaining that he deceived the multitude. Out of fear of fellow Jews, no one spoke concerning him openly. People must have been aware that the Pharisees generally and the prominent members of the nation were hostile toward Jesus. They doubtless feared incurring the displeasure of influential countrymen and being ostracized in the community for suspected sympathizing with Jesus and his teaching. (John 7:11-13)

In the middle of the festival, Jesus made his public appearance and began to teach in the temple precincts. His teaching astonished those who heard him, and they began to wonder how it could be that he spoke authoritatively as a lettered man when he was not among the recognized learned ones of the nation. In response, Jesus gave all the credit to his Father, saying that his teaching was not his own but that of the one who had sent him. Anyone who desired to do God’s will would recognize whether he was the source of Jesus’ teaching or whether Jesus was expressing his own thoughts. Any man who spoke of his own would be desirous of glorifying or bringing honor to himself. Then, referring to himself, Jesus indicated that the one who sought to glorify or honor the one who sent him is “true” (completely trustworthy and truthful) and free of any evil. There would be nothing deceitful or underhanded in him. His motivation would be pure. (John 7:14-18)

Those who heard Jesus’ teaching should have responded to him in faith, especially since they claimed to believe in Moses. From Moses they had received the law; yet, as Jesus pointed out, they did not heed it. According to the words of the law they considered to have been received from Moses, the Jews who heard Jesus knew that they were to listen to the prophet like Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15) The miracles Jesus performed as the representative of his Father confirmed that he was a prophet “like” Moses and, in fact, the prophet greater than Moses and the foretold Messiah or Christ. Those who wanted to kill Jesus, instead of heeding his words, proved undeniably that they did not do what the law said. Those in the crowd who were unaware of the earlier attempt to kill Jesus for violating the Sabbath and blasphemy regarded his comments as preposterous and accused him of having a demon. “Who is trying to kill you?” they asked incredulously. (John 7:19, 20)

In response, Jesus called attention to the one work he had done on the Sabbath, which had been the curing of a man who had been afflicted for 38 years and was lying on a mat at the pool near the Sheep Gate. (John 5:2-9) That work had prompted amazement among those who came to know about it. (John 7:21)

The Son of God then referred to the law to show that no one should have objected to what he did on the Sabbath. Moses had given the command about circumcision (Leviticus 12:3), which command had actually come from an earlier time. It had been given to the “fathers” or ancestors of the Israelites, specifically to their forefather Abraham. (Genesis 17:11-14) If the eighth day falls on a Sabbath, a baby boy is circumcised to avoid breaking the law of Moses. Why, then, asked Jesus, should the people be infuriated at him for having made a man’s body completely whole on the Sabbath? He called upon them to desist from judging according to mere appearances but to judge rightly. (John 7:23, 24)

Certain inhabitants of Jerusalem among the multitude who heard Jesus’ words recalled that he was indeed the one whom fellow countrymen wanted to kill. It puzzled them that he spoke openly and that no one said anything, causing them to wonder whether the rulers had come to know that he was indeed the Messiah. Believing that they knew from where Jesus was (from Galilee, if not also from Nazareth), they, however, dismissed the possibility of his being the Messiah. They reasoned that no one would know from where the Messiah had come. (John 7:25-27)

Refuting their claim about knowing him and from where he came, Jesus cried out that he had not come of his own and that the one who sent him is true and was unknown to them. Thus he identified himself as the one whom his Father had sent. When speaking of him as “true,” Jesus probably meant “trustworthy” or “dependable.” He thereby appears to have implied that the people should have believed in him, for he did the works of his Father and conveyed his teaching. If they had known his Father, they would have recognized him, for as the Son he reflected his Father flawlessly in word and deed. Unlike the unbelieving Jews, he knew his Father and could truthfully say, “I am from him, and he sent me.” (John 7:28, 29)

Those who opposed Jesus wanted to seize him, doubtless to take him to the ruling authorities. No one, however, laid a hand on him, for “his hour” had not yet come. It was not then the time for him to finish his earthly life. (John 7:30)

Despite the prevailing unbelief, many among those who listened to his teaching believed in him. They reasoned that when the Christ or the Messiah came he would not perform more signs than Jesus had. (John 7:31)

The unbelieving Pharisees heard the subdued talk about him and appear to have found it very disturbing. Therefore, they and the chief priests decided to send temple guards to arrest him. (John 7:32)

Knowing what lay ahead for him, Jesus told the multitude that he would be with them for only a short while and then would return to the one who had sent him. Though they would look for him, they would not find him, for they would be unable to go where he would be. Not understanding that Jesus would return to his Father, the people were puzzled about the meaning of his words. Some thought that he might leave the land of Israel and go to the “Dispersion of the Greeks” (Jews living among the Gentiles) and teach the Greeks (or non-Jews). (John 7:33-36)

On the Last Day of the Festival of Tabernacles

The festival of tabernacles ended the agricultural year and was marked by great rejoicing. The law required only the males to be present for the observance, but they often attended with their whole family. For seven days, they were to dwell in temporary shelters or booths made from palm fronds and leafy branches from various trees. These shelters were to remind them of the tents in which the Israelites lived during their journeying in the wilderness after they left Egypt. (Leviticus 23:34-43; Deuteronomy 16:13-15; Nehemiah 8:14, 15)

The law outlined the specific sacrifices to be offered on each day of the festival. Other ceremonial features came to be added later in connection with the temple services. One of these involved the pouring out of water brought from the Pool of Siloam. Ancient rabbinical views are divided as to whether the water was poured out only on the first seven days or also on the eighth day. According to ancient rabbinical sources, two silver bowls were positioned above the altar. Wine would be poured into the one to the east, and water into the one to the west. These bowls were perforated with holes through which the liquids could flow into a channel that led to the base of the altar. (Tosefta, Sukkah, 3:14, 15) The act of pouring out accompanied “the offering up of the limbs of the daily whole-offering.” (Tosefta, Sukkah 3:16, Jacob Neusner’s translation)

Ancient Jewish sources associate the water with Ezekiel 47:2-10 and Zechariah 13:1 and 14:8. (Tosefta, Sukkah, 3:3[4]-10) In Ezekiel, the reference is to life-giving water flowing from the temple and continuing to deepen until it formed a river. (Compare Joel 3:18[4:18].) Zechariah’s prophecy (14:8) speaks of living water flowing from Jerusalem, with half of it going to the “former sea” (the “eastern sea” or the Dead Sea) and the other half going to the “hinder sea” (the “western sea” or the Mediterranean Sea). Zechariah 13:1 pointed forward to the time when a fountain would be opened for the house of David and the people of Jerusalem, a fountain that would serve for cleansing from sin.

On the last day of the festival, Jesus revealed that the foretold life-giving water was available through him. As he stood, he cried out for all thirsty ones to come to him and drink. Paraphrasing the words of the prophets, he added regarding anyone who believed in him, “Rivers of living water will flow from his inmost part.” (John 7:37, 38; for additional comments about John 7:38, see the Notes section.)

The account explains Jesus’ words as applying to those who would receive God’s spirit because of believing in him. As Jesus had not yet been glorified or in possession of the splendor he formerly had when with his Father in heaven, there was as yet “no spirit.” (John 7:39) Whereas God’s spirit did powerfully operate through the Son of God and also when the apostles performed miracles in his name, none of the disciples enjoyed the fullness of the spirit’s operation. With holy spirit operating fully within them, they would be abundantly blessed spiritually, empowered to conduct themselves in harmony with God’s will, enlightened to grasp Jesus’ teaching, strengthened and sustained in times of trial and distress, and filled with courage to make expressions about their faith. Moreover, they would be able to impart to others everything that was essential for coming into possession of eternal life. Thus it proved to be that streams of living water flowed out from them, and those who responded in faith came to enjoy the real life, ceasing to be dead in sin.

Based on what they had heard, the people came to different conclusions about Jesus. Some regarded him to be “the prophet,” probably meaning the prophet like Moses but distinct from the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:15) Others believed him to be the Messiah or Christ. Not knowing that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, certain ones reasoned that he could not be the Messiah, for he had come from Galilee, which did not agree with the scripture that foretold his being of the “seed [offspring] of David” and David’s village Bethlehem. As a result, the multitude proved to be divided in their view of him. (John 7:40-43)

“Some,” likely meaning the temple guards whom the unbelieving Pharisees and chief priests had sent to arrest Jesus, wanted to seize him. No one, however, laid a hand on Jesus. (John 7:44)

When the temple guards returned empty-handed, the unbelieving Pharisees demanded why they had failed to bring Jesus in. “Never has a man thus spoken,” they replied. The indignant Pharisees chided them for having been deceived and added that none of the rulers or Pharisees believed in him. The only ones who did were those of the ignorant multitude, persons who did not know the law and whom they pronounced as accursed. (John 7:45-49)

Nicodemus, a Pharisee who had much earlier spoken to Jesus, tried to appeal to his fellow Pharisees on the basis of their sense of justice. He reminded them that the law did not condemn a man until he is first heard and known for what he is doing. Nicodemus was then ridiculed, “Are you also from Galilee? Search and see that no prophet is to be raised up from Galilee.” (John 7:50-52) The prominent unbelieving members of the nation failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (9:1, 2) that referred to a great light to be seen in the territory of Galilee and disregarded the very law they were obligated to uphold. (See the Notes section for comments about John 7:53-8:12.)

Notes:

No specific passage in the Scriptures matches the quotation in John 7:38, but the thought can be gleaned from the prophetic writings. A linkage of water and spirit (John 7:39) is found in Isaiah 44:3. There God’s pouring out of water on the ground (in the form of rain) parallels the pouring out of his spirit on his people. Then, in Isaiah 58:11, those who would repent and change their ways are promised to become like a watered garden and an unfailing spring of water.

It appears that knowledge about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem may only have existed among the few who were familiar with his early history, likely only members of the family and close acquaintances. The majority only knew him as being from Galilee, where he had lived nearly all of his life.

The narrative about the woman accused of having committed adultery (John 7:53-8:11) follows the account that focuses on Jesus’ words spoken at the Festival of Tabernacles. This narrative is missing in all of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, raising doubt about whether it relates to an actual occurrence. Later manuscripts do include it here, but in others it appears after John 7:36, John 21:25, or Luke 21:38.

John 7:53 through 8:2 does provide an introduction for the account about the woman. This introduction relates that each one went to his home and that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, returning to the temple precincts early in the morning of the next day and seating himself to the teach the people.

Later, the scribes and Pharisees brought the woman and asked Jesus about his view of the law that set forth stoning as the penalty for her sin, their aim being to trap him so as to have something to use to accuse him. He ignored them, bent down, and began writing on the ground with his finger. When, however, they continued questioning him, he straightened up and said that the one without sin should cast the first stone and then bent down again and resumed writing on the ground. Thereafter the accusers began to depart, leaving the woman by herself. When Jesus asked whether anyone had condemned her, she replied, “No one.” After telling her that he also did not do so, he admonished her not to continue sinning. (John 8:3-11)

That Jesus would be writing on the ground seems unusual and, therefore, raises a question about whether the account preserves a historical event. If it does pertain to an actual happening, a possible explanation could be that Jesus, by his action, chose to indicate that he was not going to involve himself in the matter. According to the law, both the man and the woman were guilty and yet the scribes and Pharisees made no mention of the adulterer, which would suggest that their seeming concern about the law was insincere.

Although the question about the historicity of the account may need to be left open because of its existence in many later manuscripts, the narrative does not seem to fit with the rest of the eighth chapter of John. After Jesus’ admonition directed to the woman in verse 11, the next verse tells of his addressing the multitude and starts with the words, “Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them.” These introductory words suggest a continuation of his teaching at the Festival of Tabernacles. Moreover, what he said thereafter harmonizes with that conclusion. Accordingly, it appears preferable to regard John 7:53 through 8:11 as an insertion that interrupts the logical flow of the narrative about what Jesus said at the Festival of Tabernacles.

“The Light of the World” and the One Who Sets Free (John 8:12-59)

Another later custom associated with the Festival of Tabernacles involved illumination for most of the nights. According to ancient Jewish sources, four large golden lampstands occupied the Court of the Women. Each of these lampstands had a ladder and four golden bowls that held the oil. Four youths of priestly descent would ascend the ladders, each carrying a jar holding a large quantity of oil. They would pour the oil into the bowls and light them. The worn drawers and girdles of priests served as wicks. Light from the illuminated courtyard could be seen at a great distance. With torches in their hands, men known for godliness and good works danced before the lampstands. They would raise their voices in song and praise. Many Levites played harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets and other instruments as they stood on the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women. (Mishnah, Sukkah 5.2-4)

When Jesus identified himself as the “light of the world,” those who heard him may well have thought about the impressive illumination during the Festival of Tabernacles. His statement also answered the objection that no prophet would arise from Galilee, as his words alluded to the prophecy of Isaiah (9:1, 2) that referred to a “great light” to be seen there. (John 8:12)

As the “light of the world,” Jesus provided spiritual illumination and dependable guidance. No one who followed him would walk in darkness or be unable to discern the right course of action. Instead, the individual would have the “light of life.” (John 8:12) This could be the light needed for the enjoyment of the real life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. Another possibility is that this would be the essential light for living a divinely approved life.

The Pharisees objected, contending that Jesus’ testimony rested solely on his own word and, therefore, could not be “true,” being unacceptable on the basis of the law that required at least two witnesses for verification. He countered with a statement revealing the superior nature of his testimony. Even if he did testify about himself, his witness proved to be true or deserving of full acceptance, for he knew from where he had come and where he was going. His testimony was not like that of humans generally, for he had come from the realm above and would return to this heavenly realm. The Pharisees did not know from where Jesus had come and where he was going, for they refused to believe his words. They judged “according to the flesh” or by human standards. He, however, did not judge or condemn anyone in this manner. If he did judge, his judgment would be “true,” right, or just, for he would not be acting alone or exclusively on his own authority. The one who had sent him, the Father, would be with him. (John 8:13-16)

According to the law, “the testimony of two men is true.” Jesus testified about himself through his words and works, and the one who had sent him, the Father, testified, enabling his Son to perform miracles of a nature and on a scale that no one else did. (John 8:17, 18)

In response to Jesus’ words about his Father, the Pharisees asked, “Where is your father?” “You know neither me nor my Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew me, you would also know my Father.” By his words and deeds, Jesus flawlessly reflected his Father. In him, therefore, the Pharisees should have recognized the image of the Father and acknowledged him as his Son. Their failure to recognize the Son revealed that they did not know his Father. (John 8:19)

This interchange took place in the treasury of the temple precincts. (John 8:20) According to ancient Jewish sources, this was located in the Court of the Women, where 13 trumpet-shaped chests lined the surrounding wall. Into these chests, the people deposited their monetary offerings and contributions. Six of these receptacles were designated for freewill offerings. Each of the other seven served for a distinct purpose — new shekels, old shekels, bird offerings, young birds for burnt offerings, wood, frankincense, and gold for the propitiatory. (Mishnah, Sheqalim 2:1; 6:1, 5; Tosefta, Sheqalim 3:1)

During the time Jesus taught there, no one laid hold of him or arrested him. His “hour” had not yet come. It was not then the time for him to finish his earthly course. (John 8:20)

Previously, Jesus had said to the people that he was going away. He again repeated this point, telling them that they would seek him (probably meaning that they would continue to look in vain for the coming of the Messiah), would die in their sins, and would be unable to come to the place where he was going. Completely misunderstanding that Jesus would be returning to his Father in heaven, certain ones wondered whether he might kill himself, as they could not come to the place where he would be going. He then made it clear that he had come from a different realm, saying that they were from “below,” whereas he was from “above.” They were from the world of sinful mankind, but he was no part of that world. If, as Jesus said, they did not “believe that I am,” they would “die in [their] sins.” To refuse to acknowledge his true identity as the one who had come from above (God’s unique Son) would signify to reject the provision of forgiveness of sins through him. With their record of sin remaining unforgiven, they would die in their sins. Obstinately refusing to acknowledge Jesus as the one he had revealed himself to be, the unbelieving Jews asked him challengingly, “Who are you?” (John 8:21-25)

The Greek text conveying Jesus’ reply is obscure, and this accounts for the variations in the renderings of modern translations. (John 8:25) Preserving the basic meaning of arché (“beginning”), a number of translations read, “I am exactly who I told you at the beginning.” (CEV) “What I told you from the beginning.” (NAB) “I am what I have told you from the beginning.” (NCV) “I am what I have told you I was from the beginning.” (Phillips) Other translations do not render the word arché as “beginning” and translate the statement as a question. “Why do I speak to you at all?” (NRSV) “Why, in the first place, am I speaking to you?” “Why should I speak to you at all?” (NJB, footnote)

There is a strong possibility that arché (“beginning”) could be understood to denote that which is fundamental, essential, or basic. Jesus’ reply may be rendered, “Basically, what I am also telling you,” indicating that all along his words revealed his true identity. (See the Notes section for additional information.)

Jesus had much to say about the unbelieving people and to express judgment respecting them. Both his words and his judgment would relate to their failure to put faith in him despite the abundant evidence, including his many miracles. They had ample proof that the Father had sent him. This should have given them sound reason for faith, for the Father is “true,” ultimately trustworthy. In the world or among the people, Jesus spoke what he had heard from his Father, the one who had sent him. Therefore, the Son of God should have been believed. Although Jesus had spoken about coming from “above” and his words about the one who had sent him clearly did not pertain to an earthly father, the unbelieving people did not recognize that he was talking about his heavenly Father. (John 8:26, 27)

Once, however, they had “raised the Son of Man up high,” they would come to know who he truly is (“that I am”), doing nothing of his own accord but speaking what his Father had taught him. The “raising up high” refers to his being lifted up on the implement on which he would die. His agonizing death through crucifixion led to his glorification, for he was raised from the dead and returned to heaven as the exalted Son of God. When the people would again see him as the one whom they had lifted up or in whose death they shared by rejecting him, they would see him as the one entrusted with all authority in heaven and on earth. Their former unbelief would merit adverse judgment, and they would come to know who Jesus truly is and that he, while in their midst, had spoken the truth that his Father had taught him. At all times, the Father who had sent him proved to be with him, never leaving him. This was because he always pleased his Father. (John 8:28, 29)

Although many persisted in their unbelief, others began to believe in Jesus. To the believing Jews, he said, “If you remain in my word [continuing to act on his message in faith], you truly are my disciples. And you will know the truth, and the truth will free you.” (John 8:30-32)

This truth relates to him — his identity as the Son of God. Through him alone, full knowledge about the Father is disclosed and forgiveness of sin is made possible, liberating all who put faith in him from the sin that stood as a record of debt against them.

Whereas Jesus’ words were directed to those who believed, the others who did not put faith in him also heard his words. These unbelievers seem to have been the ones who strongly objected and later tried to stone him. They proudly maintained that they were the “seed” or offspring of Abraham and never had been slaves to anyone. They then asked, “How can you say, ‘You will become free’?” Although they were then living under Roman authority, their reply focused on their status as free children on the basis of their descent from Abraham. They were not born in slavery. (John 8:33)

In response, Jesus repeated “amen” (truly) when solemnly calling attention to their being enslaved to sin, saying that “everyone who engages in sin is a slave of sin.” Alluding to the dismissal of the slave woman Hagar and her son Ishmael from the household of Abraham, Jesus reminded them that a slave does not remain permanently in the household, but a son does. A son, however, could set a slave free. Therefore, Jesus, as the Son of God, could liberate individuals from enslavement to sin, making them completely free. While Jesus acknowledged that those who had objected to his words were of the “seed” of Abraham or his descendants, he implied that their attitude did not reflect that. They were seeking to kill him, as his “word” or the message he proclaimed encountered obstinate resistance, finding no room among them. (John 8:34-37)

Whereas Jesus spoke what he had seen while he had been with his Father, they did what they had heard from their father. In this way, the Son of God revealed that their desire to kill him proved that they had a different father, an evil father with a murderous disposition. (John 8:38; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Again, they claimed to have Abraham as their father. Jesus, though, indicated that this would mean that they should have been doing the works of Abraham, which would have included manifesting the kind of faith Abraham did. This, however, was not the case. Instead of putting faith in Jesus, they tried to kill him, the very one who had told them the truth he had heard from God. “Abraham did not do this.” They did the works of their father. Insisting that they were not illegitimate children, they maintained that their only Father was God. (John 8:39-41)

Countering their claim, Jesus said that they would love him if God were their Father, for he had come from God. He had not come on his own accord but had been sent by him. “Why,” asked Jesus, “do you not comprehend what I am saying?” He then answered the rhetorical question, “Because you cannot [stand to] listen to my word.” They did not want to accept what Jesus said. (John 8:42, 43)

He then outspokenly declared the devil to be their father. It was the devil’s desires that they wished to carry out. He was a murderer (by implication the one responsible for the death of the first humans) from the “beginning” or from the time he commenced his life as the devil or slanderer. He did not “stand” in truth, not proving himself to be its upholder, for truth is not in him. As a malicious slanderer, he is a depository of lies and so there is no “truth in him.” By reason of who he is, he speaks the lie. The falsehood has its source in him, for he is a liar and the father or originator of it (probably alluding to the first lie on record, the one conveyed to Eve). (John 8:44)

Jesus, though, told the people the truth, but they refused to accept it. Addressing their unbelief, he asked who among them could level a charge of sin against him and why they did not believe him when he told them the truth. Explaining the reason for their unbelief, Jesus said, “Everyone who is from God [belonging to him] listens to the words of God. Therefore, you do not listen, for you are not from God [not belonging to him].” (John 8:45-47)

Angered, they accused Jesus of being a Samaritan (not a recognized member of God’s chosen people) and having a demon. “I do not have a demon,” said Jesus. “I honor my Father, but you dishonor me.” As he was the Son, their dishonoring him indicated that they also dishonored the Father who had sent him. Jesus did not seek glory for himself, diligently striving to win the plaudits of others. He looked to his Father to bestow glory on him, manifesting his approval. The Father also did judging. Unlike the baseless judgment of the unbelieving Jews that slandered him as being a demonized Samaritan, Jesus’ reference to his Father as judging implied that his judgment was right or just. The Son of God followed this up with the startling statement (preceded by a repeated “amen” [truly]) that those who observed his word or heeded his teaching would never “see” or experience death. (John 8:48-51)

The unbelieving Jews did not understand that he spoke about coming into possession of the real life as persons forgiven of sin and, therefore, liberated from the condemnation of death. Believers would not die as condemned sinners.

Refusing to recognize that Jesus had come from the realm above, the unbelieving Jews replied that they were certain he had a demon, saying, “Abraham died; also the prophets. And you say, ‘Whoever observes my word will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Also the prophets died. Who do you make yourself [out to be]?” (John 8:52, 53)

Jesus acknowledged that glorifying himself or making claims on his own authority would not mean anything. The Father, however, had glorified him, the very one whom the unbelieving Jews professed to be their God. (John 8:54) The miracles Jesus performed proved that his Father had empowered him, thus glorifying him as his beloved Son.

The murderous hatred of the unbelieving Jews proved that they did not know God, that they had no relationship with him. Otherwise, they would have recognized his Son and loved him. Therefore, about his Father, Jesus could say to them, “You do not know him, but I know him [his relationship being that of an intimate, the beloved Son of his Father].” If Jesus had said that he did not know the Father, he would have been a liar, as they had demonstrated themselves to be liars. They claimed to know God, but their slanderous words and hateful actions directed against the Son proved that this was not the case. (John 8:55)

Jesus, though, knew his Father and observed his word, always acting in harmony with his Father’s will. Abraham, the “father” or ancestor of the Jews, rejoiced to see, or eagerly anticipated with joy, the time Jesus called “my day.” In faith, Abraham saw it and was glad. His thus seeing it was based on the promise that through his “seed” (or offspring) all the families of the earth would be blessed. (John 8:55, 56)

Knowing that Jesus could not possibly be even 50 years old, the unbelieving Jews challenging said, “And you have seen Abraham?” “I am [from] before Abraham existed,” Jesus replied, preceding his words with the solemn “amen, amen” (truly, truly). Thus he confirmed that he, the one whom the people then saw, was the very same person prior to Abraham’s birth. (See the Notes section on John 8:58.) Furious that Jesus claimed to predate Abraham and, by implication, to be from the infinite past, the unbelieving Jews picked up stones to hurl at him. He, however, went into hiding and left the temple precincts. (John 8:57-59)

Notes:

Based on different meanings for some of the Greek terms, the obscure statement in John 8:25 has been variously rendered.

The Greek word arché usually means “beginning.” When understood adverbially, the expression tén archén, has been defined to mean “essentially,” “at all,” and “all the time.”

The Greek term hóti means “that” or “because,” whereas hó ti denotes “whatever” and “whoever” but can also signify “what.”

In Greek, the word for “and” (kaí) may additionally mean “even” or “also.”

When Jesus’ words are translated “that I am even speaking to you at all,” they are commonly construed as a question, “[How is it] that I am even speaking to you at all?” To preserve the meaning “beginning” for arché requires adding the preposition “from” or “at” and changing the present tense Greek word for “I speak” or “I say” (laló) to the past tense (“whatever [or what] I said to you from the beginning”). Taking the words tén archén as being used adverbially and meaning “essentially,” “fundamentally,” or “basically” does not require supplying additional words or changing the verb from the present tense to the past tense. Therefore, the preferable sense appears to be, “Basically, what I am also saying to you.”

In the left margin of an early papyrus manuscript (P66, probably from the second century), the words eipon hymin (“I told you”) appear and are meant for insertion before tén archén. By supplying “from,” the text (with the insertion) would read, “I told you [from] the beginning what I am also saying to you.”

There are manuscript readings of John 8:38 that do not qualify the second mention of “father” with the adjective “your.” This is the reason for the following renderings: “You should do what you have heard from the Father.” (NRSV) “Then do what you have heard from the Father.” (NAB) Contextually, these renderings, however, do not fit the subsequent objection, “Our father is Abraham.”

For many centuries, the expression “I am” (egó eimi [in John 8:58]) repeatedly has been linked to Exodus 3:14, where the same words appear in the Septuagint. The Exodus passage relates to the time God revealed his unique name (YHWH) to Moses. The words egó eimi, however, do not constitute the complete thought in the Septuagint, but the Almighty is quoted as saying, egó eimi ho ón (“I am the One Who Is” or “I am the Being”). Then, what Moses is to say to the Israelites is not a repetition of egó eimi but of ho ón (ho ón apéstalkén me prós hymás; “the One Who Is has sent me to you”).

Like “I am” or “it is I,” the Greek egó eimi often is the expression individuals used to identify themselves. At the time confusion existed about his identity, the former blind man who had received sight through Jesus is quoted as telling others, egó eimi (“I am,” meaning that he was indeed the same person as the man who had previously been blind). (John 9:9) Similarly, when the disciples were frightened upon seeing what they imagined to be a phantom or a ghost walking on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus is represented as identifying himself with the words, egó eimi mé phobeísthe (“I am [It is I]; fear not”). (Mark 6:50)

In keeping with common use, John 8:58 may be understood to mean that Jesus identified himself as being the very same person (the unique Son of God) before Abraham’s birth as he then was among the existing generation. Therefore, an appropriate rendering that preserves the meaning of “I am” for egó eimi would be, “I am [from] before Abraham existed.” This would harmonize with Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday and today, and into the ages [to come].” Other places in John 8, where “I am” appears, also point to the true identity of Jesus.

The Blind Man (John 9:1-41)

Upon seeing a man blind from birth, the disciples asked Jesus whether the reason for his condition was his own sin or that of his parents. Their question reflected the common (but erroneous) view about the afflicted and suggests that it interfered with their looking upon him with compassion, wanting him to have sight. It appears that they had not grasped the lesson contained in the book of Job that the illnesses or other afflictions individuals may experience are not a valid reason for concluding that they are guilty of serious sin. Correcting their wrong view, Jesus indicated that the man’s blindness was not to be attributed to his sin or that of his parents, adding that it was that the “works of God” would be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) The condition in which the man found himself provided the occasion for a marvelous work of God to be seen. This would be the work of granting him sight, which work could not have been accomplished through human power or ability.

Indicating that it was then the time for carrying out this work of God, Jesus continued, “We must [I must, according to many extant manuscripts] work the works of him who sent me [sent us, according to the earliest extant manuscripts (P66 and P75)] as long as it is day. The night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the world’s light.” (John 9:4, 5) The night that lay ahead was the period of darkness that would see Jesus being arrested, abused, and killed, causing the disciples to scatter out of fear. Before the arrival of that dark day, opportunities continued to exist for doing God’s work. As the light of the world or among the people, Jesus brought enlightenment, opening the eyes of the blind both in a literal and a spiritual sense.

He then proceeded to do the work of his Father. After spitting on the ground, Jesus took the moistened soil, placed the clay he had made on the man’s eyes, and instructed him to wash in the Pool of Siloam. The account provides the meaning of the name “Siloam” (“Sent forth”), suggesting that the miracle had been accomplished through the one who had been sent forth. (John 9:6, 7; see http://bibleplaces.com/poolofsiloam.htm for pictures of and comments about Pool of Siloam.)

When neighbors or acquaintances and others who were aware of the former blind man’s begging saw him, they thought that he might be the same person. Certain ones, however, concluded that he was just a man who resembled him in appearance. The former blind man is quoted as identifying himself with the words, “I am” (egó eimi) or “It is I.” In response to the question about how he came to have sight, he told them what Jesus had done and how his having washed in the Pool of Siloam as Jesus had instructed him led to his being able to see. Instead of rejoicing with the man about his enjoyment of sight, the questioners reflected a negative attitude toward his benefactor, not even mentioning his name when asking, “Where is he?” “I do not know,” the former blind man answered. (John 9:8-12)

The man’s blindness had been cured on the Sabbath. Therefore, the questioners led him to the Pharisees, with the apparent intent of determining whether a wrong had been committed. When the Pharisees questioned him how he had gained his sight, the man explained that Jesus had made clay and put it on his eyes and that, upon washing it off, he could see. Certain ones of the Pharisees concluded that Jesus could not be from God, for he did not observe the Sabbath. Others, however, found it hard to accept how a sinner could effect such a miracle, resulting in a division among them. (John 9:13-16)

They asked the man about his view of the one who had opened his eyes. He replied, “He is a prophet.” Not wanting to accept the evidence, the unbelieving Jews summoned the man’s parents, asking them whether he was their son who was blind at birth and how it happened that he could see. They acknowledged him to be their son who was born blind but disclaimed any knowledge about how he had been cured and who had brought it about. The parents added that their son was of age and would be able to answer for himself. Out of fear that they could otherwise be treated as outcasts, they limited their comments to the condition of their son at birth. Among the Jews generally, it had become known that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be expelled from the synagogue. (John 9:17-23)

For a second time, the Pharisees summoned the man. “Give glory to God,” they demanded. “We know that this man is a sinner.” The expression “Give glory to God” constituted a solemn charge for him to tell the truth. Although the Pharisees had asserted that they knew Jesus to be a sinner, the man courageously declared that this is something he did not know. What he did know was that he had been blind, but (as he said) “I can now see.” (John 9:24, 25)

Again the Pharisees asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” Boldly, the man replied, “I told you already, and you did not hear [responsively]. Why do you want to hear [everything] again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” (John 9:26, 27)

Irritated, they responded abusively to him, saying, “You are a disciple of that one [disparagingly refusing to call Jesus by name], but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know from where this one is.” (John 9:28, 29)

Not allowing himself to be intimidated, the man replied courageously, “This is something amazing, You do not know from where he is, and he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he listens to one who is godly and does his will. From the [past] age[s], never has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. If he were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.” (John 9:30-33)

Unable to give an answer to the man’s sound reasoning and greatly provoked, they reviled him, saying, “You were fully born in sins, and you are teaching us?” Their angry reply indicated that they considered his having been blind at birth as a reason to despise him as a sinner who had no right to express himself in the manner he did. The Pharisees then expelled him, declaring him to be an outcast. (John 9:34)

Upon hearing that they had expelled him, Jesus looked for the man and found him, providing him with the spiritual help and comfort that he needed. He asked him whether he believed in the Son of Man (Son of God, according to many later manuscripts). Although the man had declared his faith in Jesus as a prophet who had come from God, he did not then know him as the Son of Man or the Son of God, the promised Messiah. Therefore, he asked, “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in him?” “You have seen him,” said Jesus, “and he who is speaking with you is that one.” “I believe, Lord,” replied the man and prostrated himself, thereby acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son and his Lord. (John 9:35-38)

Jesus had come into the world of mankind for judgment, that the blind would see and that the sighted might become blind. This judgment, based on how individuals responded to Jesus, revealed whether they wanted to do God’s will. Those who did see were persons who imagined themselves to be sighted and to whom others looked for guidance. The blind, though including the physically blind, primarily were persons who longed for a clearer vision of God and a closer relationship with him. (John 9:39) These formerly blind ones put faith in Jesus and gained clear spiritual vision, whereas those who thought of themselves as sighted rejected him, resulting in even greater spiritual blindness in their case.

Jesus’ words prompted certain Pharisees who had been listening to ask incredulously, “We, too, are not blind, [are we]?” “If you were blind [unable to perceive],” said Jesus, “you would have no sin. Now, however, you say, ‘We see,’ [so] your sin remains.” (John 9:40, 41) Had they sensed a lack within themselves respecting their relationship to God, they could have come to see their error, ceasing to be unbelievers. Their previous unbelief would have been due to ignorance and could have been forgiven. (Compare 1 Timothy 1:12, 13.) When, however, they insisted that they did see, they could not be freed from their sin, for they had deliberately chosen to continue in unbelief.

The Caring Shepherd (John 10:1-21)

The opening verse of chapter 10 does not introduce a change in location. Accordingly, it must have been in the presence of his disciples, the former blind man, the unbelieving Pharisees, and others that Jesus illustrated his personal concern for his followers.

He likened himself to a caring shepherd and his fellow Jews as sheep in an enclosure. “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you,” he solemnly declared. “He who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in another way is a thief and a robber. He, however, who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him, the doorkeeper opens. And the sheep listen to his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought all of his own out [of the enclosure], he goes in front of them, and the sheep follow him, for they recognize his voice. A stranger, however, they will not follow but will flee from him, for they do not recognize the voice of strangers.” (John 10:1-5)

The unbelieving Pharisees and other religious leaders in the Jewish community had seized a position in relation to their fellow Jews (the “sheep”) that was not divinely approved. The manner in which certain Pharisees had treated the cured blind man was comparable to the actions of a thief and a robber. When expelling him, they deprived him of any acceptable standing in the Jewish community. Like a robber who has no regard for his victim when resorting to violence to seize what he wants, the religious leaders abused the former blind man with hateful words and stole his reputation from him.

It was common for several shepherds to shelter their flocks for the night in an enclosure, where a doorkeeper would guard the sheep. In the morning, the shepherds would arrive, calling each one of their own sheep by name. The sheep would then follow their shepherd as he led them out to pasture. A stranger could not get them to follow him, but they would run away from him, especially upon hearing their own shepherd calling. The sheep did not recognize anyone else’s voice.

Whereas all the Jews professed to be God’s people, not all recognized the voice of Jesus as being that of their divinely appointed shepherd. Only those who listened to him proved to be his sheep, and they followed him, letting his example and teaching guide their course. Those with genuine faith in him paid no attention to the voice of others who presumed to speak for God.

John 10:6 indicates that Jesus’ words were primarily directed to the unbelieving Pharisees, with the reference to “them” applying to the group of Pharisees mentioned in John 9:40. They, however, did not understand what he had said to them.

After a solemn introductory “Amen, amen, I say to you,” Jesus next compared himself to the “door of the sheep.” (John 10:7) Whether this is an allusion to a different enclosure out in the field where the flock is pastured cannot be determined. In the case of such an enclosure, the shepherd would lie down in the opening at night and, like a door or gate, keep intruders out.

The ones to whom Jesus referred as thieves and robbers would have been those who falsely claimed to represent God. (John 10:8; see the Notes section for additional comments.) These men could have included false prophets and false messiahs, who deceived many and led them to their ruin. The genuine sheep, as Jesus added, did not listen to them.

The Son of God is the “door,” making it possible for those with faith in him to come into a relationship with him and his Father and to continue to have access to him. The “sheep” who enter this door by believing in Jesus would be “saved” or delivered from sin. Liberated from sin, they would enjoy true freedom, their condition being comparable to that of sheep which are not confined but can enter and exit through a gate. Like sheep whom a shepherd leads to pasture and water, Jesus would provide spiritual abundance for believers and look out for their welfare. (John 10:9)

The thief, whose actions the abusive religious leaders had imitated, would come only to “steal and slaughter and destroy.” Ruin would come to anyone who blindly followed the unbelieving Pharisees. This was the very opposite respecting Jesus’ coming. He came so that believers might have life and have it to the full, enjoying the real life of an enduring relationship with him and his Father. (John 10:10)

Jesus identified himself as the good shepherd, the shepherd who demonstrates his ultimate concern for the welfare of the sheep by sacrificing his “soul” or life for them. He is not like a hireling who is primarily concerned about receiving his pay for services. A hireling does not own the sheep and does not have the kind of personal interest in their welfare that a shepherd has. When the hireling sees the wolf coming, he looks to his own welfare first and runs away, abandoning the sheep and leaving them for the wolf to seize and scatter. He does not care about what happens to the sheep, because he, as a hireling who works only for pay, has no personal attachment to or genuine interest in them. (John 10:11-13)

The unbelieving Pharisees and other religious leaders proved themselves to be like hirelings, being primarily concerned about their position and maintaining it. They despised the common people, looking down upon them as persons ignorant of the law and burdening them with many regulations that had no basis in the law. (Compare Matthew 23:4; John 7:49; 11:45-48; 12:10, 11.)

In his role as a good shepherd, Jesus knows his sheep, and they know him. The relationship is an intimate one, being like the one Jesus enjoys with his Father. His Father knows him as his beloved Son, and he knows his Father like no one else does, because he is the unique Son. For the “sheep” that are dear to him, Jesus said that he would lay down his “soul” or life. (John 10:14, 15)

At the time Jesus spoke about giving up his life, all of the “sheep” who recognized him as their shepherd were believing Jews. They, however, were not to be his only sheep. He had other sheep who were not in the same enclosure or not members of the “house of Israel.” (Compare Matthew 15:24.) These future sheep he would also lead. They would listen to or respond to his voice and, with the Jewish believers, come to be one flock, following him as their one shepherd. (John 10:16; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Jesus enjoyed his Father’s love because he delighted to do his will and that included sacrificing his “soul” or life for the sheep. Although he would give up his life, he would receive it again. The surrender of his life would not come about based on any human determination to have him killed, but he would lay it down of his own accord. His Father had granted him the power or right to lay down his life and to receive it again. Jesus referred to this “power” as having been given him on the basis of his Father’s commandment or authoritative decree. Therefore, his resurrection was certain. (John 10:17, 18)

Jesus’ words resulted in a division among those who heard them. Many concluded that he was a demonized madman, and they could not understand why anyone would listen to him. Others, however, did not believe Jesus’ words to be the expressions of a demonized man. They found it impossible to conclude that a demon could open the eyes of the blind. (John 10:19-21)

Notes:

For John 10:8, the manuscript reading commonly found in printed texts is, “All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them.” The words “before me” are missing in a number of early manuscripts, and “all” is not found in one fifth-century manuscript.

It is of note that, in John 10:16, Jesus did not refer to the “other sheep” as being in a particular fold or enclosure. Whereas he had been sent to none but the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” many others outside the “house of Israel” later responded to his voice (conveyed through his disciples), with all of them coming to enjoy the same status as his “sheep” or beloved followers. (Matthew 15:24; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11)

In view of the fact that the former blind man had been declared an outcast, he must have been greatly strengthened and uplifted upon hearing that Jesus deeply cared for him, even being willing to give up his life for him.

Continued Activity in and Near Jerusalem and Other Areas of Judea

John 10:22 starts a new narrative about another confrontation Jesus faced, which occurred at the Festival of Dedication (Hanukkah), about two months after the Festival of Tabernacles. During the intervening period, Jesus’ activity appears to have continued in and near Jerusalem and in other areas of Judea.

Luke 10:1-13:21 seems to relate events taking place during this intervening period. According to Luke 9:51-53, Jesus and his disciples passed through Samaria on their way to Jerusalem. The next location mentioned in the account is the home of Martha and Mary, which was located in Bethany. This village was about two miles from Jerusalem. (Luke 10:38, 39; John 11:18) Then, in Luke 13:22, it is stated that Jesus was again on his way to Jerusalem, which seems to have been for the Festival of Dedication mentioned in John 10:22. If the narrative in Luke follows a chronological order, this would place the events related in Luke 10:1-13:21 between the Festival of Tabernacles and the Festival of Dedication, provided that the two trips to Jerusalem mentioned are correctly identified as having taken place for the two festivals mentioned in John 7:2 and 10:22.

The 70 (or 72) Sent Out (Luke 10:1-24)

As he had earlier sent out the 12 apostles by twos, Jesus did so with the 70 (or, according to other manuscripts, 72). Included among them likely were Matthias and Joseph (Barsabbas, also called Justus). (Compare Acts 1:21-23.) The 70 or 72 disciples were to do a preparatory work in the villages and towns which Jesus planned to visit personally. Considerable potential existed for an ingathering of many disciples. Because there were then only a few available workers, Jesus urged those whom he sent forth to petition his Father, the master of the harvest, to send out more workers into his harvest. Not everyone, however, would welcome his disciples. On account of those who would oppose, the disciples would be like sheep that Jesus had sent out among wolves. (Luke 10:1-3)

When going from town to town and village to village, the disciples were not to carry a money bag, a pouch for supplies, or an extra pair of sandals. As they traveled, they were not to greet anyone whom they met on the way. In that culture, a greeting was not limited to a few words said while passing but involved a prolonged interchange. Therefore, their not engaging in this kind of greeting was indicative of the urgency and importance of the work Jesus had commissioned them to do. (Luke 10:4)

Upon entering a home where hospitality had been extended, they were first to wish for peace (shalom) to come upon it. This would be an expression for all in the house to enjoy a state of well-being. A “son of peace” would be a man who was favorably disposed to the message the disciples proclaimed and desired the security and well-being that resulted from an approved relationship with the Most High. About a householder who proved to be such, Jesus said to his disciples, “Your peace shall rest upon him.” The responsive individual would come to enjoy the same kind of peace or spiritual well-being as they did. If the owner of the house did not manifest himself to be a “son of peace,” the disciples were not to allow themselves to become troubled, but the peace they had wished for the household would return to them. (Luke 10:5, 6)

In whatever home they were welcomed, they were to eat and drink the things provided and not go to another home, where the accommodations might be preferable. Their staying in the home where hospitality was originally extended would show proper appreciation and also make it easier for others to find them to hear their message. It was appropriate for the disciples to receive food, drink, and lodging, for a worker is worthy of his wage. (Luke 10:7)

Wherever they were welcomed, the disciples were to eat what was set before them. While there, they were to heal the sick and tell the people that the “kingdom of God” had come near. Jesus, the one through whom the Most High purposed to reign, was then in the midst of the Jewish people, and they had the opportunity to be part of the realm where he is Sovereign. Accordingly, God’s kingdom had come near to them. (Luke 10:8, 9)

In the event they were not welcomed in a particular town, the disciples were to go into its wide or principal streets and declare that even the dust clinging to their feet they would wipe off against its inhabitants. It was customary for Jews, upon coming into the land of Israel, to shake from their feet the dust that had come from outside the land. According to ancient Jewish sources, that dust was considered to be defiling. In the case of the disciples, the act would show that the people had revealed themselves as having no relationship with God and not desiring such. The disciples thus left the place to experience the consequences from the rejection of Christ by its inhabitants, as it had been made known to them that the kingdom of God had drawn near. The very dust the disciples had wiped off against the unresponsive inhabitants would testify that they had chosen to reject the message that had been proclaimed to them. (Luke 10:10, 11)

In the future time of judgment, it would prove to be more bearable for the inhabitants of Sodom in the time of Lot than for the city that had rejected the message about the kingdom of God. (Luke 10:12) The people of Sodom did not have the opportunity to hear what the unresponsive Israelite city did and so were less accountable for their actions. Therefore, they would not face as severe a judgment. (Compare Luke 12:47, 48.)

Jesus then pronounced “woe,” grief, or distress for the Galilean cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida, where he had performed many miracles. If the non-Israelite inhabitants of the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon had witnessed the same works of power, they, in the distant past, would have repented, making visible expression thereof by putting on sackcloth and seating themselves in ashes. Therefore, it would be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for Chorazin and Bethsaida. The judgment would be commensurate with their lesser accountability. (Luke 10:13, 14)

Capernaum, the Galilean city where Peter and Andrew had their home, would not be exalted to heaven, being granted unparalleled honor. It would be debased to the lowest point—Hades or the realm of the dead. This is because the inhabitants of Capernaum witnessed more miracles than many other places and yet the majority of the inhabitants persisted in unbelief. (Luke 10:15)

The disciples represented Jesus. For this reason, when others listened to them, they paid attention to him. Whoever disregarded them, also rejected Jesus and his Father, who had sent him. (Luke 10:16)

When the 70 (or 72) disciples returned, they were overjoyed, telling Jesus that the demons had submitted to them on the basis of his name (the authority that his name represented). He knew that, through his death, the powers of darkness would be defeated. (Compare Colossians 2:15.) No longer could people be kept in a state of involuntary enslavement through fear of what malevolent powers in a superterrestrial realm could do to them. (Compare Hebrews 2:14, 15.) Therefore, he could speak of seeing Satan as having fallen from heaven like lightning. (Luke 10:17, 18)

The disciples had nothing to fear from the powers of darkness. Jesus had granted them authority to trample upon malevolent powers comparable to poisonous serpents and scorpions and, in fact, over all the power of the satanic enemy. No harm could come to them from that source. The disciples, however, had greater reason for rejoicing than the fact that malign spirits had been made subject to them. Their names had been written in heaven. This meant that they would continue to enjoy God’s favor, aid, and blessing. (Luke 10:19, 20)

In that “hour” or at that time, Jesus, under the impulse of holy spirit, was moved to thank his Father that he had hidden the precious spiritual treasures of knowledge from the “wise and the learned” and had revealed them to “babes,” persons who enjoyed no particular prominence or distinction. Among those who were regarded as insignificant, Jesus’ words found hearing ears. In disposition, they were receptive to the Son of God and the message he proclaimed. It pleased his Father to favor them with responsive hearing, allowing those who regarded themselves as wise and learned to continue in their blind state of unbelief. (Luke 10:21, 22)

The Father had committed “all things” relating to having his approval to his Son. Jesus truly knew his Father as no one else did. This is because he is the unique Son, the intimate one whom his Father alone fully knows. Accordingly, in a way that no one else could, the Son revealed the Father to whomever he chose to do so. All to whom Jesus revealed his Father came to know him as persons having an approved relationship with him as his beloved children. It was to those who repented of their sins and came to acknowledge him as the Christ, the Son of God, that Jesus chose to reveal his Father. (Luke 10:22)

Turning to his disciples, Jesus spoke privately to them, telling them that their eyes were fortunate because they could see. Their vision was not obstructed like that of the “wise and learned” who persisted in unbelief. Indicating how favored his disciples were, he told them that many prophets and kings (including David, Hezekiah, Josiah, and other faithful ones) wanted to see what they beheld and to hear what they heard. This is because the devoted prophets and faithful kings looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, whereas the disciples enjoyed close association with him, heard his teaching, and experienced his compassion and love. The disciples actually saw what the prophets and kings wanted to see but did not. (Luke 10:23, 24)

Notes:

In Matthew 9:37, 38, Jesus expressed the thought about petitioning the “master of the harvest” (Luke 10:2) upon seeing the helpless condition of the crowds, who were like sheep without a shepherd.

When sending out the 12 apostles and the 70 (or 72) disciples, Jesus told them that he was sending them out as sheep among wolves. In Matthew 10:16, the term for “sheep” is the plural form of próbaton. Most manuscript readings of Luke 10:3 have the plural form of arníon, which designation can refer to a lamb, a ram, or a sheep of any age.

Jesus’ instructions to the 12 apostles and the 70 (or 72) disciples about entering a home or a town and leaving an unresponsive place are similar. (Matthew 10:12-15; Luke 10:6, 11, 12)

Jesus’ pronouncement of “woe” and comments about Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom appear in Matthew 11:20-24 and Luke 10:12-15. In Matthew, the remarks relate to a different occasion and are more detailed about Sodom.

Matthew 10:40, Luke 10:16, and John 13:20 convey the same thought about those who would receive or welcome Jesus’ disciples, but the words appear in different settings.

Matthew 11:25-27 and Luke 10:21-24 contain Jesus’ expression of thanksgiving involving the “wise and learned” and the “babes,” but the setting is different.

Luke 10:23, 24 and Matthew 13:16, 17 relate the same thoughts about seeing and the desire of the prophets. In Luke 10:24, there is also a reference to kings, but Matthew 13:17 mentions “righteous ones.”

Parable of the Compassionate Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)

To test Jesus, a man who knew the Mosaic law exceptionally well asked what he needed to do to inherit eternal life (or life in the age to come). Instead of giving him a direct answer, the Son of God questioned him about the law and how he read what was contained therein. The legal expert focused on two commandments—loving God with one’s whole heart, whole soul, whole strength, and whole mind, and loving one’s neighbor as oneself. (Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 6:5) Jesus acknowledged the correctness of the answer and then added, “Do this, and you will live.” Wanting to justify himself, the man responded, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:25-29; for comments about the possible nature of the justification, see the Notes section.)

In reply, Jesus related a parable or likeness. While on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho, a man became the victim of robbers. They stripped and beat him, leaving him half dead. Coincidentally, traveling the same road, a priest noticed the battered victim but passed by on the opposite side. Later, a Levite likewise did nothing to help the man. On his way, a Samaritan saw him and was moved with compassion. He approached the helpless man, poured oil and wine on his wounds, and then bandaged them. The Samaritan lifted him onto his mount (which would commonly have been a donkey), took him to an inn, and cared for him there. The next day, he gave two denarii (the equivalent of two days’ wages) to the innkeeper, telling him to care for the man and obligating himself to reimburse him for any other costs the care might require. The Samaritan promised to make any additional payment upon his return. (Luke 10:30-35; see the Notes section for other comments.)

Jesus then asked the questioner about who of the three had proved himself to be the neighbor of the one who had fallen among the robbers. Seemingly, he could not bring himself to say, “the Samaritan” (one whom he would not have regarded as belonging to God’s people), but replied that it was the one who had dealt mercifully. Applying the point of the parable, Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:36) In this manner, he transformed the question, “Who is my neighbor?” into one stressing personal accountability, Am I proving myself to be a neighbor to others, particularly those in need?

Notes:

The next event narrated in the account took place in Bethany, a short distance from Jerusalem. This could suggest that Jesus was questioned in the general vicinity.

There are a number of possibilities about how the legal expert wanted to justify himself. (Luke 10:29) Perhaps he did not believe that Jesus’ response had settled the question but merely called attention to what he already knew. In that case, he would have been justifying the reason for asking the question. Another possibility is that he wanted to justify that he was truly doing what the law required, with the precise identification of the neighbor serving to confirm this. So it may be that he wanted Jesus to define the term “neighbor” in a very specific or limited sense.

In the first century, travelers had to reckon with dangers from highwaymen. (2 Corinthians 11:26) The narrow road between Jerusalem and Jericho passed ravines, cliffs, and caves, and provided numerous locations for robbers to conceal themselves and then quickly to descend upon their victims.

Jesus did not identify the man who fell among robbers as a Jew, a Samaritan, or a Gentile, but simply represented him as a man who was traveling from the elevated city of Jerusalem down to Jericho. (Luke 10:30) Likely the legal expert thought of him as being a fellow Jew.

Whether the priest and the Levite were coming or going to Jerusalem is not specified in the parable.

In view of their being in God’s service in a special way, priests and Levites would have been expected to be more responsive to the needs of others than would the general populace. Jesus provided no reason for the failure of the priest and the Levite. This left it up to the questioner to come up with any justification (fear of possible attack if they lingered in the area, avoidance of ceremonial defilement if the man was dead, or the belief that the victim had rightly experienced divine judgment for his sin).

In the case of the Levite, the expression “having come and having seen” may mean that Jesus represented him as arriving at the location, approaching to take a closer look, but afterward doing nothing to relieve the half-dead man and passing by on the other side. (Luke 10:32)

The enmity existing between the Jews and the Samaritans would have been an excuse for inaction. This feature of the parable makes the point about what constitutes a neighbor even more forceful. The book of Sirach, translated from Hebrew into Greek in the second century BCE, reflects the kind of animosity that existed. “My whole being loathes two nations, the third is not even a people: Those who live in Seir and Philistia, and the degenerate folk in Shechem [the Samaritans].” (Sirach 50:25, 26, NAB)

Olive oil served to soften and soothe bruises and welts. Wine, with its antiseptic qualities, proved useful for cleansing open wounds.

In Bethany at the Home of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42)

The village to which Jesus next went with his disciples was Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem. Here Martha extended hospitality in her home. (Luke 10:38; John 11:1, 18)

Focused on preparations for her guests, Martha attended to her many tasks, while her sister Mary seated herself at Jesus’ feet and listened to his teaching. This greatly disturbed Martha, as she felt that her sister should be helping her to accomplish what needed to be done. When she felt overwhelmed and anxious about everything that had been left for her to do, Martha expressed her feelings to Jesus, saying to him: “Lord, does it not concern you that my sister has left me alone to serve? So tell her to help me.” (Luke 10:39, 40)

In response, Jesus said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but of one thing [there] is need. Mary, then, chose the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41, 42) This reply may be understood to mean that the essential was the more valuable spiritual provision. The material ministering had so worried and distracted Martha that she had lost out on the truly good portion, which Mary had chosen. Unlike a meal that only satisfies a need for a short time, the sustaining power of a spiritual provision is not temporary.

According to another manuscript reading, Jesus said that “of a few things [there] is need, or of one.” This may mean that a few things were essential for a meal, but the one thing of greater value was the spiritual provision, the part that Mary had chosen.

This was not a criticism of Martha’s hospitality but a loving reminder that worries and concerns about material provisions should not be allowed to become so distracting as to forfeit spiritual benefits. They were the words of one who deeply cared about Martha. According to John 11:5, “Jesus loved Martha and her sister.”

Prayer (Luke 11:1-13)

The intimacy Jesus expressed in his relationship with his Father must have deeply impressed his disciples and would have been especially noticeable in his prayers. This may have prompted a number of the disciples to want to know how to draw closer to the heavenly Father and to express themselves in their own prayers. On one occasion, after he had finished praying, one of his disciples (probably a newer disciple who had not heard his earlier teaching) approached him and, also speaking for others, asked that he teach them to pray, just as John the Baptist had taught his disciples. (Luke 11:1) In response, Jesus repeated what he had said earlier (in what has come to be commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount).

According to the oldest extant manuscripts, prayer is addressed to the Father. Many later manuscripts read, “Our Father who [is] in the heavens,” as does Matthew 6:9. When directing their petitions to the Father, those praying would be expressing themselves as members of the family of his beloved children. (Luke 11:2)

The petition that God’s name be hallowed or sanctified could be a plea for him to make himself known as the holy God through a direct intervention in the affairs of humankind or an appeal that the number of people who honor him (the bearer of the name) would continue to increase. It is likely that the petition is directly related to the next one, “Your kingdom come.” (Luke 11:2) This suggests that the hallowing of God’s name relates to the sanctifying of his own name, making himself manifest as Sovereign by revealing his power. (Compare Ezekiel 38:23.)

Asking for God’s kingdom to come would mean praying for his sovereign will to be expressed. The ultimate result would be that competing demands from other rulerships would cease to exist. (Compare Daniel 2:44) In the world of mankind, believers have an alien status, for they are in the realm where God reigns by means of his Son. Their loyal submission to God’s will can result in suffering for them. To persons who are part of the world that is in a state of rebellion against God, believers may come to be objects of intense hostility. Therefore, the appeal for the kingdom to come expresses the believer’s desire for all the problems associated with disregard for God’s will to end.

The petition about being given our bread “according to the day [each day or day by day]” probably is to be understood as being for the needed or the essential sustenance for the day. (Luke 11:3) There is uncertainty about the Greek expression epioúsios that is linked to “bread.” Even Origen (185? to 254? CE) had not heard this word used in common speech or seen it in other writings. Therefore, he concluded that it was a coined expression. In association with bread, the words including epioúsios have been rendered, “the food we need” (CEV), “the bread we need” (Phillips) “our bread for the coming day” (Wuest), and “our daily bread” (NAB, NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB).

Sin is a failure to reflect the image of God in thought, word, or deed. It is an offense against him and frequently also a transgression against a fellow human. The petition to be forgiven of sin is coupled with an acknowledgment of a forgiving spirit. The heavenly Father is willing to forgive in a large way all who repentantly turn to him. Therefore, in imitating his compassionate example, the petition includes, “for also we forgive everyone who is in debt to us” (on account of having sinned against us).

For one not to be brought into temptation would include being strengthened to resist temptation and to be shielded from circumstances beyond one’s strength to endure. Many manuscripts add, “but deliver us from the evil [or the evil one].” To be delivered from “evil” would mean to be safeguarded from anything that could plunge one into sin, interfering with maintaining an approved relationship with the heavenly Father. If the meaning is the “evil one” or the devil, this would be a petition to be protected from becoming his victim as one induced to follow a God-dishonoring course. (Luke 11:4)

By means of a likeness or parable, Jesus next stressed the importance of persevering in prayer. A man woke up his friend at midnight, requesting that he lend him three loaves of bread. Unexpectedly, one of his friends had arrived from a journey, and he had nothing to offer him to eat. The one whom he had disturbed told him not to trouble him, for the door had already been locked, he and his children were in bed, and he was in no position to get up and give him anything. Although he would not respond to the request on the basis of friendship, Jesus did say that he would do so because of his friend’s persistence. (Luke 11:5-8)

On account of the slow means of travel available in ancient times and unfavorable conditions along the way, guests from distant parts often arrived late at night. Not to give them something to eat would have been considered a serious breach of customary hospitality. In small homes, the whole family would sleep in one room. Therefore, someone’s getting up in the middle of the night to respond to a request for bread would have disturbed everyone.

Applying the parable, Jesus gave the admonition to persist in asking, seeking, and knocking. The one asking would receive, the one seeking would find, and the one knocking would get a response. (Luke 11:9, 10) This is a general principle. A request cannot be granted without first being made. Lost items cannot be found if no effort is made to look for them. The door is not opened to a person who does not knock.

No father among those to whom Jesus spoke would have handed a serpent to a son who asked for a fish or given him a scorpion if he requested an egg. So if flawed (literally, “bad” or “evil”) fathers know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more so will the heavenly Father “give holy spirit to those asking him!” (Luke 11:11-13) It is inconceivable that a father who had concern for his children would give them something harmful instead of needed food. Therefore, the heavenly Father would give only what is good, and his answers to prayers would always be in the best interests of those who persevere in prayer.

All appropriate prayer is offered with the understanding that God’s will be done. While not in every case corresponding to the petitioner’s request, the answer always will be in harmony with God’s love. The heavenly Father is not a reluctant giver who must be persuaded to respond, but those who pray rightly demonstrate earnestness, sincerity, and faith through persistence in their supplications. God’s giving holy spirit would include strengthening and sustaining those in distress by means of his spirit and providing them with his spirit’s guidance and motivating power to resist temptation and maintain upright conduct.

Jesus’ Response to Misrepresentation and Unbelief (Luke 11:14-36)

According to the belief of the multitude, demon possession caused a certain man to be mute. Whether Jesus effected the cure and expressed himself in a manner that accommodated the common view or whether this involved an actual case of demon possession cannot be determined with certainty. When Jesus expelled the demon or freed the man from the agent responsible for his muteness, he could speak, and the many people who witnessed this were amazed. Certain ones, however, blasphemed Jesus, maintaining that he expelled demons by Beelzebul (Beelzebub), the ruler of the demons or the devil. Others, wanting to test Jesus, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. They wanted to see some spectacular sign from heaven that they felt was needed to establish whether he was the promised Messiah. (Luke 11:14-16; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Aware of the thinking of those who persisted in unbelief, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself becomes desolated, and house falls upon house. If, then, Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?” This should have caused those who misrepresented Jesus as being in league with the demons to think seriously. Divisions or rifts cause ruin, as when one house collapses on another house. It was inconceivable that Satan would be working against himself, destroying his own realm. (Luke 11:17, 18)

If the casting out of demons could be used as evidence that one was in league with Beelzebul (Beelzebub), this would raise a serious question, By whom did the “sons” of Jesus’ opposers exorcise demons? It is likely that these “sons” would have been disciples of the unbelieving Pharisees. Their own followers thus condemned them, exposing the inconsistency of the judgment they had made about Jesus’ works of power. (Luke 11:19)

The Son of God then continued, “But if I cast out the demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” (Luke 11:20) An act accomplished by the “finger of God” denotes one that is effected by God’s power. Through the working of divine power, Jesus revealed himself to be the promised Messiah. Therefore, in him as the king to whom his Father had granted authority and power, the reign of God had come. Jesus’ powerful works confirmed that he was in possession of God-given royal authority.

Whenever a well-armed strong man guards his own courtyard, intruders could not enter his house. Therefore, his possessions would be safe. If, however, someone with greater strength came and overpowered him, he would be stripped of his protective armor and deprived of his possessions. (Luke 11:21, 22) Accordingly, Jesus’ powerful works demonstrated that he had far greater authority than existed in the realm of darkness, for all injurious elements had to yield to his command.

In view of Jesus’ great God-given authority, the wise course would have been for individuals to take a firm stand on his side. There was no middle ground. As Jesus said, “The one not with me is against me, and the one not gathering with me is scattering.” (Luke 11:23)

Jesus made use of a common view about unclean spirits to illustrate the sad spiritual condition that existed among the people. Upon leaving a man, an unclean spirit passes through waterless areas in search of a resting place, but does not find one. Therefore, this spirit decides to return to its original home, which it then finds swept clean and well-arranged. (According to numerous manuscripts, the house is also described as “unoccupied.”) Leaving again, the unclean spirit finds seven (a complete number) of other spirits more evil than it is. All these wicked spirits then enter the man and take up permanent residence, and his final condition comes to be worse than the first. (Luke 11:24-26)

In Matthew 12:43-45, the same parable appears and concludes with an application to the “evil generation.” The Israelites had ceased to be enslaved to the kind of idolatry that existed before the Babylonian exile. From that standpoint, their house had been cleaned up and put in order. This, however, did not protect them from being victimized by worse “demons” and coming into an even graver spiritual plight.

Among the influential members of the nation, legalistic views began to crowd out the importance of growth in love, justice, and compassion. The men who exercised teaching authority formulated regulations and commands that went far beyond the requirements of the Mosaic law. This legalism spread like leaven among the people and brought spiritual ruin to them. The scrupulous observance of humanly devised commands interfered with the proper display of love, justice, and mercy. It obscured spiritual vision, making it impossible for the majority to recognize Jesus as God’s Son on the basis of his powerful works, exemplary life, and sound teaching. The hostility that developed among those poisoned to the greatest extent by legalism led to their wanting to kill Jesus.

Besides the few who became Jesus’ disciples, many others were impressed by his works and words. One woman, emotionally moved by what she heard expressed how fortunate the mother was who had given birth to and nursed a son such as he was. Jesus, though, stressed that fortunate or in an enviable state of well-being or happiness are those who hear and heed God’s word. (Luke 11:27, 28)

As the crowds increased in number, Jesus focused on those who wanted to see some spectacular sign to convince them about who he was. He referred to them as an “evil generation,” for they persisted in unbelief despite all the powerful works they had seen. They would not be granted the kind of sign they were seeking. The only sign they would be given would be the “sign of Jonah,” which sign pointed forward to Jesus’ resurrection on the third day after his death. (Luke 11:29)

Just as Jonah had been a sign to the Ninevites, so the Son of Man would be a sign to the evil generation then living (the generation that persisted in unbelief). Jesus contrasted the course of non-Israelites living in the past with that of his fellow Jews. In the judgment to come, “the queen of the south,” by her course of action, would condemn the then-existing generation for their unbelief. She came from a distant land to hear Solomon’s wisdom, but someone greater than Solomon was in their midst, but they paid no attention to him. The people of Nineveh likewise would condemn the unbelief of Jesus’ contemporaries. This is because they believed Jonah and repented, but the majority who saw and heard one greater than Jonah refused to believe him and act accordingly. (Luke 11:30-32)

Jesus’ next words illustrated the seriousness of continuing in spiritual darkness, choosing to act in a manner that is contrary to the purpose for which light or enlightenment is made available. A person does not place a lit lamp in a storage space or under a container but on a lampstand, to provide light for those who enter the house. For the body, the eye serves as a lamp. By means of the eye, the body or the individual perceives everything that light makes visible. Without sight, a person’s world comes to be a world of darkness. Whenever the eye does not function properly, images are distorted or obscured, and the visual perceptions cannot be trusted. (Luke 11:33, 34; regarding Luke 11:33, see the Notes section.)

The Greek word for “simple” is haploús and can denote what is sound or properly focused and, in a moral sense, can mean “straightforward,” “sincere,” “guileless,” and “generous.” When the eye is properly focused and provides clear images, the whole body is filled with light. The manner in which one views matters is a reflection of the inner moral or spiritual condition. Therefore, a distorted or corrupt view, plunges the whole person into a realm of darkness. (Luke 11:34) That was true of those who persisted in unbelief. Their distorted view of Jesus gave evidence of a deep moral and spiritual darkness. He, therefore, called upon those hearing his words to examine themselves, to consider whether the “light” in them was not “darkness.” (Luke 11:35) When the people refused to benefit from the light that Jesus offered, comparable to his putting a lamp on a lampstand, they continued to walk in a realm of darkness.

Only if the whole body or the whole being is filled with light, with no part being in obscuring or distorting darkness, can the individual correctly evaluate the evidence and make wise decisions. The entire being would have the light comparable to what a lamp provides, enabling the individual to see what is needed to follow the right course. (Luke 11:36)

Notes:

It should be noted that Jesus’ mission did not include correcting popularly held views regarding sickness and other afflictions. The people then living could not have comprehended what humans have learned over the centuries since then and will continue to learn. To make himself understood, Jesus had to express himself in terms familiar to the then-existing generation. That required accommodating his parables and responses to their belief system or their limited knowledge. Therefore, it is not always possible to determine whether the accounts in the Scriptures reflect this accommodation or express what the actual situation was.

Clear evidence of accommodation is the parabolic saying about the demon that leaves a man and searches for a resting place as it passes through dry areas devoid of human habitation. It was a common belief that demons had their haunt in desolate places, including towns and cities lying in ruins. To convey an important truth, Jesus made use of this belief when formulating his parable.

In Luke 11:33, the Greek word that designates a storage place or hidden place is krypte, and the related verb krypto means to “hide” or “conceal.” The oldest extant papyrus manuscripts (P45 and P75) do not include the words about the container (módios, meaning “bushel,” “bushel basket,” or “vessel”).

In the Home of a Pharisee (Luke 11:37-54)

After Jesus finished speaking to the crowds, a Pharisee invited him for a meal. The account does not reveal the Pharisee’s objective, but Jesus’ later words suggest that the motive may have been questionable. Jesus, though, did enter the home and reclined to partake of food. (Luke 11:37)

It surprised the Pharisee that Jesus did not first “immerse” (a form of baptízo, meaning “baptize” or “immerse”) before eating. (Luke 11:38) The Pharisee must have been disturbed to see what he would have considered to be a serious violation of the tradition of the elders. According to ancient Jewish sources, immersion was one way to cleanse the hands ceremonially. (Tosefta, Yadayim, 2:3)

Jesus must have noted the Pharisee’s reaction and then spoke about the more important purity. “You Pharisees,” he said, “clean the exterior of the cup and the dish, but your interior is full of greed [or plunder] and badness.” In view of their failure to be primarily concerned about their inner moral condition or their deep inner selves, Jesus spoke of them as “senseless,” and asked them, “Did not the one who made the exterior also make the interior?” The Pharisees would have agreed that God is the Creator of the whole person, including the inmost self. Jesus then exhorted them to give “for alms” the things of the interior, with the result that all things would be clean to them. (Luke 11:39-41) The rightly motivated generous giving in response to needs made the whole person clean. It revealed the purity of the deep inner self, which could not be produced by means of ceremonial cleansing with water.

Jesus then pronounced “woe,” grief, or distress for the Pharisees, as he continued emphasizing where their attention should be directed. They scrupulously tithed mint (an aromatic plant), rue (an herb with bitter gray-green leaves), and a variety of other herbs. (Luke 11:42) Instead of “rue” (péganon, a third-century papyrus manuscript (P45) reads “dill” (ánethon).

With their emphasis on external minutiae, the Pharisees made themselves guilty of failing to manifest the more important justice and “love of God.” As Jesus called to their attention, they were under obligation to practice justice and love. Compassionate care and concern for others should have been the discernible evidence of their love for God. At the same time, they were not to be neglectful about tithing. The Mosaic law did include commands about tithing, and Jesus upheld the law when he added that those things should not be neglected or carelessly overlooked. (Luke 11:42)

Through the tradition of the elders, an extensive body of commands came into existence. These commands went far beyond the requirements of the Mosaic law, and often made it appear to be harsh and unreasonable. There were times when the commands of men interfered with doing just, compassionate, and loving deeds. On an earlier occasion, Jesus used the example of corban to illustrate this. According to the tradition of the elders, a son could not help his needy parents with any part of what he had declared to be “corban” or an offering for God, even though he continued to retain control over the property. (Mark 7:11-13) Similarly, the many traditional stipulations about what constituted work caused the Pharisees to consider the loving and compassionate relief that Jesus brought to the sick and afflicted on the Sabbath as something evil.

“Woe to you Pharisees,” Jesus continued, reproving them for loving the “front seats” in the synagogues and having others greet them in the marketplaces. The front seats faced the audience. They were the seats of honor reserved for synagogue officials and notable guests. Wanting to be known for their godliness, the Pharisees desired to be seen occupying these seats of honor. When passing through the marketplaces, they wanted to be greeted or respectfully acknowledged as pious men. While craving to appear holy in the sight of others, they did not reflect the loving and compassionate disposition and inner purity associated with true godliness. (Luke 11:43)

When again pronouncing woe for them, Jesus likened the Pharisees to unidentifiable burial places over which people walked inadvertently. According to the law, anyone who touched a grave would be ceremonially defiled for seven days. (Numbers 19:16) When likening the Pharisees to unseen graves, Jesus exposed them as being seemingly clean on the outside but internally impure. What they appeared to be in the eyes of others concealed their inner defilement. (Luke 11:44)

One of the legal experts or scribes who heard Jesus’ words objected, “Teacher, the things you say also insult us.” In response, Jesus did not spare exposing those who knew the law well and also declared woe for them. (Luke 11:45, 46)

He accused them of loading the people down with heavy burdens but being unwilling to lift a finger to lighten their load. As persons learned in the law, the scribes should have been concerned about conveying its true meaning and spirit to the people. Instead, they burdened them with many additional regulations that went far beyond what the law required. Although they must have been aware of the oppressive effect the many rules and regulations had on the people, they were unwilling to look at matters reasonably and humanely. As Jesus said, they refused to lift a finger to ease the burden, doing nothing to eliminate unreasonable regulations. (Luke 11:46)

After voicing another expression of woe for them, Jesus called attention to their building of the tombs of the prophets whom their “fathers” or ancestors had killed. It appears that the legal experts felt that they were distancing themselves from the wrongs their forefathers had committed, making amends by giving attention to the tombs of the prophets who had been unjustly killed. They did not, however, give serious consideration to the factors that had given rise to the murderous hatred their ancestors manifested. The building of the tombs was merely an outward act. In disposition, the legal experts did not differ from their forefathers. Their building of the tombs constituted a testimony or an acknowledgment of their link to murderous ancestors. In spirit, the legal experts, despite their building of the tombs, approved of what their forefathers did. (Luke 11:47, 48)

The “wisdom of God” may be understood to mean what God, in his wisdom, expressed through his Son. To the unbelieving generation, he would send prophets and apostles. When killing and persecuting those sent, the people would add to the record of bloodguilt that began with the murder of Abel and continued to be made for centuries thereafter. When the priest and prophet Zechariah spoke out against the people for transgressing God’s law, he was stoned at the order of King Joash and died “between the altar and the sanctuary.” (2 Chronicles 24:20-22) Jesus reference to “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” thus represented all the blood that had been unjustly spilled “from the founding of the world” or from the beginning. The unbelieving generation would be charged with all this blood. This pointed forward to the dreadful calamity associated with the Roman military campaign that totally desolated Jerusalem. (Luke 11:49-51; see the Notes section for additional comments on Luke 11:49)

Another reason the legal experts were to experience woe involved their having taken away the “key of knowledge.” They knew full well what the law said and should have been able to identify the promised Messiah. Among the people, they should have been the first to respond in faith and used their knowledge to promote faith among the people. Instead, they refused to impart the vital knowledge that was available to them, depriving the people of what they needed to know to become part of the realm where God reigns by means of his Son. The experts of the law did not want to enter that realm, and their attitude and actions served to prevent those wanting to enter from actually doing so. (Luke 11:52)

Jesus’ words greatly angered the Pharisees and scribes. In a spirit of hostility, they questioned him about many things, with the intent of trapping him into saying something they could use against him. (Luke 11:53, 54)

Notes:

Ancient Jewish sources contain numerous rules about tithing. The following are examples: A man who wanted to lighten his load by trimming away the leaves of vegetables should not throw them away until he tithed them. (Tosefta, Demai, 4:2) If a man gave his female neighbor a container of food for her to cook for him and he had not added the spices, he should scruple about the tithing of the spices. (Tosefta, Demai, 4:31) If fruits found in the road are not then eaten but are stored for later use, they should be tithed. (Tosefta, Demai, 4:3)

In Luke 11:49, the “wisdom of God” is personified as speaking. The words about sending prophets and apostles parallel those in Matthew 23:34, where Jesus referred to himself as sending “prophets and wise ones and scribes.” As the representative of his Father, Jesus expressed his Father’s wisdom or his Father’s wise purpose.

Leaven of the Pharisees and Proper Fear (Luke 12:1-12)

At a time when a crowd of thousands thronged around him to such an extent that they were stepping on one another, Jesus cautioned his disciples to watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees. He then identified this leaven as hypocrisy. (Luke 12:1)

The Greek word for “hypocrite” (hypokrités) came to be the designation for an actor. In ancient Greek theater, the actors wore large masks by means of which they could also amplify their voices. Therefore, in a negative sense, the term hypokrités came to be applied to persons who played a part, dissembled, or represented themselves outwardly in a manner that concealed their real selves.

Hypocrisy is like leaven, for it will spread in an environment where group acceptance or recognition takes on undue importance or where fear prevails. An ever-increasing number of people will resort to pretense and conceal their real feelings and motives. In the case of the Pharisees, what they represented themselves as being and the esteem in which others came to hold them differed markedly from their real identity.

It appears that Jesus’ next words about things becoming known are linked to hypocrisy. For a time, individuals may be able to conceal their true selves, but exposure does come eventually. (Luke 12:2) According to Matthew 10:26, Jesus expressed the same thought at the time he sent out the twelve apostles. They were not to give in to fear but courageously proclaim the glad tidings about Christ. What they had learned from Jesus when he taught them privately, they would declare publicly. In this way, what had been covered would be uncovered. If the disciples failed to make known the truth to those who deserved to hear it, they would be concealing their identity as Christ’s disciples and thus prove themselves to be hypocrites.

Jesus made the disciples aware of the fact that what they shared with others privately would become known. The teaching may have been conveyed in the dark as if hidden from others under the cover of darkness, but it would become known in the light publicly (as in broad daylight). Though whispered behind closed doors and out of the hearing of others, the message would come to be proclaimed publicly like announcements made from roofs so that all could hear. (Luke 12:3) This would develop because those who heard privately would not keep it to themselves but would talk about it to others, and eventually the word would spread.

Referring to his disciples as “friends,” Jesus implied that they would be exposed to serious danger because of their testimony about him. He did so when admonishing them not to fear those who can merely kill the body but can do nothing more. (Luke 12:4)

God is the one whom the disciples were to fear or for whom they were to have the highest reverential regard. After rendering the body lifeless, he can assign it to Gehenna. (Luke 12:5) For one to be tossed into Gehenna would signify experiencing the dreadful judgment of complete loss of any relationship with the Most High and all the blessings associated therewith. This judgment is final, with no possibility of any change, and is comparable to being thrown into a garbage dump where fires burn continually and maggots consume whatever the flames do not reach. (Compare Isaiah 66:24.)

Jesus next called attention to the certainty of his Father’s remembrance of his disciples, which remembrance assured them of an eternal relationship with him. Five sparrows, which birds people with limited means would eat, could be obtained for two assarii (the equivalent of what a common laborer would have earned after working for one and a half hours). Two sparrows cost one assarion, indicating that the fifth one was free. (Matthew 10:29) Even though these small birds had little commercial value, Jesus added that not one of them is “forgotten before God.” This assured the disciples that his Father would not forget them, for the hairs of their heads were all numbered. To the Most High, everything about them was precious. Making an application, Jesus continued, “Fear not. You are more valuable than many sparrows.” As persons the Almighty highly valued, the disciples had no reason to fear what they might yet have to face from hateful unbelievers. Their eternal future would prove to be secure. (Luke 12:6, 7)

All who confessed being at one with him, acknowledging belonging to him even when faced with grave danger, Jesus (the “Son of Man”) would acknowledge as being united to him as his disciples and friends before the angels of God. This acknowledgment before his Father’s angels would also constitute an acknowledgment before his Father whom these angels serve. (Luke 12:8) If, however, the individual disowned him before men, claiming to have no relationship with him, Jesus would likewise identify that one before God’s angels as not belonging to him. He would completely disown the person. (Luke 12:9)

Whereas the possibility exists of being forgiven for speaking against the Son of Man, blasphemy against the holy spirit is unforgivable. (Luke 12:10) This blasphemy includes denouncing the good that is accomplished through the operation of the holy spirit as originating from an evil source, which is what certain Pharisees did when maintaining that Jesus did powerful works as an agent of Satan. One who blasphemes the holy spirit deliberately and defiantly chooses to pursue a course in opposition to God’s will.

Jesus admonished the disciples to remain fearless, as fear could lead them to be disloyal to him. If taken to synagogues, rulers, or other authorities for questioning, the disciples were not to worry about how they would make their defense. Jesus assured them that the holy spirit would in that “very hour” or at that time teach them what they would need to say. (Luke 12:11, 12) The spirit’s teaching would be in the form of recalling thoughts that would be appropriate for the occasion and expressing them in a manner that would honor the Son of God. The account in the book of Acts reveals that, with God’s spirit operating upon them, the disciples testified about Jesus, recalling and making proper application of passages from the Scriptures. (Acts 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 7:2-56)

Notes:

Jesus did repeat teaching that he had provided on other occasions. The setting, however, may point to a different aspect for a particular principle to which he referred. This appears to be the case about uncovering what had previously been concealed. (Matthew 10:26; Luke 12:2)

Often Jesus repeated the same thoughts, and the wording of the narratives may be similar. The words of Luke 12:3-9 regarding fearlessness in confessing Christ parallel those of Matthew 10:27-33. Matthew 12:31, 32 and Mark 3:28-30 are more detailed about blaspheming the spirit than is Luke 12:10, but the sense is the same. Comments about the aid the holy spirit would provide are found in Matthew 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11, 12; 21:14, 15, and John 14:26.

Warning About Coveting (Luke 12:13-21)

From the crowd, a man spoke up, requesting that Jesus tell his brother to divide the family inheritance with him. The Son of God refused to take sides with the man in the inheritance controversy, saying, “Who set me as judge or arbitrator over you?” According to the Mosaic law, the firstborn received a double portion of the inheritance. (Deuteronomy 21:17) The account does not specify whether this was a factor in the man’s desire for Jesus to intervene nor does it give any indication why the man felt that his brother should divide the inheritance with him. In his response, Jesus stressed guarding against all kinds of covetousness, for the man did desire a considerable portion of what his brother had. De-emphasizing the value of material property, Jesus added that one’s life is not a matter of abundant possessions. (Luke 12:13-15) Great riches cannot be used to preserve one’s life indefinitely and have no bearing on one’s eternal future.

To reinforce his admonition, Jesus related a parable. A certain rich man enjoyed exceptionally abundant yields from his land, but his storage capacity proved to be too limited for his crops. He decided to tear down his storehouses, replacing them with larger ones for his grain and other goods. He would then address his “soul” or himself with the words, “You have many good things stored up for many years [to come]; rest, eat, drink, and rejoice.” (Luke 12:16-19)

The manner in which Jesus formulated the expressions reflected the rich man’s ignoring the uncertainties of life and leaving no room for God in his plans. On this basis, Jesus then referred to God as calling this rich man “senseless” and telling him that the very night in which he had congratulated himself on his plans his soul or life was demanded from him. This left him with the question as to who would come to have the goods he had accumulated. Applying the lesson of the parable, Jesus said that this is what happens to the person who “stores up treasures for himself but is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:20, 21) With the attention focused solely on possessions to secure personal comfort and pleasure, such an individual gives no thought to those in need and so fails to please God as one who uses his abundance to benefit others.

Jesus did not specify how the rich man’s life was threatened. He thus let those who heard his words draw their own conclusions about the various ways in which this could have happened.

Notes:

It is noteworthy that Jesus refused to be made a party in the inheritance dispute but stressed the need for being rich toward God. His example serves as a reproof to those who consider themselves authorized to pass judgments respecting similar matters by virtue of the position they may occupy within a movement professing to be Christian.

The enlargement of underground storage places would have required removing their confining sides. This may explain why Jesus had the rich man plan to tear down his storehouses and then to build larger ones (instead of erecting additional structures).

Anxiety and Fear (Luke 12:22-34)

Just as one’s making the acquisition of riches the all-consuming desire can lead to spiritual ruin, so can undue anxiety about one’s obtaining the essentials for sustaining life. Therefore, Jesus admonished his disciples not to worry about food and clothing, “for the soul is more than food, and the body more than clothing.” One’s soul or life as a person involves more than just having food to eat, and the body is more than an object to be clothed. There is more to life as humans than merely existing to eat and to wear garments. (Luke 12:22, 23; compare Matthew 6:25, where the same thoughts are recorded.)

Jesus exhorted the disciples to consider the ravens. These birds do not sow seed, harvest crops, or own structures for storing food. Nevertheless, they do not suffer want, for “God feeds them.” Through God’s providential care, the birds are able to find food. The disciples would have been able to answer Jesus’ rhetorical question about their worth, acknowledging that they were of far greater value than birds. This should have given them the confidence that the heavenly Father’s concern for them was such that they would be able to procure life’s necessities. “By worrying, who among you,” asked Jesus, “can add a cubit [about 18 inches] to his life span?” The disciples were fully aware that anxiety could not increase the length of their life for the briefest period. If, therefore, they could not do something as insignificant as adding a minuscule fraction to their life span, why, then, should they worry about the rest? (Luke 12:24-26; compare Matthew 6:26, 27, where the same thoughts are expressed.)

As for clothing, the disciples should take note of how the lilies (common flowers) grow. They do not labor nor spin (spin nor weave, according to another manuscript reading). Nevertheless, Jesus, who had seen the splendor of King Solomon’s garments, could say that this wealthy monarch was not as impressively attired as the lilies. These common flowers of the field quickly fade and may on the next day, when dry, be tossed into an oven to start a fire. As God has so beautifully arrayed the short-lived blooms of common flowers, would he not much more so clothe Jesus’ disciples, especially since they are very precious to him? God’s Son referred to the disciples as those of little faith, suggesting that they tended to worry despite the abundant evidence of his Father’s providential care for the creation. (Luke 12:27, 28, which verses repeat the thoughts found in Matthew 6:28-30)

Jesus instructed the disciples not to make what they are to eat and drink the prime object of their seeking or obtaining nor were they to worry. Life’s essentials were the very things the “nations of the world” (the people without knowledge of God) did seek. Their efforts to obtain life’s necessities completely consumed them. The disciples, though, were to remember that their heavenly Father knew what they needed. This should have encouraged them to seek God’s kingdom, confident that all that they truly needed would be given to them. (Luke 12:29-31; note that this is a repetition of Jesus’ earlier teaching [Matthew 6:31-33].)

For the disciples to seek God’s kingdom would mean for them to have an earnest desire to have him as their Sovereign, submitting themselves to do his will, looking to him to bless their efforts to obtain life’s necessities, and maintaining faith in him as the one who would aid them in their time of need. Just as the birds do what they can to find the provisions available to them, Christ’s disciples demonstrate themselves to be willing and exemplary workers, conscientiously using their God-given abilities to make a living. At the same time, they avoid giving in to unproductive worry, as that would call into question their faith in God’s ability to care for them.

In an unbelieving world, disciples of Christ may face difficulties and hardships. At the time Jesus taught his disciples, they were very few in number. The majority of their fellow Israelites had not responded in faith. Being greatly outnumbered, they may well have been apprehensive about what the future might hold for them, especially as they became more aware of the kind of hostility that was directed against Jesus. He, therefore, admonished them not to be afraid. While they appeared to be just a “little flock” of sheep surrounded by many unbelievers, the heavenly Father, in his good pleasure, wanted to give them the kingdom, making them part of the realm where he is Sovereign and granting them all the associated blessings. (Luke 12:32)

In keeping with what God had in store for them, they should focus on giving to those in need. Instead of acquiring extra possessions, they would be selling possessions and, with the funds obtained therefrom, relieve the plight of the afflicted. In this way, they would be making purses for themselves that did not wear out with use, for the heavenly Father would look favorably upon their generous and rightly motivated giving. The record of giving would come to be like a treasure deposited in heaven, which the Most High would richly recompense. This treasure is secure, for no thief can steal it and no moth (in its destructive caterpillar stage) can ruin it. The hearts of the devoted disciples or their affections and desires would be where their treasure is, centered on their heavenly Father and pleasing him. (Luke 12:33, 34, which passage parallels Matthew 6:19-21) For those whose treasure is on earth, their thoughts and actions are not ennobling. They merely exist to eat, drink, and engage in some temporary form of merriment.

Watchful, Faithful, and Disloyal Slaves (Luke 12:35-48)

Jesus exhorted his disciples to be like watchful servants, with their loins girded and their oil lamps lit. To have greater freedom of movement for working, servants would pull their robes between their legs and then tuck the garments under their girdles. After the daylight hours had passed, they relied on their lamps for illumination. God’s Son wanted his disciples to be like servants waiting for their master to return from marriage festivities and to be ready immediately to open the door in response to his knocking. (Luke 12:35, 36)

Jesus pronounced the servants fortunate, happy, or in an enviable state of joy for being prepared to welcome their master. Continuing with a solemn introductory “amen” (truly), Jesus said that the master would honor his watchful servants, having them recline at a table and girding himself to serve them. (Luke 12:37) This would be the manner in which a master would treat his friends and honored guests.

Marriage celebrations could end at various times of the night. Therefore, waiting for the return of the master required that the servants remain awake for many hours, busying themselves with various tasks. If the master arrived in the second watch (between 9:00 p.m. and midnight) or the third watch of the night (between midnight and 3:00 a.m.) and found them awake and watchful, they would indeed be happy. (Luke 12:38)

Reemphasizing the aspect of preparedness, Jesus referred to a householder who would have remained watchful and prevented his house from being broken into if he had known when the thief would arrive. With a direct application to his disciples, Jesus said to them, “You also, be prepared, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” (Luke 12:39, 40) Thus Jesus indicated that there would be no way for anyone to determine just when he would return in glory, requiring that his disciples always be in an acceptable condition regardless of when this might prove to be.

Peter then raised the question, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us or also to all?” Jesus responded with a question, “Who really is the faithful and wise steward whom his master will put in charge over his servants, to give them their [daily] ration at the [appropriate] time?” If that steward, who was also a slave, faithfully discharged the responsibility which he had been given, he would be happy at his master’s arrival. (Luke 12:41-43)

Jesus had entrusted Peter and the other apostles with the responsibility to be teachers of fellow believers and to look out for their spiritual well-being. In subsequent centuries, others in the community of believers have rendered such service. At the time of his return in glory, Jesus will identify all who have ministered faithfully according to his instructions, proving themselves to be loving and caring slaves of their fellow servants. Like the slave of the parable, they would then have abundant reason to be happy. Continuing with the parable, Jesus added that the reward was certain and likened it to the master’s putting the faithful steward in charge of all of his possessions.

In the community of believers, a danger exists that those who are looked to as teachers and for loving and compassionate care and concern will misuse their position. Instead of continuing to minister as slaves, they may take on the role of abusive masters, forgetting their accountability to the Lord Jesus Christ. While they may speak of his coming, their bearing, words, or actions would deny that they really believed that he would return to judge them personally.

In the parable, Jesus spoke of the possibility that the slave or steward would prove to be unfaithful. In his heart or inmost self, he would reason that his master was delaying. Assuming the position of a cruel master, he would deal harshly with fellow servants (both male and female), beating them for not complying with his demands. He would indulge his fleshly desires, eating and drinking to the point of intoxication. (Luke 12:45)

The master would arrive on a day that the abusive steward did not expect and at an hour unknown to him. That worthless slave would then be severely punished (literally, “cut in two” or hacked in pieces), and his portion would be with the unbelievers (those who defiantly persisted in unbelief or unfaithfulness). This is indeed a powerful warning to all who represent themselves as stewards in the service of Christ but who in attitude, word, or deed assume a position of lordship, equating obedience to the unique rules and teachings of their particular movements as constituting loyalty to God and Christ. (Luke 12:46)

In his parable, Jesus referred to other failures on the part of those in his service. He spoke of the slave that understood his master’s will but failed to be in a prepared state and acted contrary to his will. Upon the master’s arrival, that slave would be severely beaten. On the other hand, the slave that did not understand the master’s will but made himself guilty of wrongs deserving punishment would be beaten far less severely. The judgment would be according to the responsibility with which the individual had been entrusted. Much would be required from the one to whom much had been given, and far more would be asked of the one having weighty responsibility. (Luke 12:47, 48)

Jesus’ parables call for sober self-examination. All of us who profess to be his disciples need to think seriously about whether we are prepared to welcome him as his servants who have faithfully labored in his interests, responding with love and compassion to those in need. Ignorance of his will would not shield one from an unfavorable judgment. It is vital that, individually, believers assume personal responsibility for their spiritual lives, making sure that Jesus’ example and teaching serve as a guide in daily living. Whether one’s role may be comparable to that of a steward entrusted with much or a servant with lesser responsibility, all believers need to remain prepared to welcome Christ at his return.

Divisions (Luke 12:49-53)

When Jesus spoke of his coming to start (literally, “cast”) fire on the earth, he may have meant the fire of a refiner. (Luke 12:49) A Messianic prophecy (Malachi 3:2, 3) pointed to his role as a refiner’s fire. His works, his matchless example in the display of love, compassion, and justice, and his teaching functioned like a refiner’s fire. This fire tested the deep inner selves of the people and revealed their attitude and motives. By his words and actions, Jesus exposed who among the people were like the worthless dross of the refining process or the precious metal that could be purified and rendered suitable for the realm where his Father is Sovereign and he is the appointed king.

The fire that Jesus started through his miracles, teaching and example proved to be only the initial phase. His desire was that this fire would burst into full flame. (Luke 12:49) This would happen after his death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven, as his disciples would proclaim the news about him and the message would reach far beyond the borders of Judea, Galilee, Samaria, and nearby regions.

The Son of God knew the suffering that lay ahead for him, which included an agonizing death. He referred to the agony that would culminate in his sacrificial death as a baptism with which he had to be baptized or immersed and added, “And how distressed I am until it is finished!” (Luke 12:50) That baptism had to be completed before the “fire” became an unstoppable blaze, spreading quickly to the distant parts of the Roman Empire.

The result would be serious rifts even among close family members, with some putting faith in Christ and others persisting in unbelief and becoming hostile. Therefore, Jesus indicated that those listening to him should not think that he had come to bring peace to the earth, but rather to cause division. His coming forced individuals to take a stand for or against him. Among five family members, three unbelievers might choose to oppose two believers, or two unbelievers might take their stand against three believers. Families would be divided, with a father against his son, or a son against his father, a mother against her daughter, or a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, or a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (Luke 12:51-53) Earlier, when sending out the twelve apostles, Jesus had also spoken about the divisions that would come about (Matthew 10:34-36), and the language he used parallels the words of Micah 7:6.

Discerning the Time and Taking Action (Luke 12:54-59)

Directing his words to the crowds, Jesus illustrated that they had the capacity to draw sound conclusions on the basis of evidence. Upon seeing a cloud rising in the west, they immediately thought that a rainstorm would come, and it did. This was because the Mediterranean Sea bordered the western coast, and from there the rain-bearing clouds rolled in. Whenever a south wind blew, the people would say that it would get oppressively hot. It would happen, for the hot, dry regions lay to the south. (Luke 12:54, 55; compare the similar thoughts Jesus expressed to the unbelieving Pharisees [Matthew 16:2, 3, according to many extant Greek manuscripts].)

Although the people drew correct conclusions on the basis of appearances relating to the earth and the sky, they did not discern the meaning of the time that had arrived. The Messiah ministered in their midst, teaching and performing works of power. His activity uniquely marked the time. For this reason, Jesus called the people “hypocrites,” for they failed to act according to the evidence and their capacity to evaluate it properly. (Luke 12:56)

He then raised the question, “But why do you not also for yourselves judge [what is] right?” If they could make judgments about other matters, they should have been able to judge rightly concerning him and put their faith in him. (Luke 12:57)

The Son of God then provided an example of sound judgment. While with an accuser on the way to a ruler for judgment, the individual would wisely strive to extricate himself from the dispute. The objective would be to avoid being brought before the judge and then turned over by him to an officer who would enforce imprisonment. Once jailed, the person would have no hope of being released until he had paid the “last lepton” (a coin with the lowest value). In this setting, Jesus’ point about settling a dispute quickly seems to illustrate the importance of making peace with God before the opportunity would no longer be available. (Luke 12:58, 59; the same basic thoughts are also expressed in Matthew 5:25, 26.)

The Urgency of Repentance (Luke 13:1-9)

When certain ones told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, Jesus used the opportunity to stress the urgent need for the people to repent. (Luke 13:1-3)

No reference in the works of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus specifically refers to a slaughter of Galileans in the temple precincts, resulting in their blood being intermingled with that of the sacrificial victims. He does, however, mention an incident in Jerusalem when Pilate’s efforts to quell an uprising led to the loss of many lives. Pilate had sent soldiers in nonmilitary dress among the Jews who had gathered to protest the use of money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct to bring water to the city from a distant stream. When his efforts to dismiss the crowd failed and the people began to reproach him, he gave a predetermined signal to the disguised soldiers. Many Jews perished from the severe blows the soldiers inflicted, and others were wounded. (Antiquities, XVIII, iii, 2; War, II, ix, 4)

The account in Luke 13 does not report why the incident about the Galileans was mentioned to Jesus. His response suggests that those who knew about this occurrence believed the Galileans to have perished on account of their great sin. He raised the rhetorical question as to whether they thought the Galileans who thus suffered were greater sinners than all the other Galileans. His own answer was, “No.” Jesus then stressed what the people should do. “Unless you repent, you likewise will all be destroyed.” This reply implied that the time for repentance would prove to be limited. (Luke 13:1-3)

Jesus then called attention to another incident, asking whether the 18 who were killed when the tower in Siloam fell on them were greater “debtors” (sinners) than all the other inhabitants of Jerusalem. Again, Jesus answered this rhetorical question with his own “No,” and added the same words about repentance. (Luke 13:4, 5)

By means of a parable, he emphasized the need for urgent positive action. A man planted a fig tree in his vineyard, but found no fruit on the tree when the time for harvesting figs came. This prompted him to tell the vinedresser that the barren tree should be cut down, as it had not produced any fruit for three years. The owner felt that it was senseless for the barren tree to waste the ground. (Luke 13:6, 7)

The vinedresser suggested that the tree be left standing for another year and to be fertilized with manure. If it then bore fruit, the tree would remain. “But if not,” the vinedresser said to the owner, “you can cut it down.” (Luke 13:8, 9)

It appears that Jesus here alluded to his activity among the people, with the nation being like the barren fig tree. Fruit associated with repentance was woefully lacking, for the majority persisted in unbelief. The time for Jesus to continue laboring among them would soon end. Only a brief period remained for them to make positive changes and to be recognized as God’s people. If they failed to repent, a severe judgment would follow.

Notes:

For fig trees to be planted in vineyards provided the advantage of having two crops. A good grape harvest could at times offset a poor yield of figs, whereas an abundant crop of figs in other years might compensate for a poor grape harvest.

Fruit trees were subject to taxation. Therefore, unproductive trees were a financial liability.

Healing a Crippled Woman and Teaching with Parables (Luke 13:10-22)

While teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus noticed a woman with a “spirit of feebleness.” The expression “spirit of feebleness” appears to point to the perception that an evil spirit was responsible for her condition. For 18 years, she had been bent over and unable to straighten up. Seeing her, Jesus called her to come to him and said, “Woman, you are released from your feebleness.” When he placed his hands on her, she straightened up and glorified or praised God. (Luke 13:10-13)

Jesus effected this cure on the Sabbath. This aroused the synagogue leader’s indignation, prompting him to voice his objection. He told those assembled that work should only be done on six days and that they should come to be cured on those days and not on the Sabbath. (Luke 13:14)

In his reply to him, Jesus also included anyone else who shared his sentiments and addressed them as “hypocrites.” He then showed them up as such with two questions. “Does not each one of you release [or untie] his bull or [his] donkey from the stall [or the manger] on the Sabbath and lead it away to drink? Was it not necessary for this [woman], being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan had bound (behold! for 18 years) to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?” (Luke 13:16)

They were hypocrites, for they had no objection to acting to satisfy the need of an animal but were indignant about responding to the need of a daughter of Abraham, one of God’s people. They insisted on the letter of the law respecting a fellow Israelite but violated the very purpose of the law, which was to provide a day for rest and refreshment and for appreciative reflection on God’s blessing. Jesus’ words made his opponents ashamed, but the rest of the assembled crowd rejoiced at all the splendid things he had done. (Luke 13:17)

His reference to “Satan” may have served to accommodate the common belief of those assembled in the synagogue. The various causes for diseases were then unknown, and Jesus’ listeners would not have benefited from hearing explanations to which they could not relate.

The account in Luke 13 appears to indicate that Jesus continued teaching the people, using parables to illustrate features about the kingdom of God. He likened the kingdom to a mustard seed that a man planted in his garden. That seed grew and became a tree. On its branches, birds nested. (Luke 13:18, 19; the same parable is found in Matthew 13:31, 32, and Mark 4:30-32.)

Though a mustard seed is very small, its potential for growth is much greater than that of many larger seeds. The black mustard (Brassica nigra) may grow to a height of 15 feet. In the fall, the hardened branches of the plant can support small birds such as finches. These birds perch on the branches and feed on the seeds. The “nesting” (literally, “tenting”) of the birds is probably to be understood as meaning their perching on the branches (as if having made their home there).

The main point of the parable seems to be that a small beginning would lead to astonishing growth. This proved to be the case as the apostles and other early disciples began their proclamation about Jesus after his resurrection and ascension to heaven. In less than 30 years, the message about God’s kingdom, with its focus on Jesus Christ as the king by God’s appointment, spread far and wide. (Compare Colossians 1:23.) As a result, many thousands ceased to be part of the world alienated from the Most High and identified themselves as subjects of Christ as their king and, therefore, as belonging to God’s realm.

Then Jesus likened the “kingdom of God” to leaven a woman hid in three seahs of flour, which then fermented the whole lump. Three seahs amounted to about 20 dry quarts and so would have been a large batch of dough. Women commonly used leaven, and so nothing of a sinister nature is suggested when Jesus referred to the “hiding” of the leaven. Once the small amount of leaven is in the dough, only the fermentation process reveals its presence. (Luke 13:20, 21; this parable is also set forth in Matthew 13:33.)

The parable suggests a quiet and imperceptible activity of something that appears to be small but produces significant observable results. This agrees with the way in which the message about God’s kingdom spread extensively and led to amazing changes in the lives of persons who responded in faith and became part of God’s realm.

During the course of his traveling to Jerusalem, Jesus used the opportunity to teach in the towns and villages through which he passed with his disciples. (Luke 13:22) The account in Luke 13 does not provide any information about the reason for Jesus’ trip to Jerusalem. Based on John 10:22, he appears to have been on the way to attend the Festival of Dedication (Hanukkah).

Festival of Dedication (John 10:22-39)

The Festival of Dedication (Hanukkah), for which Jesus and his disciples had come to Jerusalem, lasted eight days, starting on the twenty-fifth day of Chislev (mid-November to mid-December). It commemorated the rededication of the temple after the Levite Judas Maccabeus and his forces had recaptured Jerusalem and cleansed the temple of defilement. According to 1 Maccabees 4:52-54, this rededication occurred on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month (Chislev), in the year 148. (The year 148 in 1 Maccabees is reckoned according to the Greek or Seleucid era and corresponds to 164 BCE.) This was three years after Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid dynasty had defiled the temple, and the very day on which swine began to be offered on the altar that had been erected on top of the altar of burnt offering. (1 Maccabees 1:59; Josephus, Antiquities, XII, v, 4)

Probably because of the winter weather, Jesus walked in the Portico of Solomon, a sheltered area of the temple precincts. (John 10:22, 23) The writings of Josephus indicate that Solomon had a portico built on the east side of the temple. (War, V, v, 1) Although this portico was destroyed by the Babylonians, the one that Herod the Great rebuilt centuries later continued to be known as the Portico of Solomon.

Unbelieving Jews surrounded Jesus and challengingly said to him, “How long are you going to keep our soul [us] in suspense? If you are the Christ [the Messiah], tell us outright.” “I did tell you,” he replied, “and you do not believe. The works which I am doing in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe, for you are not of my sheep.” When performing miracles and other works of power, Jesus acted in his Father’s name or as the one whom his Father had empowered and whom he represented. These works revealed that the Father had sent him, providing the needed testimony to verify Jesus’ words and serving to identify him as the Christ, the Son of God. The unbelieving Jews, however, refused to accept this testimony. They demonstrated thereby that they were not Jesus’ sheep, for they did not acknowledge him as their caring shepherd. (John 10:24-26; see the Notes section regarding John 10:26.)

Those who were his sheep listened to his voice, and he knew them, recognizing them as belonging to him. As sheep follow their shepherd, those who put faith in Jesus followed him. From Jesus, they received eternal life, coming to enjoy an enduring relationship with him and his Father. Never would they be destroyed. Their security was firmly assured, for no one could rip them out of Jesus’ hand. (John 10:27, 28)

Manuscripts vary in the reading of Jesus’ words about his Father. According to one reading, what the Father had given to the Son is greater than everything else, and no one would be able to snatch it (or them [there is no pronoun in the Greek text]) out of the Father’s hands. This could mean that the full authority of Jesus is greater than everything else, and, as the ultimate source of that authority, the Father would not permit it to be seized from his hand. A more likely meaning would be that “what” was given refers to the “sheep” collectively and no one would be able to snatch them (or anything) out of his Father’s hand. Their being greater than everything else would then indicate that they are very precious to the Father and under his protective care. This would make them greater than those who would seek their injury. Another reading indicates that the Father, who gave the sheep to Jesus, is greater than all and that no one would be able to snatch the sheep (or anything) out of his Father’s hand. (John 10:29; see the Notes section.) The fact that the Father is greater than all assured the absolute safety of the sheep.

In the care and protection of the sheep, Jesus and his Father are united in purpose. As Jesus expressed it, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30; compare the similar expression pointing to oneness of purpose in 1 Corinthians 3:8, where the apostle Paul refers to the one planting and the one watering as being one.)

Upon hearing words that reflected the intimate relationship Jesus enjoyed with his Father and his confidence about being fully at one with him, the unbelieving Jews became enraged. They picked up stones to hurl at him. In response to Jesus’ question for which one of the many good works he had shown them from his Father they intended to stone him, they replied, “We are not stoning you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because you, [although] being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:31-33)

Jesus then referred to the Scriptures or the holy writings as their “law” and quoted from Psalm 82:6, “I said, You are gods.” In this passage, the psalmist portrayed God as addressing corrupt judges. Since, as Jesus pointed out, it was against these unjust judges that God’s word of judgment was directed (and which word could not be set aside by those to whom Jesus spoke), what basis did they have for accusing him (the one whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world) of blasphemy for saying, “I am God’s Son”? (John 10:34-36)

If he did not do his Father’s works, they should not believe him. If, however, he did them, and they still did not believe in him, they should at least believe or recognize the good works as being from the Father. Belief in the Father as the source of the good works would have provided them with the basis for believing that the Father was “in” or at one with Jesus and that he was “in” the Father or at one with him. The unbelieving Jews then again tried to get hold of the Son of God, but he slipped out of their hands. (John 10:37-39)

Notes:

In John 10:26, numerous manuscripts, after Jesus’ words “you are not of my sheep,” add “as I told you.”

Depending upon which manuscript reading of John 10:29 is being followed, translations convey various meanings. “What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand.” (NRSV) “My Father gave them to me, and he is greater than all others. No one can snatch them from his hands.” (CEV) “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. And no one can tear anything out of the Father’s hand.” (Phillips) “The Father, for what he has given me, is greater than anyone, and no one can steal anything from the Father’s hand.” (NJB)

Jesus’ Activity After Leaving Jerusalem (Luke 13:23-17:10; John 10:40-42)

With his disciples, Jesus left Jerusalem and crossed to the east side of the Jordan, heading for the location where John the Baptist first started his activity. (John 10:40) During the time Jesus was there, many people came to him. They acknowledged that, although John the Baptist did not perform a single sign, everything he had said about Jesus was true. Therefore, many of the people there believed in Jesus. (John 10:41, 42)

Seemingly, Luke 13:23-17:10 relates to the time intervening between his leaving Jerusalem and his return to Bethany after the news about the death of Lazarus was brought to him. (John 11:1-3) According to Luke 13:22, Jesus was heading for Jerusalem. Then, in Luke 17:11, mention is made of his again going to Jerusalem. In the narration that follows Luke 13:22, no comments are included about what happened in Jerusalem, suggesting that the account does not relate anything concerning Jesus’ activity in the city. Only John 10 tells about Jesus’ being in Jerusalem for the Festival of Dedication, and this appears to have been the reason for his going to the city, as mentioned in Luke 13:22.

Jesus’ Answer to a Question About Salvation (Luke 13:23-30)

On one occasion, someone asked Jesus, “Are those being saved few?” He did not answer this question directly, providing neither an affirmative nor a negative reply. Instead, he emphasized the importance of individual action, struggling to enter through the narrow door. Jesus then added, “Many, I tell you, will seek to enter but will not be able.” (Luke 13:23, 24; for additional comments, see the Notes section.)

To illustrate the need for immediate action in putting forth diligent effort to be among those who would gain divine approval, he related a parable. Once the owner of the house has gotten up and locked the door, he will not respond to a knock and the request, “Sir, open to us.” His reply will be, “I do not know from where you are.” They will then protest, “We ate and drank in front of you, and you taught in our streets.” He, however, will not acknowledge them as having any relationship with him, saying, “I do not know from where you are. Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity.” (Luke 13:25-27)

As rejected ones, they would weep and gnash their teeth. In vain, they would try to suppress their bitter tears on account of their great loss, for they would then see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets in God’s kingdom but would find themselves cast outside. Yet, from distant eastern, western, northern and southern regions, people who were not descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would come to be part of the kingdom or enjoy the blessings associated with being in the realm where the Most High is Sovereign. The privilege extended to them would be comparable to being able to recline as at a meal or banquet with the king and other honored guests. Those who seemed to be first, the descendants of the Hebrew patriarchs, would prove to be last or lose out, whereas the non-Jewish peoples who appeared to be last, as persons without hope or God, would seize the opportunity to become part of God’s realm upon hearing the message about Jesus, the king by his Father’s appointment. In this way, the last would become first. (Luke 13:28-30; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Notes:

Chapters 3 through 14 of 4 Esdras (in the Appendix of the Vulgate and 3 Esdras in Slavonic Bibles) are commonly considered to be a Jewish work composed after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. In this section, the belief that few will be saved is expressed. God is quoted as saying to Ezra, “I will rejoice over the few who shall be saved, because it is they who have made my glory to prevail now, and through them my name has now been honored. I will not grieve over the great number of those who perish; for it is they who are now like a mist, and are similar to a flame and smoke—they are set on fire and burn hotly, and are extinguished.” (2 Esdras 7:60, 61, NRSV [Common Bible]; 4 Esdras 7:60, 61, Vulgate Appendix) This may reflect the commonly held belief in the first century that few would be saved.

Jesus, however, did not say that few would be saved, as that could easily have led some to conclude that there was no opportunity for them. In his not suggesting that many would be saved, Jesus avoided intimating that one’s being part of God’s realm required only limited effort. Instead, his answer served to emphasize both the need for a struggle and the urgency of commencing that struggle before it would prove to be too late. For one to believe in Jesus, to follow him, and thus to become part of God’s realm would not be an easy course, as one could face opposition from and rejection by close family members, friends, and acquaintances. Therefore, to believe in Jesus and to act in harmony with faith called for a struggle or real effort. It meant pursuing a life of compassionate concern for others and of uprightness in attitude, word, and action. At the same time, this exemplary life of faith could lead to persecution, much suffering, and even death.

It should be noted that those who heard Jesus’ words would have recognized Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their forefathers, and would have understood all the prophets to have been the faithful Hebrew prophets of past centuries. Jesus portrayed the reward of those who responded in faith to him under the figure of being honored guests at a meal or banquet in the kingdom of God. (See Matthew 8:11, 12, where Jesus expressed the same thought.)

Certain Pharisees Warn Jesus (Luke 13:31-35)

As tetrarch, Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee and Perea. While Jesus was on the east side of the Jordan River (in Perea), certain Pharisees told him to leave the area, saying that Herod wanted to kill him. Their warning, whether based on rumor or fact, appears to have been designed to intimidate Jesus. With apparent reference to Herod’s cunning or craftiness, Jesus called him “that fox” and told the Pharisees to say to him, “Behold! I am expelling demons and completing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third [day] I am finished.” (Luke 13:31, 32; see the Notes section for additional comments on verse 31.) His reply to the Pharisees suggested that only a short time remained for him to complete his work and that no threat to his life would interfere with his doing so.

To indicate that his mission would be completed at Jerusalem and that he would die there, Jesus told the Pharisees, “I must travel today and tomorrow and the next day, for it is not allowable for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.” Over the centuries, the inhabitants of Jerusalem had made themselves bloodguilty. Therefore, Jesus referred to the city as having killed the prophets and stoned those whom God had sent. Although he knew full well what lay ahead for him, Jesus still felt great compassion for the people of Jerusalem and, in fact, for all of the Jews. He had often wanted to gather them like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, providing care and protection. The people, however, did not want this, rejecting his love and concern for them. (Luke 13:33, 34)

Their failure to put faith in him would lead to serious consequences. The “house” that would be left to them probably meant the temple, suggesting that no longer would the Most High regard it as his house. Without a sacred status, the temple would eventually come to ruin. (Luke 13:35; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

As for the people, they would not see Jesus again until they acknowledged him as “blessed” and as coming in his Father’s name or as representing him. It appears that God’s Son here referred to his future return in glory that would occur at a time known exclusively to his Father. Only believers would then welcome Jesus, pronouncing him blessed, whereas those persisting in unbelief would give way to lamentation. Although their “house” would be left to them and so neither it nor they would have any special standing with God, the people would not be debarred from accepting Jesus in faith and being among those who would acknowledge him as the one coming in his Father’s name.

Notes:

In Luke 13:31, the words “in that hour” are to be understood as meaning “at that time.” This would have been after Jesus had been questioned about whether those being saved would be few.

It is most unlikely that the Pharisees would have told Jesus to leave Galilee, as it had been his area of residence since early childhood and where he primarily carried out his activity. This serves to confirm the location to have been Perea, the only other region under the control of Herod Antipas.

In their renderings of Luke 13:35, a number of translations make the reference to the temple specific. “Now your temple will be deserted.” (CEV) “Look! There is your temple, forsaken by God.” (REB)

As a Guest in a Pharisee’s Home (Luke 14:1-24)

When Jesus accepted an invitation from a leader of the Pharisees to share a meal on the Sabbath, he came under careful scrutiny. The invited Pharisees and legal experts appear to have been intent on watching Jesus in an effort to find fault with him. Also among those at the house, perhaps in the courtyard, was a man with dropsy. This man must have been seriously afflicted, with very noticeable swelling of his legs, feet, hands, and arms. He does not appear to have been a guest or a resident of the home, for he left before those invited started to eat. Possibly he had heard that Jesus would be eating at the Pharisee’s house and decided to go there, hoping that Jesus would cure him. (Luke 14:1, 2, 4, 7)

Jesus asked the Pharisees and legal experts whether it was allowable to heal on the Sabbath or not, but they said nothing. He then took hold of the man, cured him, and sent him on his way. Aware that the Pharisees and the legal experts did not consider it lawful to perform a cure on the Sabbath, Jesus endeavored to correct their wrong view with a question, asking them who among them would not immediately rescue a son (donkey, according to other manuscripts) or a bull that had fallen into a well on the Sabbath. His question left them with nothing to say in rebuttal. (Luke 14:3-6)

Observing that the invited guests were choosing the most prominent places on the couches arranged around the table, Jesus used the occasion to teach, seemingly drawing on the admonition set forth in Proverbs 25:6, 7. (See the Notes section.) When, for example, one is invited to a wedding banquet, Jesus recommended that one not occupy the most prominent place. The person choosing the foremost position risked having the host request that he move for a more distinguished guest and being embarrassed and disgraced upon having to recline in the lowest place. The individual selecting the lowest place, however, would more likely be honored in front of all the other guests, with the host asking that he move to a higher place. Jesus then made the application that persons who exalted themselves would be humbled, whereas those who humbled themselves would be exalted. (Luke 14:7-11)

The Son of God also used the opportunity to convey an important lesson to his host. Instead of just inviting friends, brothers, relatives, or wealthy neighbors for a meal or banquet, with the probability that they would reciprocate in kind, Jesus exhorted his host to invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind who were in no position to arrange a feast for others. This would result in his experiencing the superior happiness that comes from giving and the assurance of repayment when the upright are raised from the dead. (Luke 14:12-14)

Jesus’ mention of the “resurrection of the righteous” prompted one of the invited guests to say, “Fortunate [is] anyone who will be eating bread in the kingdom of God!” (Luke 14:15)

In response, Jesus related a parable. A man prepared a banquet for many guests. He sent out his slave to tell the invitees to come, for all preparations had been completed. They, however, declined the invitation, offering excuses for not being able to come. One invitee did not want to come because he had just bought a field and needed to leave to look at it. Another one begged off so that he could try out the five yoke of cattle he had just bought. Still another one said that he could not come because he had just married. Upon hearing his slave’s report about the invited ones, the master became angry and instructed his slave to go out quickly into the squares and the streets of the city and invite the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame. After following through on his master’s instructions, the slave told him that there still was room for more guests. The master then directed him to go out into the roads and the walled or fenced lanes or paths, compelling people to come to the banquet. He wanted his house to be filled with guests. The master then expressed his determination that none of those originally invited would have a taste of his banquet. (Luke 14:16-24)

By means of this parable, Jesus revealed that those first offered the opportunity to be part of the kingdom of God would fail to seize it. As God’s people, the Jews were fully aware of the promise extended to them that, if obedient to the law, they would come to be a royal priesthood and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:5, 6) As evident from the Pharisee’s expression about the kingdom of God, they knew about the prospect of becoming sharers in future blessings and privileges. Yet, when Jesus made his appearance as the promised Messiah and the people had the opportunity to become part of the realm where the Almighty is Sovereign and Jesus is the one whom he appointed as king, they acted like those who excused themselves from acting on the invitation.

They generally believed that afflicted persons suffered on account of their sins. Therefore, the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame could well represent those among the people who were not regarded as the usual recipients of divine favor. It was, however, the tax collectors and others with an unsavory reputation as sinners who repented and acknowledged Jesus as their king.

In time, the invitation to become part of God’s realm went to non-Jewish peoples in widely scattered regions They proved to be like persons on the roads and the walled or fenced lanes and who had to be compelled to come to the banquet. They would have considered themselves undeserving of the inestimable privilege being opened up to them, requiring that they be persuaded that their sins would be forgiven and that they would be welcomed as approved into the realm where the heavenly Father reigns through his Son.

The parable also indicated that failure to respond would lead to loss. None of those originally invited but who rejected the opportunity would be among those to partake of the food.

Notes:

At meals or banquets, couches were arranged around three sides of a table. The side left open provided access for the servants, who would bring the food and serve those eating. The foremost place on a couch was the first position, with no one else being in front. Furthermore, each couch had its own ranking of importance.

When partaking of food, the host and his guests would recline and support themselves on their left side. They would then eat food with their right hand.

Proverbs 25:6, 7 (NRSV) reads, “Do not put yourself forward in the king’s presence or stand in the place of the great; for it is better to be told, ‘Come up here,’ than to be put lower in the presence of a noble.”

Considering the Cost of Discipleship (Luke 14:25-35)

Large crowds often accompanied Jesus as he traveled from place to place. One of these times, he used the opportunity to tell the people that choosing to be his disciples required greater love for him than for family members. (Luke 14:25, 26)

“If anyone comes to me,” said Jesus, “and does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even his own soul [himself], he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) In this context, “hate” basically means to love to a lesser degree, with this strong term serving to contrast the greater love for Jesus that a disciple would be called upon to have. When the wishes and objectives of close family members ran counter to the example and teaching of God’s Son, his disciples would not go along with them, thereby demonstrating their superior love for him. To remain loyal to him, Jesus’ disciples would even be willing to face death. The individual’s love for him would therefore prove to be greater than that for his own soul or for himself.

Stressing that discipleship would not be an easy course, God’s Son said that a person could not be his disciple unless he carried his own beam (staurós) and followed him. (Luke 14:27) In the Roman world, crucifixion was regarded as the worst form of punishment. The condemned man would carry the beam (to which he would later be tied or nailed) to the place of execution. There he would be mocked and die a slow, excruciating death. For one to carry the beam as a disciple of God’s Son would mean pursuing a course that entailed reproach and suffering for his sake.

Choosing to become a disciple of God’s Son demanded serious consideration. Jesus illustrated this in terms his listeners could readily understand.

A man who planned to build a tower would first have to calculate the expense to determine whether he could afford to do so. If he failed to evaluate the cost and then laid a foundation for the tower and was unable to complete the project for lack of funds, he would be subjected to ridicule. Observers would say that he “began to build but was unable to finish.” (Luke 14:28-30)

Similarly, a king who was about to march out to battle with another king would have to consider carefully whether he could gain the victory with 10,000 men when having to face an opposing force of 20,000. If he recognized that this would not be possible, he would send a delegation of ambassadors to the other king to sue for peace, doing so while the superior force was still far away. (Luke 14:31, 32)

Jesus did not minimize the great cost that being his disciple involved. It could mean the loss of close family members, possessions, and even one’s own life. As Jesus expressed it, a person could not be his disciple unless he was willing to give up all his belongings. (Luke 14:33)

When next referring to salt, the Son of God appears to have been illustrating that his disciples needed to have the desirable attributes of this substance. Salt is good, for it can be used for seasoning and as a preservative. Those who heard Jesus used an impure salt that could become tasteless. Under humid conditions, the sodium chloride could progressively leach out, rendering the substance useless for flavoring and as a preservative. People would then discard it as a worthless substance, for it would not add anything beneficial to the soil and could not serve as fertilizer. (Luke 14:34, 35)

Thereby Jesus implied that his disciples needed to be a force for good, counteracting the tendency toward moral decay among their contemporaries and contributing to making life more pleasant for others. This would require that they continue to live exemplary lives and prove themselves to be kind, compassionate, and impartial in their dealings with fellow humans. If any of his disciples would cease to exercise a wholesome influence on others, they would reveal themselves to be like salt that had become worthless. That Jesus wanted those who heard him to think seriously about how his words applied to them is evident from his concluding words, “Let the one having ears for hearing, hear.” (Luke 14:35)

Notes:

At the time Jesus sent out the twelve apostles, he included comments about the necessity of having greater love for him than for family members and concerning the requirement of carrying the “beam.” (Matthew 10:34-39)

On earlier occasions, Jesus also referred to salt when teaching about the qualities his disciples needed to have. (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50)

Joy Over Repentant Sinners (Luke 15:1-32)

Numerous tax collectors and others with a bad reputation approached Jesus to listen to him. Observing this, certain Pharisees and scribes grumbled, referring to him disparagingly as one who welcomed sinners and ate with them. Thereby these faultfinders implied that Jesus enjoyed associating with persons of ill repute. In response, he related three parables, revealing his noble objective and exposing the error of the Pharisees and scribes. (Luke 15:1-3)

Who among them with 100 sheep would not leave the 99 in the wilderness, or a pasture away from human habitation, and search for the one lost sheep until he found it? Those to whom this question was directed would have known that several shepherds commonly pastured their respective flocks in a particular area, and that the one who searched for a lost sheep would have made arrangements for his flock to be watched. For the man to have completely abandoned his flock while searching for a lost sheep would have meant exposing the whole flock to danger. A caring shepherd, however, would do everything possible to find his lost sheep. (Luke 15:4; see the Notes section about Jesus’ use of the same parable on an earlier occasion.)

Upon finding it, he would put it on his shoulders and be filled with joy. Jesus’ reference to the man’s putting the lost sheep on his shoulders would have been understood as an act of tender care for a helpless lamb. (Luke 15:5)

After returning home, the shepherd would tell his friends and neighbors to rejoice with him for having found his lost sheep. Applying the lesson of the parable, Jesus said that there would be “more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous persons in no need of repentance.” (Luke 15:6, 7) The Pharisees and scribes would have regarded themselves as righteous, believing that, unlike the tax collectors and others who were known as sinners, they had no reason to repent. They, however, also needed to make changes. Their grumbling about the attention Jesus gave to tax collectors and sinners revealed that they lacked love and compassion. In “heaven,” though, where God and his angels are, there would be rejoicing over just one repentant sinner.

A woman with ten drachma coins lost one of them. Would she not light a lamp and sweep her house, carefully searching for the coin until she found it? (Luke 15:8)

This kind of effort would have been understandable, as a drachma equaled the daily wage of a common laborer. Moreover, if Jesus intended to represent the coin as part of a set, it would have been understood as serving for ornamentation.

Most homes in the first century were small, and the windows allowed very limited light to enter. Therefore, even during the day, a lighted oil lamp would facilitate the search. A coin could easily blend in with the clay floor, and it would usually be necessary to sweep the entire house to locate it.

Upon finding the coin, the woman would inform her friends and neighbors, inviting them to rejoice with her. Likewise, there would come to be great joy among the angels of God “over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:8-10)

Having come from the realm above, Jesus could authoritatively speak about the angels. Their rejoicing is truly remarkable. Unlike the Pharisees and scribes, they are indeed righteous and holy or pure in all respects. Yet, they do not look down upon humans or make unfavorable comparisons with their own record of unwavering faithfulness to God. They do not begrudge repentant men and women the great honor of coming to be part of the realm where the Most High is Sovereign and to have an intimate relationship with him and his Son. The angels have real love for humans who are constituted children of God and brothers of Christ through their faith in him. Their magnanimous spirit contrasts sharply with that of the murmuring Pharisees and scribes.

Finally, Jesus related a parable about two sons. The younger one asked his father for his share of the inheritance. His father then divided the property between the two sons. Shortly thereafter the younger son took everything he had and traveled to a distant country, where he began leading a debauched life and eventually exhausted all his resources. When a severe famine occurred, he was forced to become a hired laborer for a citizen of that land, who sent him into his fields to tend the pigs. The younger son craved to be “filled with” the pods (or, according to other manuscripts, he “filled his belly” with the pods) on which the pigs were feeding, and no one would give him anything. (Luke 15:11-16)

In his desperate state, the son came to his senses. He began to think about his father and how his hired men were better off than he was. They had plenty of bread to eat, whereas he wasted away on account of the famine. He, therefore, decided to return to his father and acknowledge his guilt, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer deserving of being called your son. Let me be like one of your hirelings.” He then made the long journey to his father’s home. (Luke 15:17-20)

While still some distance from his father’s house, his father recognized him and felt pity for him. He ran toward his son, embraced him, and kissed him. As he had previously resolved, the son acknowledged having sinned against heaven and his father, asking only to be treated like a hireling because of his unworthiness to be called his son. (Luke 15:20, 21)

The father welcomed him with compassion, love, and joy. He quickly directed his slaves to bring out the best robe and clothe his son with it, and to put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. They were to slaughter a calf and prepare a meal so that all could enjoy themselves. The father expressed his reason for rejoicing, “This son of mine was dead but has come to life again; he was lost but has been found.” A joyous celebration followed. (Luke 15:22-24)

When the older son returned from having worked in the field, he heard music and the rhythmic movement of dancing feet coming from the house. He summoned a nearby servant to come to him and asked about the reason for the celebration. “Your brother has come,” said the slave, “and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf, for he got him back well.” (Luke 15:25-27)

This angered the older brother, and he chose not to enter the house. His father then came outside, pleading with him to share in the joy of the occasion. The older son protested, telling his father that he had slaved for him many years and had not disobeyed him. “Yet,” the son continued, “you never gave me even a young goat to enjoy with my friends. When, however, this son of yours who consumed your means with harlots came back, you slaughtered the fattened calf for him.” (Luke 15:28-30)

Reasoning with his son, the father responded, “Child, you always are with me, and all I own is yours, but we must enjoy ourselves and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead but has come to life, and he was lost but was found.” (Luke 15:31, 32)

Tax collectors and others among the Jews who were leading a sinful life found themselves in a situation much like that of the younger son. By charging more than the required rate, many tax collectors enriched themselves. Among them were men who had become very wealthy. From a spiritual standpoint, however, they were impoverished. Through their dishonesty, they had distanced themselves from God, as if living in a faraway land. As agents of Rome, they did work comparable to caring for pigs, animals that were unclean according to the Mosaic law. Fellow Jews generally despised tax collectors.

When John the Baptist and later Jesus appeared on the scene, many who had led a sinful life came to their senses. They came to see the depth of their spiritual poverty and longed for a better relationship with the heavenly Father. Their acknowledgment of sin reflected an understanding of how undeserving they had become of God’s love and mercy. In his compassionate treatment of those who did repent, Jesus reflected his Father’s welcoming love and joy. They were honored as with the best attire and spiritually enriched as with an abundant banquet, for they had put themselves in a position to enter the realm where God is Sovereign and his Son is king by his appointment.

The Pharisees and scribes acted like the older son. They refused to recognize repentant tax collectors and sinners as their brothers. In the parable, Jesus indicated this rejection by having the older son say, “This son of yours” (not “my brother”). Then to show that the relationship should have continued to exist, Jesus had the father say, “This brother of yours.” The manner in which Jesus portrayed the thoughts of the older son revealed a lack of appreciation for what he had. He spoke of having slaved for his father and never transgressed his commands, suggestive of action performed merely out of a sense of duty and without joy. Nothing in the words gave evidence of valuing all that he had while being with his father. He deeply resented that his brother had been welcomed with open arms and did not want to share in the joy of seeing him as one who had changed for the better.

The parable also indicates that repentance has its start in the inner self. Once the younger son is depicted as recognizing his guilt and his unworthiness on account of his bad conduct, he ceased to be the young man who had left his father’s home. With no proud assumptions, he then made the long journey home. Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of Jesus’ parable, such repentant ones should be welcomed with compassion, love, and joy.

Jesus did not say anything about how the older son finally responded. The door remained open for him to share in the joyous celebration. Likewise, the Pharisees and scribes could have changed and put themselves in line to enter the kingdom of God and share in all the associated blessings.

Notes:

In his teaching, Jesus at times used the same parables. The application of a particular parable could, however, be different.

In Matthew 18:10-14, Jesus warned his disciples about the seriousness of harming insignificant believers. He related the parable about the one lost sheep to illustrate the preciousness of such “little ones,” for his Father did not want any one of these to be lost.

Parable of the Dishonest Steward (Luke 16:1-13)

Jesus directed his next parable to his disciples. These disciples would have included all those who believed in him and were following him at the time. (Luke 16:1)

A wealthy man received word about his steward’s mismanagement of the property. He then summoned his steward, questioned him about the accusation, requested that he render an account about his management, and informed him that he would no longer continue to be his steward. In view of the impending loss of his position, the untrustworthy steward thought about what he would be able to do. He did not feel that he had the strength to perform hard manual labor (“digging”), and he was ashamed to support himself by begging. So he decided on a scheme to ingratiate himself with the debtors of his master, causing them to feel indebted to him and prompting them to welcome him into their homes after he would no longer be his master’s steward. (Luke 16:1-4)

He summoned the debtors of his master individually, asking them how much they owed and then had them write out an agreement with a much lower amount. The position of steward allowed for such a change to be made, as the individual had the authority to act as the representative of the master. In one case, the dishonest steward reduced the debt of 100 bath measures (about 580 gallons [U.S.]) of olive oil to 50 (about 290 gallons [U.S.]). For another debtor, he reduced 100 cor measures (about 624 bushels [U.S.]) of wheat to 80 (about 500 bushels [U.S.]). (Luke 16:5-7)

The steward’s maneuvering came to the master’s attention and, according to the literal Greek of the parable, he “commended” the steward. The wording of the parable strictly limits the master’s commendation to one reason, “because [the steward] had acted wisely,” cleverly, or shrewdly. Accordingly, the master’s commendation is portrayed as nothing more than an acknowledgment of the steward’s shrewdness or cleverness in working out a scheme to assure his future welfare. (Luke 16:8)

Based on the parable, Jesus pointed out that, in their dealings with the people of their own generation, the “sons of this age are wiser than the sons of light.” (Luke 16:8) The “sons of this age” designate unbelievers, whereas the “sons of light” are persons who believed in Jesus and had started to benefit from the enlightenment they had received through him. When it comes to planning for the future and securing their own interests, individuals who have no higher aims than to get all they can from their present life often are intensely focused and very shrewd or clever when maneuvering to attain their objectives. By contrast, believers frequently manifest far less intensity and diligence in the pursuit of the real life or the eternal life of a never-ending relationship with God and Christ. They are often distracted by daily cares, concerns, or desires of a mundane nature.

Jesus urged his disciples to make friends for themselves with “mammon of unrighteousness” or unrighteous riches. He may have referred to wealth or money as “unrighteous” because an ardent desire to acquire riches often leads people to engage in dishonest or sharp practices. Those who accumulate great wealth may do so through clever maneuvering at the expense of others. (Luke 16:9)

For believers to make friends with their mundane assets would mean to use them in a manner that God would approve, generously coming to the aid of those in need. Then, whenever money or material assets might “fail,” be lost, or cease to have any real value on account of changed circumstances, the Most High would look favorably upon the past record of generous and compassionate giving. The greatest friends anyone can have are the heavenly Father and his Son. They are the ones in possession of the “eternal tents,” into which they can welcome all who have rightly used whatever assets they may have had. (Luke 16:9)

Compared with the riches associated with eternity, material assets have very limited value. Therefore, the noble use of material assets is a reflection of the faithfulness or trustworthiness of the individual. As Jesus said, “The one faithful in what is least is also faithful in much, and the one unrighteousness in what is least is also unrighteous [unjust or dishonest] in much.” Unfaithfulness, untrustworthiness, or dishonesty respecting unrighteous riches would reflect a serious moral defect. It would demonstrate that the individual could not be entrusted with true riches, the eternally valuable treasure associated with an approved relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. (Luke 16:10, 11)

If, as Jesus continued, a person did not prove to be faithful, trustworthy, or honest respecting something belonging to someone else, who would give the individual something for himself, with the implied understanding that the asset given would be used aright? (Luke 16:12) In the final analysis, everything of a material nature is obtained from the earth, and the Most High is its owner and hence of everything associated with it. Therefore, assets that individuals may have are not really their own but available to them only for temporary use, which, at best, is limited to a lifetime. A failure to use these assets aright would rightly disqualify one from receiving the enduring riches of those with an eternal inheritance in the realm where God is Sovereign and reigns through his Son, the king whom he has appointed.

Those who would prove themselves to be Jesus’ disciples, therefore, need to keep their focus on that which is eternal and not on transitory riches. It is impossible for a slave to serve two masters, with each one demanding the same time and attention from him. A slave would have to choose which master he would obey and which one he would ignore, loving and being devoted to the one he served and hating and despising the one he refused to serve. Jesus concluded with the words, “You cannot slave for God and for mammon” or riches. (Luke 16:13) There is no room for divided loyalties, as faithfulness to God is involved in every aspect of life.

Reaction of Pharisees and Jesus’ Response (Luke 16:14-18)

The unbelieving Pharisees heard Jesus parable and responded with ridicule. According to the account, their ridicule stemmed from their being “lovers of silver” or money. (Luke 16:14) They highly esteemed wealth. In their view, the rich who lived up to the traditional interpretations of the law had God’s special favor. The unbelieving Pharisees despised the poor, considering them as accursed people who were ignorant of the law. (Compare John 7:49.)

Responding to the sneering of this particular group of Pharisees, Jesus identified them as persons who justified themselves before men or tried to make themselves appear as upright or godly before others through outward acts. “But God,” Jesus continued, “knows your hearts” (the deep inner selves or the real motivations). Humans, however, are limited largely to what they can perceive by means of their senses and cannot penetrate the deep inner selves of others. Therefore, what humans may regard as lofty according to their flawed estimation can be the very thing that is abominable in God’s sight. (Luke 16:14, 15)

With the coming of the Messiah, the time had come for all the Israelites to repent and avail themselves of the privileges and blessings associated with this grand development. Jesus indicated that a new era had dawned, saying that “the law and the prophets were until John.” Both the law and the prophets pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah, and John the Baptist identified Jesus as that promised one. Therefore, as Jesus said, from then on the evangel or good news about the kingdom of God was being declared. (Luke 16:16)

Respecting entrance into the kingdom, the last Greek word in Luke 16:16 is a form of biázo, meaning “to be violent” or “to use force.” In this context, the term biázo appears to denote the strenuous effort all would be putting forth to be part of the realm where God is Sovereign. A number of translations make this significance explicit. “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the good news of the kingdom of God is being proclaimed, and everyone with the utmost earnestness and effort is pressing into it for his share in it.” (Wuest) “But since God’s kingdom has been preached, everyone is trying hard to get in.” (CEV)

The coming of the Messiah also meant that the time had arrived for revealing the true significance of the law. Regarding it, Jesus said it would be “easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a letter fragment [karaía; literally, horn] of the law to drop out.” (Luke 16:17) The Greek term keraía here means a small part or stroke of a letter. In the Hebrew alphabet, the letters daleth (D) and resh (R), for example, are very similar and can easily be confused. Therefore, a seemingly insignificant change in the appearance of one letter can change the meaning of a word, especially when the reader had to supply the vowel sounds.

In his teaching and the life he lived, Jesus upheld the spirit of the law and did not in any way act contrary to its purpose. He revealed that it ultimately served to identify him as the promised Messiah. For not even a small part of a letter to drop out of the law assured that it would remain unaltered, with no possibility existing of any failure to attain its divinely designated objective. It would thus prove to be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for even a minor change in the law to take place.

While considering themselves to be upholders of the law and insisting on the letter of the law, the unbelieving Pharisees repeatedly violated the spirit of the law. The law, for example, allowed divorce but also revealed the binding nature of marriage. In the beginning of Genesis (which the Pharisees recognized as part of the Torah or law), marriage is represented as a permanent union of a man and his wife. (Genesis 2:24)

Jesus called attention to the binding nature of marriage and thereby showed that the Pharisees were wrong when they regarded divorce as a husband’s authorized right. He said, “Everyone divorcing his wife and marrying another commits adultery, and the man marrying a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18)

It should be noted that the legal provision for divorce, to which Jesus on another occasion referred as a concession made out of regard for the hardheartedness of the men, served to protect a woman from hateful abuse and a charge of adultery upon entering into a relationship with another man. Without a certificate of divorce from the husband who had dismissed her, a woman would have been punished as an adulteress. Jesus, therefore, expressed the reality of the situation when a divorced woman married another man. Both the man and the woman would then have committed adultery, but the certificate of divorce protected them from being thus legally charged and punished. At the same time, Jesus revealed that the man who divorced his wife to marry another woman also committed adultery. This would be because he acted contrary to the precedent of the first union mentioned in Genesis, which was for the man and his wife to be married for life. (Matthew 19:4-8)

Jesus’ teaching about divorce also indicated that a profound change in one’s personal life would be needed to be part of the realm where his Father is Sovereign. Based on their reaction to Jesus’ comments about divorce, his disciples recognized that marriage was far more binding than they had previously thought. (Matthew 19:9, 10)

The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

One fifth-century Greek manuscript introduces Jesus’ portrayal of the rich man and Lazarus with the words, “But he also told them another parable” (Eipen de kai heteran parabolen). The destitute man of the parable is called Lazarus, but the majority of extant manuscripts do not identify the rich man by name. One papyrus manuscript (P75) from the second or early third century calls the rich man “Neues,” which name looks like an abbreviated form of the Greek designation for “Nineveh” (Nineue). No later manuscripts, though, preserve this name for the rich man. The idea that his name was “Dives” is based on a misunderstanding of the Vulgate rendering dives, which Latin term means “rich” or “rich man.”

Dressed in garments made from fine linen and purple fabric, the rich man lived each day in showy splendor. The Greek term byssos designates linen of the best quality. It was a finely woven and nearly translucent fabric. The inner garments of the wealthy were customarily made from fine linen, and the purple fabric was used for the outer garments. (Luke 16:19)

Considerable effort was required to obtain the purple dye. It was extracted from the murex and the purple mollusks, with each mollusk yielding only one drop. This made the dye very costly, and only the wealthy could afford purple garments. The first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (Book IX, chapter 60), refers to pearls as being almost “a possession of everlasting duration,” one that is passed on to heirs, and then adds, “But the colours that are extracted from the murex and the purple fade from hour to hour; and yet luxury ... has set upon them prices almost equal to those of pearls.” (English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley)

Whereas the rich man was magnificently attired with garments made from the costliest fabrics, ulcers covered the skin of poor Lazarus, whom unnamed individuals laid at the rich man’s gate. This suggests that Jesus depicted Lazarus as emaciated, diseased, and too feeble to walk to the estate of the rich man. (Luke 16:20)

There, at the gate, poor Lazarus desired to be filled with the scraps that had fallen from the rich man’s table and would afterward be tossed outside. Meanwhile, scavenger dogs would approach him and lick his ulcers, intensifying his pathetic plight as one too weak to fend them off. (Luke 16:21)

Then, one day, Lazarus died. Jesus included no reference to a burial, leaving it to his listeners to conclude that the life of Lazarus ended without being mourned and given a customary burial. Yet, the one whose life and death Jesus had represented as having been without honor he then portrayed as being carried by angels to the “bosom of Abraham.” (Luke 16:22)

Those who heard this would have understood this to mean that Lazarus attained the reward of being in the highly favored position with Abraham, comparable to reclining with him while partaking of a meal. (For additional comments about the “bosom of Abraham,” see the Notes section.)

The wealthy man also died and was buried, suggesting that the mourning and entombment typical of the rich followed his death. Upon finding himself in Hades, he became aware that a decisive reversal had taken place. He, while existing in torments, looked up and, in the distance, saw Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. In the Greek text the word for “bosom” (kólpos) is plural. Possibly this is to be understood as meaning that Lazarus enjoyed the highly favored position of one in the arms of Abraham. (Luke 16:22, 23; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

In his anguish, the rich man called out, “Father Abraham, pity me and send Lazarus that he might dip his finger tip in water and cool my tongue, for I am in pain in this fire.” Abraham then addressed the rich man as “child” (with a kindly expression that acknowledged him as his natural descendant and not with harsh, denunciatory language). He reminded him of having received the good things in his life, whereas Lazarus had been the recipient of distressing things. Now, though, Lazarus was being comforted, but he found himself tormented. Moreover, a great chasm existed between them, making it impossible for those on either side to cross over to the other side even if they wanted to do so. (Luke 16:24-26)

With no relief possible for himself, the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to the house of his father or his nearest relatives. He had five brothers and desired that they hear the testimony of Lazarus, for he did not want them to end up in the same place of torment. Abraham rejected this request, telling him that they had “Moses and the prophets.” He added, “Let them listen to them.” The rich man protested, “No, father Abraham; but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.” “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets,” Abraham responded, “neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:27-31)

In the previous parable, Jesus had admonished his disciples to use unrighteous riches to make friends, and the Pharisees had ridiculed his teaching. He then exposed the unbelieving Pharisees as not being the righteous persons they imagined themselves to be, telling them that God’s view is different. What humans may regard as highly prized based on their flawed judgment is the very thing that God considers to be abominable. (Luke 16:14, 15) The parable about the rich man and Lazarus reiterated this truth and warned the ridiculers about the severe judgment they would face.

The unbelieving Pharisees regarded themselves as certain of being rewarded in the age to come. In their view, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would welcome them. They despised those whom they considered ignorant of the law (particularly with reference to the manner in which the “tradition of the elders” interpreted it). They thought of the wealthy who lived according to their standard of uprightness as heaven’s favorites, and believed the suffering of the poor and afflicted to be punishment for their sins. In their treatment of the lowly and oppressed and through the burdens their traditional interpretations imposed on them, they repeatedly failed in living up to the law respecting love, mercy, and justice. Therefore, what they imagined to be the adverse judgment for others Jesus, in language familiar to them, portrayed as facing them. As he had taught on various occasions, those who refused to repent and heed the words of Moses and the prophets by believing in him would lose out. They would not be in the kingdom with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but would be thrown into the outer darkness. Pained by their great loss, they would weep and gnash their teeth. (Matthew 8:11, 12) Comparable to a large, impassable chasm, the final judgment would be irreversible.

Like the rich man in the parable when requesting Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers to persuade them to change their course, the unbelieving Pharisees and scribes wanted a heavenly sign from Jesus, one that met their expectation about the Messiah. The parable reveals that persons who do not believe the evidence available to them would not accept the testimony of someone who is raised from the dead. This likely served to indicate that Jesus’ resurrection would not persuade those who had hardened themselves in unbelief to repent.

“Moses and the prophets” do not refer to Sheol or Hades as a place of torment, but do repeatedly admonish treating the poor and afflicted with love and compassion, responding to their needs. Moreover, the testimony in “Moses and the prophets” identified Jesus as the promised Messiah, for the works his Father enabled him to do revealed him to be the foretold prophet like Moses and greater than all the prophets that had preceded him.

Notes:

Ancient Jewish sources do link future rewards to being with Abraham. When relating the determination of the seven brothers to remain obedient to the commandment of God when faced with torture and death, 4 Maccabees 13:17 (NRSV, Common Bible) quotes them as saying, “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob will welcome us, and all the fathers will praise us.” According to one version of the account about the martyrdom of these seven sons, the mother encourages her youngest son with the words, “You will be taken to the bosom of Abraham our father.”

Luke 16:23 and the verses that follow reveal that Jesus used the language of parable. The rich man had never seen Abraham, and from afar would not have recognized the man in the favorable position as the ulcer-covered poor man that had once lain at his gate. In the parable, however, the rich man immediately recognized both Abraham and Lazarus. Although a considerable distance separated them, Abraham and the rich man carried on a conversation. A mere drop of water on a finger tip would have done nothing to relieve torment in a literally hot place and, in fact, would have evaporated even before touching the rich man’s tongue. Moreover, for Lazarus to reach the rich man would have required him to enter the flames and to experience temporary torment.

When relating the conversation in Hades, Jesus adopted a manner of expression similar to that of the prophet Isaiah concerning the “king of Babylon” or the Babylonian dynasty. “Sheol [Hades, LXX] beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. All of them will speak and say to you: ‘You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!’ Your pomp is brought down to Sheol [Hades, LXX], and the sound of your harps; maggots are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering.” (Isaiah 14:9-11, NRSV) In Isaiah, this portrayal heightens the dramatic effect of the reversal for the Babylonian dynasty. This dynasty had tyrannized other nations, wielding the ultimate power in the region as it carried out campaigns of conquest. Upon its sudden and surprising downfall, however, it would sink to the lowest level, proving to be just as weak as all the other rulerships that had ended. Isaiah’s depiction of Hades does not apply to a literal place where former kings sit on thrones and carry on conversations with later arrivals in the realm of the dead. Instead, the vivid imagery serves to convey the message about the astonishing fall of the Babylonian dynasty from its lofty position.

Likewise, Jesus’ words are the language of parable and do not provide a revelatory vision of Hades that is foreign to “Moses and the prophets.” The parable dramatically illustrates the contrast Jesus expressed when he told the chief priests and elders of the nation, “The tax collectors and the harlots are going ahead of you into the kingdom of God, for John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. The tax collectors and the harlots, however, did believe him, and you saw this but did not afterward repent and believe him.” (Matthew 21:23, 31, 32) Later, many miracles of Jesus did not motivate the hardened unbelievers to change. Finally, the sign of Jonah—Jesus’ rising from the dead on the third day—did not persuade them to repent.

Jesus’ teaching, particularly suited to parable, pointed to a major reversal. Lazarus who lived a life in torment and desired to be filled with whatever fell from the rich man’s table came to be looked upon as a possible benefactor. As Lazarus yearned for the crumbs, the rich man longed for just a drop of water on the finger tip of the hand to which he had failed to extend compassionate aid.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus contains teaching that calls for sober reflection. There are very serious consequences for failing to respond compassionately to the genuine needs of others as a loyal disciple of God’s Son. This vital aspect is obscured when, like the unbelieving Pharisees, individuals envision a place of torment for others but imagine themselves to be God’s favored ones and, in word and attitude (if not also in action or inaction), reveal themselves to be lacking in love and compassion.

Comments regarding “Josephus’s Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades”

In his translation of the writings of first-century Jewish historian Josephus, William Whiston included an extract that he identified as “Josephus’s Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades.” It is generally agreed, however, that this extract is the work of Hippolytus (c. 170 to c. 235), titled “Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe.” To what extent the material incorporates Jewish views existing in the first century cannot be established with any degree of certainty. A comparison of Whiston’s English translation with J. H. MacMahon’s English rendering of the work of Hippolytus (in Volume V of the Ante-Nicene Fathers) indicates that they are basically the same. In the final paragraph of the preserved portion attributed to Hippolytus, there are two concluding sentences that are not found in Whiston’s translation. The following quotations (taken from the first section that, in a few places, somewhat parallels the words of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) are provided for comparison purposes (with “J” representing Whiston’s translation and “H” representing MacMahon’s translation of the work of Hippolytus):

J: Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region, wherein the light of this world does not shine; from which circumstance, that in this region the light does not shine, it cannot be but there must be in it perpetual darkness. This region is allotted as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one’s behavior and manners.

H:But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained. Hades is a place in the created system, rude, a locality beneath the earth, in which the light of the world does not shine; and as the sun does not shine in this locality, there must necessarily be perpetual darkness there. This locality has been destined to be as it were a guard-house for souls, at which the angels are stationed as guards, distributing according to each one’s deeds the temporary punishments for (different) characters.

J: In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared for a day aforedetermined by God, in which one righteous sentence shall deservedly be passed upon all men; when the unjust and those that have been disobedient to God, and have given honor to such idols as have been the vain operations of the hands of men, as to God himself, shall be adjudged to this everlasting punishment, as having been the causes of defilement; while the just shall obtain an incorruptible and never-fading kingdom. These are now indeed confined in Hades, but not in the same place wherein the unjust are confined.

H: And in this locality there is a certain place set apart by itself, a lake of unquenchable fire, into which we suppose no one has ever yet been cast; for it is prepared against the day determined by God, in which one sentence of righteous judgment shall be justly applied to all. And the unrighteous, and those who believed not God, who have honoured as God the vain works of the hands of men, idols fashioned (by themselves), shall be sentenced to this endless punishment. But the righteous shall obtain the incorruptible and unfading kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous.

J: For there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see, and rejoice in the expectation of those new enjoyments, which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor are any briers there; but the countenance of the fathers and of the just, which they see, always smiles upon them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

H: For to this locality there is one descent, at the gate whereof we believe an archangel is stationed with a host. And when those who are conducted by the angels appointed unto the souls have passed through this gate, they do not proceed on one and the same way; but the righteous, being conducted in the light toward the right, and being hymned by the angels stationed at the place, are brought to a locality full of light. And there the righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever new, and deeming those ever better than these. And that place brings no toils to them. There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham’s bosom.

J: But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand by the angels allotted for punishment, no longer going with a good-will, but as prisoners driven by violence; to whom are sent the angels appointed over them to reproach them and threaten them with their terrible looks, and to thrust them still downwards. Now those angels that are set over these souls drag them into the neighborhood of hell [Gehenna] itself; who, when they are hard by it, continually hear the noise of it, and do not stand clear of the hot vapor itself; but when they have a nearer view of this spectacle, as of a terrible and exceeding great prospect of fire, they are struck with a fearful expectation of a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby: and not only so, but where they see the place [or choir] of the fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it.

H: But the unrighteous are dragged toward the left by angels who are ministers of punishment, and they go of their own accord no longer, but are dragged by force as prisoners. And the angels appointed over them send them along, reproaching them and threatening them with an eye of terror, forcing them down into the lower parts. And when they are brought there, those appointed to that service drag them on to the confines of hell [Gehenna]. And those who are so near hear incessantly the agitation, and feel the hot smoke. And when that vision is so near, as they see the terrible and excessively glowing spectacle of the fire, they shudder in horror at the expectation of the future judgment, (as if they were) already feeling the power of their punishment. And again, where they see the place of the fathers and the righteous, they are also punished there. For a deep and vast abyss is set there in the midst, so that neither can any of the righteous in sympathy think to pass it, nor any of the unrighteous dare to cross it.

Teaching About Stumbling, Forgiveness, and the Right View of One’s Labors (Luke 17:1-10)

Jesus spoke to his disciples about the inevitability that causes for stumbling or offense would come. Despite all the blessings associated with being his disciples and his trustworthy teaching and flawless example in showing love and compassion, there would come to be professing believers whose attitudes, words, or actions would deviate from the path of uprightness, wrecking the faith of others and leading them into sin. Jesus pronounced “woe,” grief, or distress for anyone through whom such stumbling would occur. (Luke 17:1)

The Son of God then stressed the serious consequences for stumbling others. It would be preferable for a person to have a millstone (a heavy one turned by a donkey, according to other manuscripts) hung around his neck and to be tossed into the sea than for him to cause one of the “little” or insignificant believers to stumble. Jesus’ words, “Watch yourselves,” likely mean to exercise care not to cause offense or spiritual injury to others. (Luke 17:2, 3) Another possibility is that the admonition, if linked to what follows, applies to being watchful about maintaining a forgiving spirit toward an erring brother.

The brother or fellow believer who sins against one should be reproved, with the objective being to aid him to see the error of his ways. If he repents, he should be forgiven. Even if he were to sin “seven times” (representative of a significant number of times) in a day and then each time came to the one against whom he had transgressed, asking to be forgiven, he should be forgiven all seven times. (Luke 17:3, 4)

When others repeatedly wrong us, we flawed humans find it hard to forgive. One is more likely to become distrustful and resentful. The apostles appear to have perceived that it would not be easy to heed Jesus’ admonition. This appears to have prompted them to request being granted more faith. Jesus then told them that, if they had faith comparable to a mustard seed (one of the smallest seeds with which they were familiar), they could command a mulberry tree to be uprooted and to be planted in the sea, and it would obey them. Thereby he illustrated that faith would enable them to surmount great obstacles, accomplishing the seemingly impossible. This would have included their being compassionate and forgiving when the usual response would have been one of anger and resentment. (Luke 17:5, 6)

Jesus then related a parable to illustrate the proper view toward the performance of godly service. Would anyone among them who had a servant that came to the house after having finished plowing or tending the flock say to him, “Come here immediately and recline” (to eat)? Instead, he would tell the servant to prepare a meal for him and to gird himself to serve, after which the servant could eat and drink. The owner would not feel obliged to his servant for having done what he was ordered to do. (Luke 17:7-9)

Applying the point of the parable, Jesus said, “Thus also you, when you have done all things you were ordered to do, say, ‘Useless slaves we are, [only] having done what we were obligated to do.’” (Luke 17:10) This strong language served to show the apostles that the performance of the labors entrusted to them was not to be the basis for pride or boasting. The carrying out of an assigned task is not in itself meritorious, and so it would not have been proper for the apostles to consider themselves as special. Instead, they were to regard themselves as would ordinary slaves who did nothing more than duty required and, from the standpoint of any special merit attaching to their deeds, could be called “useless.”

Return to Judea, Departure from Bethany, and Continued Activity

According to Luke 17:11, Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. As the subsequent chapters indicate, this was his final trip to the city and culminated in the completion of his earthly ministry. The events related in John 11:1-54 preceded that trip, for the account of Jesus’ final activity in and around Jerusalem begins with John 12:1. Intervening events after Jesus’ arrival and departure from Bethany are narrated in Matthew 19:1-20:34; Mark 10:1-52; Luke 17:11-19:28.

It appears that Jesus’ disciples and close friends were familiar with the general area where he could be found if they needed to get in touch with him. This is suggested by the fact that Mary and Martha were able to get word to him about their brother Lazarus. (John 11:3)

The Resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:1-54)

Martha, her sister Mary, and their brother Lazarus lived in Bethany, a village about two miles from Jerusalem. Lazarus became seriously ill, and his sisters apparently looked to Jesus either for comfort or to restore their brother to good health. They sent him the following message about Lazarus, “The one whom you love is sick.” (John 11:1-3, 18; see the Notes section regarding verse 2.)

To the messenger or messengers, Jesus then indicated that the sickness would not have death as its final outcome but would serve to bring glory or praise to God. Moreover, through this illness, he, the Son of God, would be glorified. (John 11:4) This would be because his greatness would be revealed in an astonishingly impressive way. By his words (which would have been related to Martha and Mary), Jesus desired to provide hope to them. (Compare John 11:40, where Jesus reminded Martha about having told her about seeing the glory of God.)

He did not leave for Bethany immediately but stayed two days longer where he was. Indicating that this delay did not reflect unfavorably on his compassion, the account says that Jesus loved Martha, her sister, and Lazarus. (John 11:5, 6)

When he then told his disciples about his decision to go with them to Judea, they were shocked, reminding him that the unbelieving Jews there had intended to stone him. In disbelief, the disciples asked, “Are you going there again?” (John 11:7, 8)

Jesus assured them that they had nothing to fear. “Are there not twelve hours of day?” By walking in the day, one would not stumble, for one would see the “light of the world” or the sun. If, though, a person walked in the night, he would stumble because the light would not be “in him.” (John 11:9, 10; see the Notes section regarding verse 10.) In daylight, one would be able to see obstacles and avoid them, but darkness conceals, creating a far greater likelihood for tripping over an object in one’s path.

As far as Jesus’ activity was concerned, the night had not yet come when he would be arrested and killed. It continued to be daylight for carrying out his commission, which included bringing comfort to those in distress. Moreover, while with his disciples, he served as a light to them. When he would be taken away from them in death, darkness would set in for them, causing them to succumb to fear and to scatter.

Jesus then told the disciples that their friend Lazarus had fallen asleep and he would be going to awaken him. They understood this to mean that Lazarus was getting his rest and would get well. To correct their misunderstanding, Jesus said, “Lazarus died,” thereby also revealing to them his being in possession of miraculous knowledge. (John 11:11-14)

For the sake of his disciples, Jesus rejoiced that he had not been in Bethany, for what was about to take place would lead them to “believe” or would strengthen their faith in him as God’s Son. Although Lazarus had died, Jesus said, “Let us go to him.” (John 11:15)

One of the apostles, Thomas, also called Didymus (meaning “Twin”), spoke up, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” (John 11:16; see the Notes section regarding Didymus.) Lazarus was already dead, and so Thomas would not have meant dying with Lazarus. It appears that Jesus’ reassurance had not convinced him that returning to Judea would not be risky. Thomas seems to have concluded that the unbelieving Jews would kill Jesus and that the apostles should nevertheless go with him to Judea and share his fate.

By the time they arrived at Bethany, Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. The family seems to have been well known in Jerusalem, for Bethany was only about two miles away. Many Jews had come to see Martha and Mary, seeking to comfort them over the loss of their brother. (John 11:17-19)

As soon as she learned that Jesus was on his way, Martha, typical of a woman of action, left to meet him. Mary, however, stayed in the house, remaining seated as a mourner in the presence of those who had come to comfort her and her sister. (John 11:20)

Martha’s first words to Jesus reflected her faith in him. “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you.” Her words indicate that she believed Jesus could and would have restored her brother to soundness of health. Still, she had not given up hope, for she confidently acknowledged that God would grant all of Jesus’ requests. (John 11:21, 22)

In response to Jesus’ assurance, “Your brother will rise,” Martha expressed her belief in the resurrection, “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” (John 11:23, 24) Her reply suggests that she was familiar with the assurance given to Daniel (12:13, NRSV), “You, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.” Martha was confident that the promise of a resurrection “at the end of the days” or “on the last day” also applied to her brother.

Jesus then indicated that Martha would not have to wait until the “last day” for Lazarus to rise. “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he dies, will live. And everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25, 26) When referring to himself as being “the resurrection and the life,” Jesus revealed that he had the authority to raise the dead and to impart life. This assured a resurrection for believers who died. All living believers enjoy an enduring relationship with him and his Father. Death does not end that relationship, for it is eternal. Therefore, believers continue in possession of the real life or the eternal life and, in that sense, would never die.

At the time, Martha seemingly did not fully understand Jesus’ words, for her response focused on why she believed what he had told her. “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” Martha believed him because she recognized him to be the promised Messiah, God’s Son. (John 11:27)

She returned to her home, called Mary, and “secretly” or privately told her, “The teacher has come and is asking for you.” Martha’s intent for speaking to her sister away from others may have been to give her the opportunity to have a private conversation with Jesus. Mary then rushed off. Jesus had not as yet entered Bethany, remaining at the location where Martha had met him. When those who had come to comfort Mary saw her get up and quickly leave the house, they followed her, thinking that she was heading for the tomb to weep. (John 11:28-31)

Mary fell to her knees at Jesus’ feet and expressed herself just as Martha had, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” (John 11:32) It is likely that the two sisters had often said this to one another, prompting the same spontaneous expression from them when meeting him. Seeing Mary and those who accompanied her weeping, Jesus was deeply moved emotionally. In describing his reaction, the Greek text has a form of embrimáomai, which can mean “to be indignant,” “to rebuke,” or “to charge sternly.” In this context, the term may indicate that the grief brought about by the death of Lazarus caused Jesus to be “indignant in spirit” or to experience an intense internal upheaval. It disturbed him greatly, and he also came to be troubled and distressed. Jesus then asked, “Where have you laid him?” (John 11:33, 34)

The mourners replied, “Lord, come and see.” The grief Jesus witnessed affected him deeply, and he began to weep. (See the Notes section for additional comments about the weeping.) Observing this, many regarded his tears as an evidence of his great affection for Lazarus. The expressions of others suggested a measure of unbelief, “Was not the one who opened the eyes of the blind man able to keep this one from dying?” (John 11:34-37)

Upon arriving at the burial site, Jesus again felt indignant (embrimáomai) within himself, was deeply moved, or experienced an inner upheaval. Both the weeping and the expressions of unbelief must have contributed to this internal emotional stirring. The body of Lazarus had been placed in a cave, and the opening had been closed with a large stone. (John 11:38)

When Jesus asked for the stone to be taken away, Martha protested, “Lord, he already stinks, for it is four [days].” Her reaction was an emotional response based on knowledge about the stench resulting from decomposition. This instantaneous emotional reaction did not take into consideration that Jesus had identified himself as “the resurrection and the life.” He reminded her of his promise, “Did I not tell you that, if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (John 11:39, 40)

Certain ones then did remove the stone. Jesus focused his eyes heavenward and thanked his Father for having heard him. Continuing to pray, he said, “I, however, knew that you always hear me, but because of the crowd standing around I spoke, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11:41, 42) In response to Jesus’ loud cry for him to come out, Lazarus did so. His hands and feet were still wrapped with bands, and a cloth covered his face. Jesus asked that the restraining bands be removed, making it possible for Lazarus to walk. (John 11:43, 44)

Many of those who witnessed this miracle became believers. Some, though, did not put faith in Jesus. They reported what had happened to the unbelieving Pharisees. (John 11:45, 46)

This news prompted the chief priests and Pharisees to arrange for the members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, to meet to determine what they should do about Jesus. Because of the many signs he had performed, they feared a popular uprising. Many would put faith in him as the promised Messiah, leading to a conflict with Rome. As they expressed it, “The Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” Convinced that war with Rome would mean loss of their place, meaning their land, their holy city Jerusalem, or their temple, and the destruction of the nation, they felt that they needed to take action. They must also have recognized that their position as prominent members of the nation was at stake. What seems to have troubled them was their lack of the needed evidence to justify having Jesus executed. (John 11:47, 48)

Caiaphas, who was then the high priest, had no qualms respecting this. He basically told the members of the Sanhedrin that they did not need any evidence of guilt, saying, “You do not know anything nor do you understand that it is better for you [us, according to other manuscripts] that one man die for the people and not for the whole nation to be destroyed.” As far as he was concerned, Jesus endangered the continued existence of the nation and needed to be killed. Saving the whole nation was sufficient reason for executing one man. (John 11:49, 50; see the Notes section regarding verse 50.)

Whereas Caiaphas spoke as one guided by political considerations, the words were framed in a manner that expressed a prophecy appropriate for one occupying the position of high priest. The account includes the editorial comment that Caiaphas did not speak of his own and adds, “Being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he might gather into one the scattered children of God.” (John 11:51, 52) Jesus did die for people everywhere, making it possible for all those who believed in him to become God’s children and form one united whole or one family even though they were widely dispersed in different regions.

In keeping with the words of the high priest, the Sanhedrin determined to have Jesus killed. (John 11:53) Possibly word about this development reached Jesus through Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. (Compare Luke 23:50, 51; John 7:45, 50, 51.) As a result, Jesus could no longer walk openly among the people. He left Bethany and the area around Jerusalem and headed for a less populated region. For a time, he and his disciples stayed in Ephraim. (John 11:54) This town is commonly thought to have been located about 12 miles northeast of Jerusalem, but the identification is uncertain.

Notes:

In John’s account, verse 1 of chapter 11 contains the first mention of Martha, Mary and Lazarus. A number of other women were also called Mary. Therefore, in verse 2, the sister of Lazarus is uniquely differentiated from the others by a notable deed that had not as yet taken place. She was the one who anointed Jesus with perfumed ointment and wiped his feet with her hair.

Light enters the eyes, and this may be why, when all is darkness and no light can enter the eyes, John 11:10 says, “The light is not in him.”

Thomas probably came to be called “Didymus” (Twin) because he had a twin brother or sister.

In John 11:33, the “weeping” of Mary and those who were with her would have been an audible weeping or wailing. The Greek word klaío, meaning “weep,” “mourn,” or “wail,” lays stress on the sound associated with the weeping. In John 11:35, the Greek term dakryo designates the weeping of Jesus. The noun form of this verb is dákryon, meaning “tear.” So it would seem that Jesus’ sympathetic sorrow proved to be a silent shedding of tears.

According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2), Valerius Gratus, whom the Roman emperor Tiberius had appointed as procurator of Judea, replaced Simon with Joseph Caiaphas as high priest. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas (Ananus, according to Josephus), whom Valerius Gratus had deprived of the high priesthood about three years earlier but who continued to wield great influence in the affairs of the nation. (John 18:13; Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2) In John 11:49, Caiaphas is referred to as being “high priest that year.” This does not mean that he was annually appointed to the office. It may be understood to signify that he served as high priest at that time or in the significant year when Jesus was put to death.

In John 11:50, “you” appears in many ancient manuscripts, including the oldest extant papyrus manuscripts (P45 and P66) containing this verse. Later manuscripts read “us,” and fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus omits the pronoun.

Ten Lepers Healed (Luke 17:11-19)

Based on Luke 17:11, Jesus did not remain in Ephraim but headed northward and later set out for Jerusalem. When traveling to Jerusalem with his disciples, he went “through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.” In his translation, J. B. Phillips interprets this to mean that “Jesus crossed the boundary between Samaria and Galilee.” A more likely meaning is that Jesus, on his way to Jerusalem, traveled eastward along the border between Samaria and Galilee. A number of translations are explicit in referring to the border region. “Now it happened that on the way to Jerusalem he was traveling in the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee.” (NJB) “Jesus went along the border between Samaria and Galilee.” (CEV) “In the course of his journey to Jerusalem he was travelling through the borderlands of Samaria and Galiee.” (REB) “He was going through the area between Samaria and Galilee.” (NCV)

As he was about to enter a village along the way, ten lepers, standing in the distance, shouted, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us.” (Luke 17:12, 13)

The ten afflicted men may have stayed together for mutual help, for the ailment had rendered them ceremonially unclean and made it necessary for them to avoid contact with anyone who was not diseased. The Greek word for “leprosy” (lépra), besides the disfiguring Hansen’s disease, includes a variety of skin afflictions. Therefore, the precise nature of their disease cannot be established. As men who were ceremonially unclean according to the Mosaic law, they remained standing at a distance.

When he saw them, Jesus told them to go and show themselves to the priests. (Luke 17:14) His instructions upheld the Mosaic law, which commanded cured lepers to submit to a priestly examination and then to follow through on the prescribed procedure for cleansing. (See the Notes section regarding the specifics of the law.)

The ten men must have believed that they would be cured and departed. While on the way, they were healed. One of them, becoming aware that he had been cured, walked back to Jesus. With a loud voice, he glorified or praised God for what had occurred. He fell to his knees and prostrated himself at Jesus’ feet, thanking him for what he had done for him. The man happened to be a Samaritan. (Luke 17:14-16)

This prompted Jesus to say, “Were not the ten cleansed? But where are the other nine? Were none found [among them desirous] to return to give glory to God except this foreigner?” (Luke 17:17, 18) It must have been troubling for Jesus to see this lack of gratitude among his own people who should have been exemplary in praising his Father.

He then told the Samaritan who had bowed before him, with his face touching the ground, to rise and to continue on his way. Jesus added, “Your faith has made you well.” It was the man’s faith in Jesus that caused him to join the other nine lepers in pleading to be shown mercy. (Luke 17:19)

Notes:

According to the law, the priest would examine the healed leper and determine whether the diseased condition no longer existed. This would be followed by a cleansing ceremony involving the use of two birds, cedarwood, scarlet yarn, and hyssop. One of the birds would be killed over an earthen vessel containing “living” water (fresh or spring water, not stagnant water from a cistern), allowing the blood to flow into the vessel. With the yarn, the living bird and the hyssop would be attached to the wood and dipped into the vessel. The water mingled with blood would be sprinkled seven times upon the cured leper. Thereafter the living bird would be released to fly away. (Leviticus 14:2-7)

The cured leper would wash his garments, shave off all his bodily hair, and bathe. Seven days later, he would again shave off all his bodily hair, wash his garments, and bathe. On the eighth day, he, depending on whether he could afford to do so, would offer two unblemished male lambs, one unblemished female lamb, three-tenths of an ephah (about six dry quarts) of choice flour mixed with olive oil, and one “log” (possibly about two-thirds of a pint) of olive oil. With the prescribed amount of olive oil, the priest would present one of the lambs as a guilt offering. He would then take some of the blood of the slaughtered lamb and put it on the cured leper’s right earlobe, thumb of the right hand, and big toe of the right foot. After sprinkling seven times before God with his right finger the olive oil he had poured into his left palm, the priest would apply some of the oil where he had put the blood—the right earlobe, the thumb of the right hand, and the big toe of the right foot. He would then put all the remaining olive oil on the head of the cured leper. Thereafter the priest would offer one of the lambs (probably the female lamb; compare Leviticus 4:32) as a sin offering and the other lamb as a burnt offering, accompanied by the grain offering. (Leviticus 14:8-20)

For one who could not afford all these offerings, two pigeons or two turtledoves could be substituted for one of the male lambs and the female lamb. The amount of choice flour would be reduced to one-tenth ephah (over two dry quarts). The procedure followed would remain the same. (Leviticus 14:21-31)

God’s Kingdom and Christ’s Return (Luke 17:20-37)

Certain Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God would come. Jesus’ reply focused on the nature of its coming, and this is conveyed in the account by a negation of the Greek word paratéresis. The corresponding verb parateréo means “watch,” “observe,” “guard,” or “spy on.” Therefore, Jesus’ reply may be understood to mean that God’s kingdom is not coming in a manner that can be closely observed or watched. Unlike the kingdoms of the world that rise to a position of power over other lands through military conquests that can readily be seen, God’s kingdom does not make its entrance on the earthly scene in an impressive, observable manner. (Luke 17:20)

No one would be able to say that it is “here” or “there,” as if it had a defined territory over which it ruled. Jesus then said, “For, behold! God’s kingdom is inside [entós] you.” In relation to God’s kingdom, the Greek term entós probably is to be understood as meaning that God’s reign had already begun among the people. (Luke 17:21) Jesus, the king by his Father’s appointment, was in their midst. By repenting of their sins and accepting him as their king or lord and God’s Son, individuals came to be part of the realm where the Most High is Sovereign. Like leaven that produces results but is hidden in the dough, God’s kingdom was already present and in operation but not in a manner that could be observed like the military conquests of earthly governments. (Matthew 13:33)

The end of all competing human rule was yet future and would follow Jesus’ return in glory. It was concerning this return that he next spoke to his disciples.

In the intervening period before Jesus’ return, his disciples would face trying times. They would yearn to have one precious day with him, just one of the days for which the majority who saw Jesus had little appreciation. “Days will come,” Jesus told them, “when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see [it].” The past days when he walked and labored among them, teaching, comforting, and reassuring them, would not be repeated. (Luke 17:22; see the Notes section for another possible explanation.)

In times of distress, people are susceptible to being deluded by those who offer false hopes. The Jewish historian Josephus referred to false prophets who, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, deceived the people with promises of divine deliverance. He continued, “Now, a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such deliverance. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers.” (War, VI, v, 2, 3) Jesus’ admonition served to safeguard his disciples from being deceived into thinking that his return and deliverance from distress was at hand. He said, “They will say to you, ‘Look here!’ or ‘Look there!’ Do not go out nor pursue.” (Luke 17:23)

His return would not be of a secret nature, becoming known only to a select few. It would be as observable as lightning that illuminates the sky. (Luke 17:24) Regarding developments that were imminent, Jesus said about himself, “First he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.” (Luke 17:25)

Jesus next mentioned the “days of the Son of Man,” which “days” refer to the time of his return in glory and the events associated therewith. He likened those “days” to the “days of Noah.” The people of Noah’s generation paid no attention to him but continued to be preoccupied with their routine of life, eating, drinking, and marrying. Then, after Noah entered the ark, the flood came and destroyed all those who had given no heed to his warning. (Luke 17:26, 27)

Something similar happened in the days of Lot in the city of Sodom. People were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building. But once Lot was no longer in the city, a downpour of fire and sulfur destroyed them all. In both cases, the judgment came at an unexpected time, with the people engaging in the usual affairs of life. Likewise it will be on the day “the Son of Man is revealed.” His return in glory for judgment will find people preoccupied with their daily routine and not expecting a sudden day of reckoning. (Luke 17:28-30)

“On that day” or at that time, there will be no opportunity for any kind of preparation or last-minute changes in one’s condition, and undue attachment to anything of a mundane nature would jeopardize one’s being in a prepared state. Regardless of where individuals may find themselves, they must be ready to welcome the Son of God upon his return or suffer the consequences for being in a disapproved state. Stressing that undue attachment to anything of this world would pose a grave danger to one’s having an approved standing, Jesus said that a person on the roof should not go back into his house to get belongings and that the individual in the field should not turn back to the things he left behind. “Remember Lot’s wife,” Jesus added. Although no longer in Sodom, she remained attached to what she had left behind. Failing to move swiftly out of the danger area and longingly looking back, she perished. (Luke 17:31, 32; for additional comments regarding verse 31, see the Notes section.)

Being in a state of readiness for Christ’s return requires being faithful to him at all times. This could even include sacrificing one’s very life. Efforts to save one’s soul or life in ways that would constitute disloyalty to Christ would mean losing the real life of an enduring relationship with him and his Father. The one losing his soul or life for the sake of the Son of God would be preserving it, as his resurrection would be assured at the time Jesus returned. (Luke 17:33; the same thought is expressed in Matthew 10:39; 16:25; John 12:25.)

It will be a time of judgment, with those who are approved being united with the Lord Jesus Christ, whereas the others will be left behind to experience adverse consequences. According to Jesus’ words, even close associates would then be affected, as they would not necessarily be sharing the same outcome. “In that night, two [men] will be in one bed. One [man] will be taken, and the other one will be left. Two [women] will be grinding [grain] together. One [woman] will be taken, and the other one will be left.” (Luke 17:34-36; see the Notes section regarding verse 36.)

The disciples asked, “Where, Lord?” They wanted to know in what particular location this would occur. Revealing that no specific place was involved, Jesus said, “Where the body [carcass is], there also the eagles [vultures] will gather.” (Luke 17:37; see the Notes section about the Greek word for “eagle.”) The response seems to have been a proverbial saying, indicating that wherever there is a carcass the carrion birds would be seen. It would not be a matter of location, but the event would be readily discernible, just as when an increasing number of vultures begin to circle in the sky.

Notes:

There is a possibility that longing for “one of the days of the Son of Man” could refer to the yearning for just one of the days of his future return. In that case, the disciples’ not seeing one of these days suggests that considerable time would pass before he would come again.

In Luke 17:31, the house would be one with a flat roof, where people would commonly spend time on a hot day, as it would be cooler there than inside the home. Access to the roof would be either by means of outside stairs or a ladder. This explains the admonition for the individual on the roof or housetop not to come down to get belongings from inside the house.

Luke 17:36 is missing in the oldest extant manuscripts and is usually not included in modern translations. The passage reads, “Two [men] will be in the field. One [man] will be taken and the other one will be left.”

The Greek word aetós is the usual designation for “eagle.” Numerous translators have chosen to render the Greek term in Luke 17:37 as “vultures,” for these birds gather in large numbers to feed on carcasses. As a proverbial saying, the rendering “vultures” would fit better, for eagles are primarily solitary hunters that catch living prey.

Parables About Prayer (Luke 18:1-14)

To his disciples, Jesus related a parable about continuing to persist in prayer, not becoming disheartened when the answer does not soon follow. (Luke 18:1)

A judge in a particular city had no fear of God and no regard for people. Ancient Jewish sources indicate that three judges handled property cases. (Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 1:1; Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 1:1) So Jesus appears to have portrayed a non-Jewish judge, likely an appointee of Rome. (Luke 18:2)

A widow in the city repeatedly went to the judge, requesting that he grant her a just verdict respecting her adversary. For a time, the judge was unwilling to act. Though he did not fear God and had no respect for people, he reconsidered. Jesus had him saying to himself, “Because this widow makes trouble for me, I shall execute justice for her, lest she come endlessly [and] beat me down.” Directing attention to the point of the parable, Jesus continued, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said.” (Luke 18:3-6; see the Notes section regarding verse 5.)

He wanted his disciples to note that the judge, although corrupt, did finally yield and render justice. Therefore, they should never doubt that God would execute “justice for his chosen who cry out to him day and night, and he is patient with them.” The heavenly Father is not like the unjust judge who considered the widow’s repeated appeals for justice as an unwelcome annoyance. God is just and patient with his servants who repeatedly petition him for help. (Luke 18:7; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Jesus continued with the assurance, “[God] will execute justice for them swiftly.” After having stressed the certainty of his Father’s doing what is right for his chosen in answer to their prayers, Jesus raised a rhetorical question, “When the Son of Man comes, will he really find [this] faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) The question suggests that, at the time of Jesus’ return in glory, faith in God as the hearer of prayer would be rare.

Another parable about prayer exposed those who regarded themselves as righteous or divinely approved on the basis of their deeds and who despised persons whose conformity to legal requirements did not meet their standards. The self-righteous ones trusted in themselves, relying on their own view of what constituted uprightness and looking down upon others as amounting to nothing. (Luke 18:9)

A Pharisee and a tax collector went to the temple to pray. The Pharisee stood proudly and said to himself, “O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of men—swindlers, crooks, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of everything I obtain.” (Luke 18:10-12) The Pharisee of the parable thus identified himself as living up to the legal requirements of the law and the tradition of the elders but as disdaining those who failed to do so. Whereas the law did not require fasting on a weekly basis, the Pharisees did so on Monday and Thursday (the second and fifth day of the week that started on Saturday at sundown).

The tax collector stood at a distance. Jesus thus depicted him as not considering himself worthy to be in a closer proximity to the sanctuary. Furthermore, the tax collector could not even bring himself to raise his eyes to heaven but beat himself on his breast, saying, “God, be compassionate to me, a sinner.” Applying the point of the parable, Jesus indicated that the tax collector returned to his house as one justified or constituted right with God, whereas the Pharisee did not. The Son of God concluded with the principle, “Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:13, 14)

Notes:

In Luke 18:5, the Greek verb here rendered “beat down” is hypopiázo, which has the basic sense of striking in the face below the eye or giving someone a black eye. Nonliteral meanings include “treat roughly,” “wear down,” and “wear out.” The concluding phrase, where hypopiázo appears, begins with the words, “to [the] end coming.” With reference to the widow, this could mean that she would be coming continually, endlessly, or without letup. Another possibility is that “to [the] end” could mean “finally” and relate to the widow’s last action.

In view of the different ways in which the Greek text of Luke 18:5 may be understood, translations vary considerably. “I must give this widow her just rights since she keeps pestering me, or she will come and slap me in the face.” (NJB) “I will see that justice is done her in order that lest by her continual coming finally she may be assaulting me.” (Wuest) “I shall deliver a just decision for her lest she finally come and strike me.” (NAB) Although the preceding meanings are possible, it does not appear likely that Jesus would have portrayed the judge as one who feared that the widow would slap him in the face or assault him for not acting on her repeated pleas.

The following renderings appear to present a preferable sense: “I will see that she gets her rights. Otherwise she will continue to bother me until I am worn out.” (NCV) “I will give her justice before she wears me out with her persistence.” (REB) “I shall give judgment in her favor, or else her continual visits will be the death of me!” (Phillips) “I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.” (NASV) “I will give her justice, so she doesn’t wear me out by her persistent coming.” (HCSB) “I will give her justice, so that she will not beat me down by her continual coming.” (ESV)

The concluding phrase of the rhetorical question in Luke 18:7 is, “and he is patient with them.” The Greek verb for “is patient” (makrothyméo) conveys the sense of remaining calm while waiting or being patient or forbearing. In the parable, the judge is not depicted as patient or forbearing but as irritated by the widow’s repeated appeals. So it would appear that the reference to God’s patience serves as a contrast. A number of translations reflect this significance in their renderings. “Do you suppose God, patient as he is, will not see justice done for his chosen, who appeal to him day and night?” (Phillips) “Then will not God give justice to his chosen, to whom he listens patiently while they cry out to him day and night?” (REB)

The principle found in Luke 18:14 about humbling and exalting appears in a different setting in Matthew 23:12 and Luke 14:11.

Questions About Divorce (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12)

On his way to Judea, Jesus crossed the Jordan and traveled through Perea with his disciples. Both Matthew 19:1 and Mark 10:1 refer to Perea as “the boundaries [region] of Judea across [the other side of] the Jordan.” Large crowds followed him, as the people would have been heading for Jerusalem to observe the Passover. The Jews generally preferred traveling through Perea instead of taking the more direct route through Samaria. On account of different views respecting worship, considerable animosity existed between the Jews and the Samaritans. While among the people, Jesus used the opportunity to teach them and to heal the afflicted. (Matthew 19:2; Mark 10:1; see the Notes section regarding Mark 10:1.)

To test Jesus, certain Pharisees approached him, inquiring whether a man could divorce his wife for any cause. He referred them to the creation account in Genesis, asking whether they had not read that the one who created them at the beginning “made them male and female.” Jesus continued the question with the quotation (Genesis 2:24), which he attributed to the Creator, “For this reason, a man will leave [his] father and mother and will cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” (Matthew 19:3-5; Mark 10:2, 7, 8; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

These words indicated that the new relationship a man would form with his wife would prove to be even closer than had existed between him and his parents, and the union would be so intimate that the two would prove to be “one flesh.” Applying the instruction that should have been drawn from the creation account, Jesus said, “Thus they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man separate.” Marriage was to be a permanent union. (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9)

This prompted the Pharisees to ask why Moses commanded giving a divorce document and dismissing a wife. Jesus explained that this was a concession made on account of the hardheartedness of the men but did not exist at the beginning. The provision allowing divorce protected women from the kind of abuse that would have arisen if husbands had come to hate them but could not send them away. (Matthew 19:7, 8)

Based on Mark’s account, the interchange with the Pharisees may have ended at this point. Jesus and his disciples left and entered the house where he was staying. The disciples appear to have understood that marriage was more binding than they had thought previously. In the privacy of the home, they questioned him further about the matter. He then told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband [and afterward] marries another, she commits adultery.” According to Roman law (but not the Mosaic law), a woman could divorce her husband. The man or woman initiating a divorce and then marrying someone else would be committing adultery. The marriage bond that made him or her “one flesh” with the divorced mate would have been broken. (Mark 10:10-12; see the Notes section for comments on Matthew 19:9.)

Reasoning that the possibility of getting into a bad marriage was very real, the disciples concluded that, with divorce being excluded, it would be preferable not to marry. Jesus did not support the idea that singleness was better because marriage without the option for divorce appeared to be too risky. First, he indicated that remaining unmarried was not for everyone but was for those to whom it was given. Jesus then stated reasons for remaining unmarried. Certain ones were eunuchs from birth and unable to procreate. Others were eunuchs because of an operation performed on them, preventing them from rendering the marriage due and fathering children. Still others, for the sake of the kingdom, would remain unmarried or choose to live as eunuchs. Their purpose would be to devote themselves fully to the cause of the Most High as part of the realm where he is Sovereign. The unmarried state would leave them free from the cares, concerns, and responsibilities that accompanied marriage and family life. (Matthew 19:11, 12; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Possibly the disciples were reminded of the case of the prophet Jeremiah. On account of the calamity to befall Judah and Jerusalem, he was commanded to remain unmarried and for decades faithfully served as a prophet. (Jeremiah 16:1-4)

With reference to choosing singleness for noble spiritual reasons, Jesus said, “Let him who can make space [for it], make space [for it].” He did not impose singleness as a requirement for any particular role a disciple might fill, but left the choice up to the individual. (Matthew 19:12)

Notes:

In Mark 10:1, a number of ancient manuscripts include “and” after “the boundaries of Judea” (“the boundaries of Judea and across [the other side of] the Jordan”). Other manuscript readings are “the boundaries of Judea through the other side of the Jordan,” “the boundaries of Judea into the other side of the Jordan,” and “the boundaries of Judea and through the other side of the Jordan.”

A comparison of Matthew 19:3-12 with Mark 10:2-12 reveals a number of differences, but the basic points are the same. In Matthew’s account, Jesus is represented as first mentioning the Genesis account. Mark 10:3, however, has him asking them, “What did Moses command you?” After they replied that he allowed writing a document of divorce, Jesus explained that this was because of their hardheartedness but was not the case from the beginning, confirming his point with the quotation from Genesis.

The differences in the accounts are understandable when one considers that they provide only a condensed version of interchanges that occurred in another language. Therefore, the agreement exists in relation to the message but not in the exact language, the details, or the sequence of the conversations. In certain cases, the details make it possible to integrate one account with another one. At other times, however, the narratives are too abbreviated for reaching any definitive conclusion.

The wording of Matthew 19:9 seems to suggest that Jesus continued to speak to the Pharisees. In the next verse, however, the disciples are the ones who are mentioned as responding. According to Mark 10:10, the disciples did not question Jesus until they were in “the house,” and this detail is missing in Matthew’s account. For this reason, one cannot be certain whether Jesus directed the words found in Matthew 19:9 to the Pharisees or whether he spoke them privately to his disciples.

The manuscript readings for Matthew 19:9 vary. They include the following: “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, except [on the] ground [literally, word] of sexual immorality [porneía], and marries another commits adultery.” “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, not for sexual immorality [porneía], and marries another commits adultery.” “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, not for sexual immorality [porneía], and marries another makes her commit adultery.” “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” “But I say to you, Whoever divorces his wife, except [on the] ground [literally, word] of sexual immorality [porneía],and marries another, makes her commit adultery.” Additionally, certain manuscripts say that the one marrying a divorced woman commits adultery.

According to the Mosaic law, the penalty for marital unfaithfulness was death. Under Roman rule, however, the Jews were not permitted to inflict capital punishment. Based on the majority of the extant manuscript readings, Jesus introduced the exception that would have ended a marriage. Any other ground would not have broken the marriage bond. Therefore, the man who dismissed his wife when no sexual misconduct was involved and married another woman made himself guilty of adultery. Moreover, because many divorced women were unable to support themselves, the man who unjustly dismissed his wife created a situation that either forced her into a life of prostitution or into a relationship with another man. Accordingly, the man initiating the divorce would have caused his wife to commit adultery.

In verses 11 and 12 of Matthew 19, the Greek word choréo can mean to make or prepare room or space. It can also signify to grasp or to accept. The reference to making space or room for or accepting “the word” doubtless applies to making room for or accepting what the disciples had said about the advisability of remaining unmarried, but not to their reason for this option. (Matthew 19:11) Then, in Jesus’ summary statement (“Let him who can make space [for it], make space [for it]”), the verb choréo has no object in the Greek text of Matthew 19:12. Based on the preceding context, the implied object appears to be the “word” about remaining single for the sake of the kingdom.

Jesus Blesses Little Children (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)

The people who brought small children to Jesus doubtless were parents who believed in him. They wanted him to lay his hands on their little ones, praying for them and imparting his blessing. According to most manuscripts of Luke 18:15, the “little children” (plural of paidíon were “infants” (plural of bréphos). The fact that they were brought may indicate that at least some of them were being carried. They were too small to come on their own. In wanting Jesus to pronounce a blessing of well-being when laying his hands on their little ones and praying for them, the parents revealed their love and concern for them. (Matthew 19:13; Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15)

When the disciples saw what was happening, they reprimanded those who brought the little children. (Matthew 19:13; Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15) The accounts do not reveal the reason for their objection. Possibly the disciples thought that the little ones were too young for this kind of attention or that Jesus had more important work to do than to spend time with small children.

He, however, responded very differently to what the disciples may have considered a well-meaning effort to shield him from an unnecessary interruption. Jesus asked that the little children be allowed to come to him and that they should not be hindered. He then used the opportunity to stress an important truth, “The kingdom of God is for [or belongs to] such. Amen [Truly], I say to you, Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will not, no [never], enter into it.” (Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14, 15; Luke 18:16, 17; see the Notes section for additional comments.) All who accept God’s reign in their life, recognizing him as Sovereign and submitting to his ways, must be like small children—trusting, innocent, teachable, and unassuming.

Jesus loved the little children of the believing ones who brought them, accepting them as belonging to him. He took the little ones into his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them. Thereafter he left the area. (Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:16; see the Notes section.) The tender portrayal of Jesus’ interaction with small children reveals that they were comfortable in his presence and drawn to him.

Notes:

Matthew’s account does not include the comments about “receiving” the kingdom of God like a little child. In many manuscripts, Jesus’ words regarding this are identical in Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17.
-
Luke’s account does not mention that Jesus blessed the little children. Matthew 19:15 reports that he laid his hands on them. Mark 10:16 provides the details about Jesus taking the little ones into his arms and blessing them. A number of manuscripts include “and” after the first “them.” According to this reading of Mark 10:16, he laid his “hands on them and blessed them.”

Only Matthew 19:15 reports that Jesus departed from there.

Riches and Entering the Kingdom (Matthew 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30)

A rich young ruler came running toward Jesus and kneeled before him. Addressing him as “Good Teacher,” the young man asked what “good [thing or deed]” he needed to do to inherit “eternal life” (probably meaning life in the age to come). (Matthew 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Although in possession of great wealth, this young man perceived a lack. Based on what he had come to know, he concluded that Jesus, as a notable teacher, would be able to answer his question. The manner in which Jesus responded initially suggests that the young man had a view of him that went beyond what would have been appropriate for a human teacher and did not necessarily recognize him as a teacher who had come from God.

Only Matthew 19:16 includes “good [thing or deed]” as part of the young man’s question, and this is then reflected in Jesus’ reply. “Why do you ask me about good? One is the Good [One].” According to other ancient manuscripts, the “Good One” is specifically identified as God. (Matthew 19:17)

Both in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19, Jesus’ reply directed attention away from him as the “Good Teacher” from a human standpoint to the ultimate source of all that is good and, by implication, the source for his teaching. “Why do you call me good? No one [is] good, but one, God.”

Jesus then called attention to observing the commandments as being vital for entering “into life”—do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not testify falsely, do not defraud (in Mark 10:19, according to numerous manuscripts), honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 19:18, 19; Luke 18:20; see the Notes section for comments on Matthew 19:18, 19.)

The young man, based on his earliest recollection, believed that he had lived up to the commandments. Still, he asked, “What yet do I lack?” Jesus felt love for him, suggesting that he saw in him admirable qualities and the potential for being a devoted disciple. “If you want to be complete,” Jesus continued, “go, sell your possessions and give to the poor (and you will have treasure in [the] heavens), and come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:20, 21; Mark 10:20, 21; Luke 18:21, 22; see the Notes section for comments on Mark 10:21.) By using his abundant assets to aid his poor fellow Jews, he would be greatly enriched. The Most High would look favorably upon his concern and compassion for the needy, repaying him beyond what he could even have imagined for thus laying up treasure in heaven.

Undue attachment to his riches prevented the young man from acting on Jesus’ words. After hearing about the one thing he lacked, he became dejected. Saddened, he departed, “for he had many possessions.” (Matthew 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23)

Starting with a solemn “amen” (truly), Jesus told his disciples that it would be difficult for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of the heavens. He added, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich [person to enter] the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:23, 24; Mark 10:23-25; Luke 18:24, 25; see the Notes section for additional comments.) To be part of the realm where God reigns by means of his Son called for sacrifice. It required being willing (if necessary) to forfeit everything of a mundane nature and to accept the suffering, hardship, and reproach resulting from incurring the animosity of people who continued in a state of alienation from God. Among the populace generally, the wealthy wielded great influence and enjoyed high honor. Their status made the decision to be a follower of Jesus more difficult, as much more seemed to be at stake than for those with modest or little means and without a prominent standing in the community.

The disciples were surprised about the great difficulty the rich would face in getting into the kingdom. They appear to have shared the common belief that abundant riches were an evidence of God’s blessing in the case of those who lived upright lives. In their estimation, the young man would have been an exemplary Jew. Therefore, greatly startled by Jesus’ words, the disciples asked, “Who then can be saved?” Looking directly at them, he told them, “For men this is impossible, but for God all things [are] possible.” In this context, Jesus’ words indicate that God’s help is needed to put forth the required effort to be part of his realm and to remain devoted to him to the end. Human effort alone would prove to be insufficient. (Matthew 19:25, 26; Mark 10:26, 27; Luke 18:26, 27)

Contrasting the course that he and the other disciples had chosen with that of the rich young man, Peter said, “Look! We have left everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” (Matthew 19:27; Mark 10:28; Luke 18:28)

In his answer, Jesus pointed to the future “renewal” or “regeneration” (palingenesía; pálin [again] and génesis [creation, birth, genesis]). This would relate to the time of the renewal of all things, which seems to be referred to in Romans 8:21 as the time when the whole creation would be liberated from enslavement to corruption and come to enjoy the magnificent freedom of the children of God. According to Jesus’ words, the Son of Man would sit “on his glorious throne,” and the twelve apostles would be sitting on thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28)

Seemingly, Jesus spoke of the kingdom in terms with which the apostles could then identify, as they had not yet grasped the full significance of what the realm where God reigns by means of his Son comprehended. The apostles still thought in terms of an earthly kingdom specifically linked to Israel. This is evident from the question they asked Jesus after his resurrection, “Are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) Although what Jesus said appears to have accommodated their understanding, it did not obscure what he wanted to convey to them. In the future, they would be closely associated with him in the royal realm.

Then, focusing on the gains of the present, Jesus said that everyone who had “left houses, or brothers or sisters, or father or mother [house or wife or brothers or parents (Luke 18:29)], or children, or fields” for the sake of his name (or for the sake of the evangel or good news) would receive much more. “Now, in this time,” they would gain houses, and brothers and sisters, and mothers, and children, and fields, with persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come. (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29, 30; Luke 18:29, 30)

As part of a spiritual family of believers, they would be welcomed into the homes of other disciples and be loved by them as dear family members. From those who persisted in unbelief, they should expect persecution. In the age to come, they would enjoy the fulness of the real life, which signified having an enduring relationship with the Son of God and his Father and sharing in all the associated blessings.

There would be a reversal respecting those who appeared to be in line for the kingdom. “Many who are first will be last, and the last first.” (Matthew 19:30; Mark 10:31) Those who seemed to be the highly favored ones or among the “first,” like the rich young man, would lose out. Others, like the tax collectors and persons of ill repute, appeared to be last, with little possibility of being regarded as worthy of entrance into the kingdom. Yet, those who were last repented, changed their ways, became loyal disciples of God’s Son, and came to be part of the realm where his Father is Sovereign.

Notes:

In Matthew 19:16, the earliest extant manuscripts say “teacher,” not “good teacher” (as in Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18).

According to Matthew 19:18, Jesus did not refer to any specific commandments until the young man asked, “Which [ones]”? Only Matthew 19:19 includes the commandment about loving one’s neighbor. It should be noted, however, that all three accounts are in agreement, with the additional information being supplementary.

In Mark 10:21, according to numerous manuscripts, Jesus also told the young man to “lift up [his] beam [staurós]” or to be willing to commence a life that could mean facing the kind of reproach and suffering of one who was condemned to die by crucifixion.

Very limited manuscript support exists for the reading kámilon (“rope”) instead of kámelon (“camel”). There is, however, no supporting evidence for the view that the Greek expression for “needle’s eye” refers to a small gate. (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25)

The hyperbole involving a camel with its hump (or two humps in the case of the Bactrian camel) seems appropriate as a parallel for a rich man loaded down with his many possessions. The relation of a needle’s eye to a camel is that of something very small to something very large (the largest common domestic animal in the region), and the vivid contrast served to heighten the impossibility of a rich man’s entering the kingdom while ardently attached to his wealth. Being disciples of God’s Son required a willingness to sacrifice everything and to suffer humiliation, reproach, bodily harm, and even death.

A similar use of hyperbole is known to have existed among the ancient rabbis. When emphasizing the impossible, they referred to an “elephant” as going through a needle’s eye. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhoth and Tractate Baba Metzia)

Mark 10:23-26 provides more details about the interchange between Jesus and his disciples than do Matthew 19:23-25 and Luke 18:24-26. He initially told them that it would be difficult for persons with money to enter the kingdom. This astounded the disciples. After again telling them that it would be difficult to enter God’s kingdom, Jesus added that it would be “easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man [to enter] God’s kingdom.” The disciples became even more astounded, prompting them to ask, “Who then can be saved?”

Parable of the Vineyard Workers (Matthew 20:1-16)

The parable or likeness that Jesus next related appears to be part of his answer to Peter’s question, “What will there be for us?” (Matthew 19:27) Everything Jesus had said up to this point served to answer the question, and the parable is linked to his words with the preposition gár, meaning “for.”

The “kingdom of the heavens” is like the master of a house who set out early in the morning to hire workers to harvest grapes. He agreed to pay them one denarius (the usual daily wage) for their labors, and sent them to his vineyard. Later, about the third hour of the day or about 9:00 a.m., he saw unemployed men standing in the marketplace. He hired them and, when sending them into his vineyard, assured them that they would receive a fair wage. The owner of the vineyard returned to the marketplace about the sixth and the ninth hour (about noon and 3:00 p.m.) and hired more workers, telling them the same thing about payment for their labors. About the eleventh hour or 5:00 p.m., he still found unemployed men standing in the marketplace and asked them why they had not worked the whole day. They replied that no one had hired them. He then sent them to work in his vineyard. (Matthew 20:1-7)

At sunset, the vineyard owner summoned his supervisor and instructed him to pay the workers, starting with the ones who had been hired last and ending with those who had been hired first. Those who had worked for only an hour received a denarius. Therefore, the men who were hired first thought they would be paid more. Upon also receiving a denarius, they began to object, complaining that they had worked all day and endured the sun’s heat and yet those who had worked only an hour received the same wage. (Matthew 20:8-12)

The vineyard owner reminded them that they had agreed to work for one denarius. Directing his words to one of them, he said, “Fellow, I am not wronging you. Did you not agree with me [to work] for a denarius? Take what is yours and go. I want to give to the last [the same pay] as to you. Am I not permitted to do what I wish with my own [money]? Or is your eye wicked because I am good?” (Matthew 20:13-15)

The reference to the “eye” being wicked is to be understood as meaning that the one addressed looked upon the “good” or generosity of the vineyard owner with envy, begrudging that others had been the recipient of the same payment for far less work.

Jesus concluded with the words, “Thus the last will be first, and the first will be last.” Many later manuscripts add, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 20:16)

The parable reveals that receiving the marvelous benefits and blessings associated with being in the realm where God rules by means of his Son is not dependent upon when individuals start doing his will. What counts is continuing to labor faithfully to the end while deeply appreciating being able to live a life that honors God.

Among people alienated from the Most High, one may be subjected to ridicule, distress, and hardship comparable to having to endure the intense heat of the sun. If the distresses lead to looking with envy upon those whose life seems to be much more pleasant and far easier, one may begin to experience a weakening in faith and even a loss of faith. So it can be that persons whose situation is comparable to the workers who were hired first end up losing out because of ceasing to see the heavenly Father as generous and just. Regardless of when our life of faith may have begun, we can be certain that he will repay us individually according to the highest standard of generosity and justice.

The “first” can end up losing out when the focus comes to be on self and externals, whereas the “last,” individuals who come to repentance late in life may find themselves generously rewarded far beyond what they could have imagined. In relation to Peter’s question, the parable indicates that life as a devoted disciple of God’s Son is not focused on seeming sacrifices made with the thought of being rewarded to a greater extent than others whose life as disciples may appear to be easier or may be of far shorter duration. For Christ’s disciples, all rewards are really “gifts” or expressions of divine favor and not earned “wages.”

Notes:

The reversal involving the first and the last is also mentioned in other settings. (Matthew 19:30; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30)

An ancient rabbinical parable, found in both the Palestinian Talmud (Tractate Berakhoth, 5c) and the Midrash Rabba, contains many of the same elements. A vineyard owner paid a full day’s wages to a worker who had labored only two hours. When those who had toiled the entire day for the same wage complained, the owner replied, “This man in two hours did more good work than you in a whole day,” indicating the reason for equal pay to be the amount of good work done. This contrasts with Jesus’ parable, which gives as the reason for equal pay, “I want to,” emphasizing free, unearned favor. (Matthew 20:14)

Jesus Again Foretells His Future Suffering and Death (Matthew 20:17-28; Mark 10:32-45; Luke 18:31-34)

Jesus knew full well what lay ahead of him in Jerusalem. Yet, when walking ahead of those who were with him, he appears to have reflected the kind of determination and courage that gave rise to amazement. Those who followed him experienced fear, either meaning apprehension or a profound sense of awe. (Mark 10:32; see the Notes section.)

Jesus took the twelve apostles aside, telling them privately, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death. And they will hand him over to the nations.” The “nations” or non-Jewish peoples proved to be the Romans. They, according to Jesus, would mock, insult, spit upon, scourge, and crucify him, but on the third day he would rise. (Matthew 20:18, 19; Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:32, 33) Everything the prophets had written about the Son of Man would take place. (Luke 18:31)

Although Jesus spoke openly about his future suffering and death, the disciples could not believe that the developments he mentioned would occur. The meaning of his words remained hidden to them. Their preconceived thoughts about the Messiah appear to have made it hard for them to grasp what he said. (Luke 18:34)

Concluding that something significant would take place in Jerusalem, James and John had their mother, the wife of Zebedee, make a request for them. Her sons were with her when she prostrated herself before Jesus to petition him. Asked what she wanted, the mother expressed the desire for her sons to be seated at the right and the left of Jesus when he came to be in his kingdom. (Matthew 20:20, 21)

Directing his words to James and John, he replied, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup I am about to drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am being baptized?” “We are able,” they answered. (Matthew 20:22; Mark 10:38; see the Notes section for comments on Mark 10:35-37.) After telling them that they would indeed drink his cup and be baptized with the baptism with which he was being baptized, Jesus continued, “But the sitting at my right and left is not mine to give, but [is for] those [for whom] my Father has prepared [it].” (Matthew 20:23; Mark 10:39, 40; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

The reference to the cup and drinking indicated that Jesus would experience suffering and death like one drinking the bitter contents of a cup. Similarly, his being baptized meant his being plunged into suffering and death. Jesus’ response to James and John indicated that they also would suffer as his disciples. James, in fact, was the first apostle to be executed, and his brother’s long life was not exempt from suffering for the sake of Christ. (Acts 12:2; compare Revelation 1:9.)

The places to the right and left of a king at the royal table were reserved for his intimates. They were the most prominent places. In his reply to James and John, Jesus framed his words in a way that revealed the kingdom to be that of his Father, for his Father would be the one to bestow the places of honor. Jesus thereby implied that, in the kingdom, he was the king by his Father’s appointment.

Upon coming to know about the request of James and John, the other ten apostles started to get upset with them. Jesus then summoned the apostles and corrected their view of positions. “You know that the rulers of the nations dominate over [their subjects], and the great ones exercise power over them. Thus it should not be among you. But whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.” (Matthew 20:24-27; Mark 10:41-44)

In the realm where God is Sovereign and reigns by means of his Son, commandeering and making others feel the weight of authority have no place. True greatness calls for caring, compassionate, and unassuming service. It is the opposite of exercising power or dominance, expecting others to serve and to respond to orders.

Jesus called attention to his own example, “For also the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his soul as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45) Jesus was not one who expected others to serve him, but he actively labored for others, teaching the people and curing the afflicted. He took the initiative in compassionately responding to the needs of others, acting as a servant among them. In expression of his superlative love, he would surrender his “soul” or life, ransoming many. In view of the fact that Jesus’ sacrifice resulted in the purchase of the entire human race (past, present, and future), the word “many” here appears to be an idiomatic term for “all.”

Notes:

At least among some of the disciples there may have been a feeling of apprehension about the future. Earlier, when Jesus returned to Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem, Thomas thought that they might all die with Jesus, for unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem wanted to kill him. (John 11:8, 16) Although the disciples were aware of the danger, they still found it hard to accept that Jesus would actually suffer and die in the manner that he said it would happen. (Luke 18:32-34)

In Mark 10:35-37, no mention is made of Salome or the mother of the sons of Zebedee. The request about sitting at Jesus’ right and left is represented as having been made by James and John. According to Mark 10:35, they prefaced their request with the words, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we might ask of you.” In answer to Jesus’ question what they wanted him to do for them, they made their request to sit at Jesus’ right and left at the time he would be in his “glory” or exercising his royal authority as king.

Although the mother is the one who did the speaking initially, she expressed the words and desires of her sons. Viewed in that light, the reference to their speaking is understandable. It should also be noted that Jesus’ reply is directed to James and John, confirming that they were the ones who really made the request.

In Matthew 20:22, 23, the oldest extant manuscripts do not include the point about baptism, but many later manuscripts do (as does Mark 10:38, 39).

Blind Bartimaeus and His Companion (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)

The narratives do not mention when Jesus and his disciples left Perea, crossed the Jordan, and came into Judea. In the vicinity of the Judean city of Jericho, a large crowd followed him and his disciples. At the time, Bartimaeus (the son of Timaeus) and another blind man were seated by the roadside, begging. On hearing the movement of a crowd near him, Bartimaeus inquired about the reason for it. When informed that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by, Bartimaeus shouted, “Son of David, Jesus, have pity on me.” His companion also cried out to be shown pity, acknowledging Jesus to be the “Son of David.” (Matthew 20:29, 30; Mark 10:46, 47; Luke 18:35-38)

When referring to Jesus as the “Son of David” both men expressed their belief in him as the promised Messiah. This acknowledgment proved to be objectionable to many in the crowd. They ordered the men to be silent. Bartimaeus and his companion, however, disregarded their words, shouting even louder for Jesus to have pity on them. (Matthew 20:31; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39)

Jesus stopped, requesting that the blind men be called. (Matthew 20:32; Mark 10:49; Luke 18:40) “Take courage, rise, he is calling you,” Bartimaeus was told. Leaving his outer garment behind, he got up and headed for Jesus. Asked what he wanted done for him, Bartimaeus said, “Rabboni [My Teacher], let me have sight.” (Mark 10:49-51; Luke 18:41)

Based on Matthew’s account, the other blind man also asked that his eyes be opened. Jesus felt compassion for the men, touched their eyes, and immediately thereafter they were able to see. (Matthew 20:33, 34) Mark 10:52 and Luke 18:42 relate that Jesus told Bartimaeus, “Your faith has saved you,” probably meaning that, because of his faith in Jesus, he ceased to be blind. Bartimaeus then followed Jesus, as did his companion, and glorified or praised God. The people who had witnessed this miracle also gave praise to the Most High. (Matthew 20:34; Mark 10:52; Luke 18:43)

Notes:

Matthew 20:29 and Mark 10:46 tell about Jesus leaving Jericho, whereas Luke 18:35 speaks of his approaching Jericho. Nothing in the context provides a clue about the reason for this difference. It could be that Jesus first passed the blind men on his way into Jericho but did not miraculously grant them sight until he left the city.

Herod the Great started extensive building activity south of the ancient site of Jericho, and his successors continued building there. So it could be that Jesus was leaving the old city and approaching Herodian Jericho.

Only Matthew 20:30 mentions two blind men. In Mark 10:46, only one blind man is mentioned and identified as Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus. Luke 18:35 likewise refers to only one blind man but does not name him. Perhaps of the two men, Bartimaeus figured more prominently in the incident and therefore is the focus in the accounts of Mark and Luke. The narrations in all three accounts are similar and contain the kind of variations that one would expect when different people tell about an incident in a language other than the one in which the actual conversations took place.

See http://bibleplaces.com/jericho.htm for additional information about Jericho.

Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10)

At public auction, wealthy individuals purchased the right to collect taxes on imports, exports, and goods that merchants transported through a particular region. This meant that the highest bidders received the authorization to collect taxes in a specific territory. They then arranged for subcontractors to collect the taxes in various parts of their region, profiting from the tax receipts that exceeded their bids. The subcontractors would commonly inflate the tax rate and thereby make dishonest gain for themselves. Thus the tax system in the Roman Empire gave rise to many abuses.

Among those living in Jericho when Jesus passed through the city was wealthy Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector. The designation “chief tax collector (architelónes) may mean that he had other tax collectors working under him or that he was the principal tax collector in Jericho and the vicinity. In his position, he had amassed great wealth through dishonest means. (Luke 19:1, 2)

Possibly on the basis of what he had heard about Jesus, Zacchaeus wanted to see him. The manner in which Jesus responded to him suggests that more was involved than mere curiosity. Because of what he had come to know, Zacchaeus appears to have been genuinely drawn to the Son of God. At the time Jesus passed through Jericho, many people surrounded him. Being of short stature, Zacchaeus could not see him. He then ran ahead and climbed a “sycamore” tree growing alongside the road. This likely was a fig-mulberry tree (Ficus sycomorus), an evergreen with branches close to the ground. (Luke 19:3, 4)

For a wealthy man to climb a tree to see someone would have been something out of the ordinary. Zacchaeus positioned himself where he would be sure to see Jesus, who was about to approach. In his desire, Zacchaeus seems to have been so focused that he did not think about how unusual it might appear to others for him to have climbed a tree.

Jesus saw in Zacchaeus a man who had been drawn to him and who would prove himself to be a genuine disciple. When he came near the tree, Jesus looked up and told him quickly to come down, as he would be staying in his home. Zacchaeus immediately got down and was overjoyed in being able to welcome Jesus as his guest. (Luke 19:5, 6) In the crowd, there were those who began to grumble, finding fault with Jesus’ willingness to enter the home of a “sinner,” a man known for being dishonest. (Luke 19:7)

Zacchaeus, however, revealed himself to be a changed, repentant man, saying to Jesus, “See, half of my possessions, Lord, I am giving to the poor, and whatever I have obtained dishonestly, I am restoring fourfold.” (Luke 19:8; see the Notes section for additional comments.) According to the Mosaic law, he would only have had to make double compensation. (Compare Exodus 22:7.)

Jesus then said, “Today salvation has come to this house, for he [Zacchaeus] also is a son of Abraham.” In view of his determination to use half of his possessions to help needy fellow Israelites and to make restitution for past wrongs, Zacchaeus had brought salvation to his house. He was saved or delivered from his past record of sin, benefiting all who were part of his household. As a true “son of Abraham,” one who demonstrated that he desired to conduct himself like Abraham the man of faith, Zacchaeus would share in all the blessings meant for God’s people. The way in which Jesus responded to him demonstrated that he, the “Son of Man,” had come to seek and save the lost. (Luke 19:9, 10)

Notes:

Jesus’ compassionate response to Bartimaeus and his companion, miraculously granting them sight, may have been a significant factor in motivating Zacchaeus to want to see Jesus.

In Luke 19:8, the Greek verb that conveys the sense of obtaining dishonestly, extorting, or making false accusations is a form of sykophantéo, which literally means “fig showing.” An ancient view (though unconfirmed) for the origin of the term is that it referred to being denounced for unlawfully exporting figs from Athens.

Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11-27)

It appears that among the many who followed Jesus on his way to Jerusalem messianic expectations were high. To show that the kingdom of God would not be immediately manifest as being in power and exercising authority without the presence of competing rulerships (as many then supposed), Jesus related a parable. (Luke 19:11)

To obtain royal authority, a nobleman traveled to a distant country. Before leaving, he had summoned ten of his servants, giving each of them a “mina” (the equivalent of 100 drachmas, according to ancient Greek sources; approximately three months’ wages for a common worker). He instructed them to do business with the money until he returned. The citizenry hated the nobleman and sent a delegation to the distant country to make it clear that they did not want him to reign over them. (Luke 19:12-14; see the Notes section for an illustration from history.)

Upon his return, the nobleman, vested with royal authority, summoned the slaves to whom he had entrusted the minas to find out what they had accomplished in business activity. The first slave reported, “Lord, your mina has gained ten [more] minas.” His master commended him, “Well done, good slave. Because you proved yourself trustworthy in what is little, take control over ten cities.” (Luke 19:15-17)

The second slave rendered his account, “Your mina, Lord, made five [more] minas.” His master then put him in charge over five cities. (Luke 19:18, 19)

Another slave came with the mina he had been given, telling his master that he had wrapped it up in a cloth. He went on to excuse his inaction, “I feared you, for you are a severe man, taking what you did not deposit and reaping what you did not sow.” “[By the words of] your own mouth,” said the master, “I condemn you, bad slave. You knew, [did you], that I am a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? So why did you not put my silver [money] in the bank? Then, on my return, I could have collected it with interest.” (Luke 19:20-23)

The master then told those standing by to take the mina from the worthless slave and to give it to the one with ten minas. They objected, saying that he already had ten. The master, however, stated the principle, “To everyone who has more will be given, but from the one who does not have [much], even what he has will be taken away.” As for the enemies who did not want him to be king, he decreed that they should be brought before him and executed. (Luke 19:24-27)

Jesus’ parable indicated that time would pass before the kingdom would be revealed in power, which would be when he returned in glory. At that time, all who professed to be his disciples would have to render an account as to how they furthered his interests respecting all that had been entrusted to them. Circumstances and abilities vary, and disciples of God’s Son correspondingly would differ in what they would be able to do in advancing his cause. The manner in which Jesus had the two good slaves express themselves did not stress their individual efforts. Their report focused on the end result. Possibly this served to show that the advancement of his interests comes about when his disciples actively cooperate as God’s fellow workers. Human effort is not the determining factor. The variation in rewards based on performance may indicate that even a favorable judgment may result in differences in privileges and blessings.

Inaction constitutes working against Jesus and will lead to serious loss. He represented the bad slave as having a negative view of his master. This suggests that a failure to appreciate the Son of God for who he is and what he has done leads to serious neglect.

While trustworthiness will be greatly rewarded, unfaithfulness will lead to severe punishment. All who persist in opposing Jesus as the king by his Father’s appointment will merit the severest judgment.

Notes:

In the days of the Roman Empire, men of royal descent traveled to Rome to receive the emperor’s official appointment as kings or lesser rulers. Jesus’ listeners would have been familiar with developments involving Archelaus and his brother Antipas, sons of Herod the Great.

To sail to Rome for appointment as king, Archelaus (according to the account of Josephus) “went down to the sea with his mother, and took with him Nicolaus and Ptolemy, and many others of his friends, and left Philip his brother as governor of all things belonging both to his own family and to the public. There went out also with him Salome, Herod’s sister, who took with her her children, and many of her kindred were with her; which kindred of hers went, as they pretended, to assist Archelaus in gaining the kingdom, but in reality to oppose him.” (Antiquities, XVII, ix, 3)

Regarding Antipas, Josephus wrote: “At the same time also did Antipas, another of Herod’s sons, sail to Rome, in order to gain the government; being buoyed up by Salome with promises that he should take that government; and that he was a much honester and fitter man than Archelaus for that authority, since Herod had, in his former testament, deemed him the worthiest to be made king; which ought to be esteemed more valid than his latter testament.” (Antiquities, XVII, ix, 4)

In Rome, Caesar Augustus (Gaius Octavius [later Gaius Julius Caesar]) arranged to hear from both sides. “Antipater, Salome’s son, a very subtle orator, and a bitter enemy of Archelaus,” spoke first. After Antipater finished presenting the case against Archelaus, Nicolaus pleaded for Archelaus. Although Caesar Augustus thereafter indicated that Archelaus deserved the kingdom, he did not make a final determination. (Antiquities, XVII, ix, 5-7)

Later, a delegation of 50 Jews from the nation came to Rome, with the permission of Varus (the Roman governor of Syria), to make their case against Archelaus and to petition that he not be made king but that the nation be made subject to Roman governors. This delegation had the support of more than 8,000 Jews who were in Rome. After hearing the case of the Jewish accusers and the refutation Nicolaus presented, Caesar Augustus rendered his decision a few days later. The account of Josephus continues, “He appointed Archelaus, not indeed to be the king of the whole country, but ethnarch of one half of that which had been subject to Herod, and promised to give him the royal dignity hereafter, if he governed his part virtuously. But as for the other half, he divided it into two parts, and gave it to two other of Herod’s sons, to Philip and to Antipas, that Antipas who disputed with Archelaus for the whole kingdom.” (Antiquities, XVII, xi, 1-4; War, II, vi, 1-3)

Final Days, Arrest, Death, and Resurrection

In Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 11:55-12:11)

According to the law, ceremonial defilement could result from touching a dead body, being present when someone dies, entering the home where there is a dead person, walking over a grave, or experiencing certain bodily afflictions or conditions. (Leviticus 14:1-20; 15:1-33; Numbers 19:11-18) To observe the Passover, one had to be ceremonially clean. (Numbers 9:6-14) Therefore, many Jews went to Jerusalem before the Passover in order to fulfill the legal requirements for purification from ceremonial defilement. (John 11:55)

In the temple precincts, these early arrivals began looking for Jesus and talking about him with one another. Among them were those who wondered whether he would even come to the Passover festival. The chief priests and the influential Pharisees in Jerusalem had given the order that anyone knowing Jesus’ whereabouts should inform them, as they wanted to arrest him. (John 11:56, 57)

Six days before the Passover, Jesus and the apostles arrived in Bethany. This village, situated about two miles from Jerusalem, was the home of Lazarus (whom he had raised from the dead), Martha, and Mary. (John 12:1)

Sometime during their stay, Jesus and his disciples were guests in the home of “Simon the leper.” Simon doubtless was a believer whom Jesus had cured of his leprosy, but the designation “Simon the leper” served to distinguish him from the other disciples with the same name. Lazarus was among those partaking of the meal, and his sister Martha served the guests. Their sister Mary had brought with her an alabaster container of costly ointment, one pound of genuine nard. While Jesus and the other guests were reclining at the table to eat, Mary approached Jesus and began pouring the perfumed ointment on his head. After applying it to his feet, she wiped them with her hair. The entire house became permeated with the aroma of the fragrant ointment. (Matthew 26:6, 7; Mark 14:3; John 12:2, 3; see the Notes section for additional information.)

Judas, who would later betray Jesus, appears to have been first to object to what Mary had done, raising the question as to why the ointment had not been sold for 300 denarii and the proceeds given to the poor. (John 12:4, 5) In indignation, other disciples then similarly expressed themselves. They could not understand why the nard had been wasted instead of sold and the money given to the poor. (Matthew 26:8, 9; Mark 14:4, 5)

While the others doubtless were sincere in their expressions about giving to the poor, Judas had ulterior motives. He had been entrusted with the bag or box for keeping the common fund and had been stealing from it. (John 12:6)

Jesus immediately came to Mary’s defense, telling those who objected to leave her alone and not to make trouble for her. He went on to say that she had done a good deed, one that had been undertaken prior to his burial. While there would always be the poor whom they would be able to assist, the disciples would not always have Jesus personally with them. (Matthew 26:10-12; Mark 14:6-8; John 12:7, 8)

According to Mark 14:8, Mary had done “what she could.” This suggests that she perceived Jesus’ life would end and did what she could in view of his future death and burial. He had been very open in telling the apostles what lay ahead for him, and it is unlikely that he would have concealed this information from his close friends. Unlike the apostles who found it very difficult to believe that Jesus would indeed suffer and die, Mary appears to have comprehended his words and acted accordingly.

With a solemn introductory “amen” (truly), Jesus gave the assurance that wherever the glad tidings, or the message about him would be proclaimed, there also Mary’s deed would be related in remembrance of her. (Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9) The inclusion of this incident in the written accounts has kept the memory of Mary’s anointing of Jesus alive throughout the centuries.

When the news spread that he was in Bethany, many came to see, not only him but also Lazarus whom he had resurrected. Quite a number became believers because of what had happened to Lazarus. Therefore, in an effort to prevent more Jews from believing in Jesus, the chief priests determined to kill Lazarus. (John 12:9-11)

Notes:

There is uncertainty about when Jesus and the apostles were guests in the home of Simon the leper. The mention of Jesus’ anointing with costly ointment, the objections raised regarding it, and his response provide the basis for concluding that Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:2-8 relate to the same event. The account in John 12:2-8 (though unique in identifying Mary as the woman and Judas as the one who raised the objection) does not refer to the house of Simon the leper nor specifically say when in relation to the six days after his arrival in Bethany Jesus and the apostles were guests in the home. In Matthew 26 and Mark 14, the incident is narrated after the mention of “two days” until the Passover. (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1)

According to John 12:12-15, the “next day” Jesus, seated on a donkey’s colt, headed for Jerusalem. This could be the day after Mary used the costly ointment. In Matthew and Mark, however, the narrative about the entry into Jerusalem precedes the account concerning the meal in Simon’s home. (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:-1-11)

In view of the mention of “six days” and then the “next day” in John 12, it would appear that a chronological sequence is being followed, which would mean that the words in Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9 are not in chronological order. On the other hand, there is a possibility that (in John 12:12), the “next day” refers only to the day after the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus (John 12:10, 11) and that the incident involving the meal (John 12:2-8) is not in chronological sequence. In that case, the meal in Simon’s home should be regarded as having taken place after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.

Mary’s act was an expression of deep love and appreciation for Jesus and what he had done for her and her sister and brother. No words, acts, or gifts could have fully expressed the depth of gratitude Mary must have felt in having her brother brought back to life. The costly ointment, with a value of about a year’s wages (300 denarii, with a denarius being the daily pay for a common laborer), likely was the most precious item that Mary possessed. Whether she had obtained it to anoint Jesus with it or initially bought it for another purpose is not revealed in the account. Jesus’ words indicate that Mary’s use of the ointment was an expression of the full limit of what she was able to do for him in view of his imminent death and burial.

It is generally believed that the source of the nard or spikenard is Nardostachys jatamansi, a plant that grows in the Himalayas. If the nard did come from distant India, this would explain why the ointment had a very high value.

In his Natural History, first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder wrote concerning nard: “Of the leaf, which is that of the nard, it is only right to speak somewhat more at length, as it holds the principal place among our unguents. The nard is a shrub with a heavy, thick root, but short, black, brittle, and yet unctuous as well; it has a musty smell, too, very much like that of the cyperus, with a sharp, acrid taste, the leaves being small, and growing in tufts. The heads of the nard spread out into ears; hence it is that nard is so famous for its two-fold production, the spike or ear, and the leaf. There is another kind, again, that grows on the banks of the Ganges, but is altogether condemned, as being good for nothing; it bears the name of ozænitis, and emits a fetid odour. Nard is adulterated with a sort of plant called pseudo-nard, which is found growing everywhere, and is known by its thick, broad leaf, and its sickly colour, which inclines to white. It is sophisticated, also, by being mixed with the root of the genuine nard, which adds very considerably to its weight. Gum is also used for the same purpose, antimony, and cyperus; or, at least, the outer coat of the cyperus. Its genuineness is tested by its lightness, the redness of its colour, its sweet smell, and the taste more particularly, which parches the mouth, and leaves a pleasant flavour behind it; the price of spikenard is one hundred denarii per pound.” (English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley)

As an ingredient, spikenard was very expensive. Understandably, the ointment containing it would be even costlier.

To Jerusalem on a Donkey’s Colt (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:28-44; John 12:12-19)

Bethphage appears to have been located on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, close to Bethany. Both in Mark 11:1 and Luke 19:29, Bethphage and Bethany are linked with the conjunction “and” when referring to Jesus as coming to or near “Bethphage and Bethany” at the time of his going to nearby Jerusalem. (Luke 19:28; see the Notes section regarding Luke 19:28.) Matthew 21:1, however, refers only to Bethphage, and it likely was the unnamed village to which Jesus sent two disciples to get a donkey’s colt. The two disciples may have been Peter and John, for they were the ones whom Jesus later instructed to make the needed preparations for the Passover observance. (Compare Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13.)

Jesus told the two disciples that, in the village, they would find a donkey and her colt, which they were to untie and then bring to him. (Matthew 21:2) The accounts in Mark (11:2) and Luke (19:30) only mention the colt on which no one had ever ridden. This may be because the colt was the animal on which Jesus afterward rode into Jerusalem. With the donkey being led or guided, her colt would have followed calmly.

Jesus anticipated that an objection would be raised when the disciples began to loosen the animals. They were then to reply with the words, “The Lord needs them,” and add the assurance that the donkey and her colt would soon be returned. (Matthew 21:3; Mark 11:3; Luke 19:31; see the Notes section for additional comments on Matthew 21:3.) Possibly the owners of the animals were disciples and would have understood that Jesus needed them. Understandably, with their exclusive focus on the colt, the narratives in Mark and Luke give no indication that two animals were involved.

By arranging to have a colt for riding into Jerusalem, Jesus publicly revealed himself as the promised Messiah. This fulfilled the prophetic words of Zechariah (9:9; Matthew 21:4), which referred to the king coming to Zion, “gentle” (praús) and riding on a colt. Jesus did not ride to Jerusalem seated on a horse or a war mount but on an animal used for carrying burdens and performing agricultural labors. This pointed to the peaceful nature of his coming as king, which opened up the opportunity for reconciliation with his Father for all those who believed in him.

In Matthew 21:5, the quotation from Zechariah 9:9 is a condensed version of the extant Septuagint text and, though differing in other respects, preserves the basic thought. The term praús, found in both Zechariah 9:9 and Matthew 21:5, means to be “gentle,” “mild,” “meek,” or “humble.” It is descriptive of an unassuming disposition, the very opposite of the manner in which those who are unduly impressed by a sense of their own importance conduct and carry themselves.

When the two disciples arrived in the village, everything proved to be as Jesus had said. On one of the streets in the village, they found the colt tied near a door. When they untied the colt, bystanders (the “owners,” according to Luke 19:33) asked why they were loosing it. As Jesus had instructed them, the disciples replied, “The Lord needs it.” No objection was then raised, and the two disciples brought the donkey and her colt to Jesus. The disciples placed their garments on the colt and Jesus seated himself on the animal. (Matthew 21:6, 7; Mark 11:4-7; Luke 19:32-35; for additional comments on Matthew 21:7; Mark 11:7, and Luke 19:35, see the Notes section.)

As Jesus headed for Jerusalem, an increasing number of people began to accompany him. Many placed their outer garments on the road ahead of him, and others laid down leafy branches they had cut from nearby trees. (Matthew 21:8; Mark 11:8; Luke 19:36) When word reached Jerusalem that Jesus was coming, a large crowd, with palm branches in their hands, went out to meet him. One of the reasons for doing so was their having heard about his having resurrected Lazarus. (John 12:12, 13, 18)

When Jesus reached the location where the road began to descend over the western slope of the Mount of Olives, his disciples and many others joyfully shouted, “Hosanna,” and acknowledged Jesus as one who came in God’s name (or as representing the Most High) and as being the king of Israel. Among the expressions the extant accounts represent as coming from the lips of those who walked ahead of him and those who followed were, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” “Blessed [be] the one coming in the Lord’s name,” “Blessed [be] the coming kingdom of our father David,” “Blessed [be] the king coming in the Lord’s name,” “Hosanna in the [highest] heights,” and “In heaven peace, and glory in the [highest] heights.” (Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:9, 10; Luke 19:37, 38; John 12:13; see the Notes section regarding “hosanna.”)

These expressions greatly disturbed the unbelieving Pharisees in the crowd. They told Jesus to stop his disciples from acknowledging him as king. He responded that the stones would cry out if they remained silent. (Luke 19:39, 40)

At the time, the disciples did not understand that the prophecy of Zechariah was then being fulfilled. After Jesus was “glorified,” or after his death and resurrection as the one who had conquered the world and had been granted all authority in heaven and on earth, they recalled what had been written in the Scriptures and what had been done when Jesus rode to Jerusalem. (John 12:16)

From the Mount of Olives, Jesus looked at Jerusalem, thought about the future suffering the people would face, and began to weep over the city. If the people had only recognized the things that would have led to “peace” or secured their well-being, they could have escaped the calamities that were certain to befall Jerusalem. As Jesus said regarding the things pertaining to peace, “they have been hidden from your eyes.” Most of the people refused to accept him as the promised Messiah, losing out on the reconciliation with his Father and all the blessings associated therewith. In view of the course the unbelievers would pursue, Jerusalem would be destroyed. Enemy forces would lay siege to the city, surrounding it with a palisade. The people inside the city would experience great distress and be crushed. After capturing Jerusalem, the enemy would raze it to the ground, not leaving a stone upon a stone. All this would happen because the people failed to recognize the time of “visitation.” (Luke 19:41-44; see the Notes section regarding what Josephus wrote about the siege and destruction of Jerusalem.) The Son of God was then in their midst, and the time had come for seizing the opportunity to gain an approved standing with his Father, the one whom he represented.

When Jesus rode into Jerusalem, the inhabitants of the city were stirred up, and they asked, “Who is this?” “The prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee,” came back the reply from the crowd that had accompanied him. (Matthew 21:10, 11) Among them were persons who had been present when Jesus resurrected Lazarus, and they added their testimony about what they had witnessed. (John 12:17) Seeing the multitude around Jesus, the unbelieving Pharisees were at a loss as to what they could do, saying to one another that the “world has gone after him.” (John 12:19)

After entering Jerusalem, Jesus headed for the temple and there looked around the entire precincts. It was then late in the day, and Jesus returned to Bethany with the twelve apostles and probably stayed for the night at the home of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary. (Mark 11:11)

Notes:

In the condensed narrative, Luke 19:28 mentions only Jesus’ going up to Jerusalem. The events that took place between the time Jesus related the parable about the minas (Luke 19:11-27) and his entering Jerusalem on a donkey’s colt (Luke 19:29-44) are not included.

Matthew 21:3 could be translated to mean that the one who raised the objection would then send the animals immediately. A number of translations make this explicit. “If anyone asks why you are doing that, just say, ‘The Lord needs them.’ Right away he will let you have the donkeys.” (CEV) “If anyone says anything to you, answer, ‘The Master needs them’; and he will let you have them at once.” (REB) “And if anyone says anything, tell him, ‘The Master needs them’; and then he will let them go at once.” (GNT, Second Edition) Mark 11:3, though, specifically indicates that the Lord would return the colt. So, in Matthew 21:3, it appears preferable to regard the Lord as doing the sending or sending back. “The Master needs them and will send them back at once.” (NJB) “The Lord needs them and will send them back immediately.” (NRSV, footnote)

Mark 11:5 indicates that bystanders asked the disciples about their loosing the colt, whereas Luke 19:33 says that the owners did so. Possibly the owners were among the bystanders, or the bystanders and the owners may be understood as designating the same persons.

According to the oldest extant manuscripts of Matthew 21:7, the disciples placed their garments on the donkey and her colt, and Jesus seated himself on “them.” It is inconceivable that he sat on two animals as he rode into Jerusalem. So it would appear that “them” refers to the garments. In his expanded translation, Kenneth Wuest, for example, added “the garments” in brackets. Perhaps because the disciples did not know which animal Jesus would ride, they placed their garments on both of them.

A number of later manuscripts use the singular pronoun, indicating that Jesus sat on the colt on which the disciples had placed their garments. This reading would harmonize with Mark 11:7 and Luke 19:35, but there is insufficient manuscript evidence to establish that this is representative of the original text of Matthew 21:7.

The expression “hosanna” means “help, I pray,” “save, I pray,” or “save, please.” If regarded as an exclamation of praise, the words “hosanna in the [highest] heights” may denote “praise be to the Most High.” Luke 19:38, when introducing the expressions of the disciples, does refer to their joyfully praising God concerning all the works of power they had seen. Another possibility is that the words “hosanna in the [highest] heights” serve as an appeal for the angelic hosts to share in joyfully crying out, “Hosanna!” In that case, “hosanna” (linked, as it is, to Jesus) could convey a meaning comparable to “God save the Son of David.”

Luke’s account does not include the term “hosanna” but concludes with an expression of praise that would have been more understandable to non-Jews, “In heaven peace, and glory in the [highest] heights.” (Luke 19:38) It appears that the exclamation, “In heaven peace, and glory in the [highest] heights,” parallels the words, “Hosanna in the [highest] heights,” which words appear as the concluding expression in Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:10.

The crowd that acknowledged Jesus as the “Son of David,” or the rightful heir to the kingship in the royal line of Judah, used the words of Psalm 118:26, “Blessed [be] the one coming in the Lord’s [YHWH’s, Hebrew text] name.” (Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:9, 10; John 12:13) Psalm 118 is one of the Hallel psalms with which the waving of the lulab (lulav) is associated during the Festival of Tabernacles. According to the ancient Jewish sources, the palm branch or frond used for the lulab had to be in its unopened state. The Tosefta (Sukkah 2:7; Neusner’s translation) says that it could not be “shaped like a fan.” So it appears likely that the spontaneous response of the multitude was influenced by the joy linked to the Festival of Tabernacles, with the recitation of the words of Psalm 118 being accompanied by the waving of unopened palm fronds.

According to Josephus, Titus, in an effort to bring the protracted siege of Jerusalem to an end, proposed building a wall around the whole city, thereby either forcing a surrender or weakening the defenders by extreme famine. A spirit of competition, coupled with a desire to please their superiors, energized the soldiers, making it possible for them to complete the project in “three days.” Josephus added how incredible it was for something that would normally have required months to finish to have been “done in so short an interval.” (Wars, V, xii, 1, 2)

Commenting on the results of the siege on the people inside the city, Josephus wrote: “Now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation [with the citizens of Jerusalem], but not belonging to the city itself; for they were come up from all the country to the feast of unleavened bread, and were on a sudden shut up by an army, which, at the first, occasioned so great a straitness among them that there came a pestilential destruction upon them, and soon afterward such a famine, as destroyed them more suddenly.” (War, VI, ix, 3)

As for the city, Jesus had said that no stone would be left upon a stone. Describing what happened, Josephus reported: “Caesar [Titus] gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency.” The objective of Titus, when preserving a part of the fortification, was to show how well fortified Jerusalem was and thus demonstrate what “Roman valor had subdued.” “For all the rest of the wall,” Josephus continued, “it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe [the city] had ever been inhabited.” (War, VII, i, 1)

Back to Jerusalem and to the Temple (Matthew 21:12-19; Mark 11:12-19; Luke 19:45-48; John 12:20-50)

With his apostles, Jesus left Bethany early the next morning, and he was hungry. On the way, he noticed a fig tree that already had leaves, which would have been early for that time of the year. In the spring, the tree produces the first figs on the previous season’s growth and before it is in full leaf. Therefore, though it was not the season for figs, the leaves on the tree suggested that there would be fruit on it. Therefore, Jesus approached the tree but found no fruit, indicating that it was a barren tree. In the hearing of the disciples, he then said, “May no one ever again eat fruit from you.” (Matthew 21:18, 19; Mark 11:12-14; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Upon arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus went to the temple with his apostles. He then put a stop to the commercial activity being carried out in the temple precincts. This would have been in the Court of the Gentiles. Jesus drove out all who were buying and selling, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. He also did not permit anyone to carry a vessel through the area, thereby preventing people from using the temple courtyard as a shortcut when engaged in common daily activities. To all those who disregarded the sanctity of the temple area, he said, “It is written [in Isaiah 56:7, LXX], ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a ‘cave of bandits’ [Jeremiah 7:11, LXX].” (Matthew 21:12, 13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45, 46; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

When the chief priests and scribes heard what Jesus had done, they were highly displeased and wanted to kill him. (Mark 11:18) This suggests that they may have profited from the exchanging of money and the buying and selling.

According to ancient Jewish sources, there were times when those who sold sacrificial animals charged exorbitant prices. One example of this was when pairs of doves were sold for 25 times above the regular price. (Mishnah, Keritot 1:7) Money changers profited from exchanging coins that could not be used for the payment of the temple tax, contributions for the support of the temple, and perhaps also for the purchase of sacrificial animals.

While Jesus was in the temple precincts, the blind and the lame came to him, and he healed them. Youths in the temple area cried out, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” either meaning “Praise to the Son of David” (NCV) or “Save, please, the Son of David.” The designation “Son of David” identified Jesus as the promised Messiah. It is likely that the children imitated their parents and other adults who had earlier thus expressed themselves. (Matthew 21:14, 15)

When the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous things Jesus did, restoring sight to the blind and curing the lame, and heard him being acknowledged as the “Son of David,” they became indignant. They challengingly asked Jesus whether he did not hear what the youths were saying, indicating thereby that they wanted him to stop them. He replied, “Yes,” and then asked them whether they had never read, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have prepared praise [Psalm 8:3, LXX].” (Matthew 21:15, 16; see Psalm 8, in the Commentary section, for additional information.)

The unbelieving leaders of the nation regarded Jesus as a threat, fearing a potential conflict with Rome. They wanted him dead but were afraid to act, for he astounded the multitude with his teaching. With the crowds being eager to hear Jesus, the influential members of the nation could not find a way to destroy him without precipitating an uprising among the people. (Mark 11:18; 14:2; Luke 19:47, 48; John 11:48)

Among those who had come to the festival to worship were some Greeks. Their not being referred to as proselytes may indicate that they were not such but had come to believe in the one true God. Either on this or another day, these God-fearing non-Jews approached Philip, the apostle from Bethsaida in Galilee, and expressed their desire to see Jesus. Possibly they chose to speak to Philip because of his Greek name, meaning “fond of horses.” It appears that Philip was unsure about what he should do and so first spoke to Andrew about the desire of the Greeks. Then both of them went to Jesus and informed him about this. (John 12:20-22)

Against the backdrop of the desire of the Greeks to see him, Jesus foretold that there would be even greater response to him after his death and subsequent glorification, which would have included his resurrection and ascension to heaven as the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been entrusted. He then said that the “hour” or time had come for the “Son of Man to be glorified.” Illustrating that his death would result in an increase in disciples, he referred to a grain of wheat as dying (or ceasing to exist as just one grain) and thereafter bearing much fruit. If it did not fall on the ground (being sown), it would remain just a single grain. Indicating that he was conveying an important truth, Jesus prefaced his statement with a repetition of a solemn “amen” (truly). (John 12:23, 24)

Suggesting that the resulting increase after his death would be through the activity of his disciples, Jesus called attention to the need for courage. Intense opposition to their activity could even lead to their death. Therefore, the one who loved his “soul” (life), failing to remain loyal to Jesus out of fear, would lose it. The unfaithful one would forfeit his relationship with the Son of God and his Father and thus lose out on the real or eternal life. On the other hand, the person who “hates his soul in this world” or does not make the preservation of his present life more important than loyalty to Christ would be safeguarding it “for eternal life.” Even though the faithful individual may be put to death, he would retain his eternal relationship with the Son of God and his Father. For the loyal disciple, life in the age to come would be certain. (John 12:25)

Those who would serve the Lord Jesus Christ would follow him, heeding his teaching and imitating his example. With reference to the blessing awaiting the faithful servant, Jesus said, “My servant will also be there where I am. If anyone serves me, [my] Father will honor him.” As Jesus returned to the realm above, his faithful disciples would come to be there with him and be honored by the Father as his approved children. (John 12:26)

Seemingly, as Jesus considered what lay ahead for his disciples, he began to think about the suffering and excruciating death he would shortly face. Within himself he sensed a disturbing upheaval, prompting him to say, “My soul is troubled,” and causing him to wonder just what expression he should make. Greatly distressed in spirit, he prayed, “Father, save me from this hour.” If the possibility of being delivered from a dreadful end had been an option, Jesus would have wanted to be rescued. He realized, however, that submission to his Father’s will mattered most. So he immediately added, “But therefore I have come to this hour.” The culminating purpose for his coming to the earth had been to make possible the rescue of the world of mankind from sin and death through his own sacrificial death. As the obedient Son who delighted to do his Father’s will, Jesus turned his attention away from himself and prayed, “Father, glorify your name.” (John 12:27, 28) It was his Father’s will for him to lay down his life, and Jesus’ prayer was that doing it would glorify his Father’s name (or his Father, the bearer of the name). The glorification consisted of the ultimate revelation of his Father’s love and compassion for humankind. (John 3:16; Romans 5:8-11; 1 John 4:9, 10)

In response to his prayer, a voice resounded from heaven, “And I have glorified [my name] and will again glorify [my name].” (John 12:28) Through the miracles and works of power he enabled his Son to perform, the Father had glorified himself, with many expressing praise to him for the marvelous deeds that brought relief to the afflicted. Then, through his Son’s death and subsequent resurrection, he would once again glorify his name or bring glory to himself. In increasing numbers, believers would thank and praise him.

A crowd of people heard the voice from heaven but they appear not to have understood the words. Some concluded that it had thundered, whereas others thought that an angel had spoken to Jesus. He, however, told them that the voice had resounded for them or their benefit and not for him. (John 12:29, 30)

Through his death in faithfulness, Jesus would triumph over the powers of darkness, ending the tyranny of the ruler of the world who would be unable to restrain anyone from transferring to the realm where God rules through his Son. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the judging or condemning of the world (exposing the world of mankind to be alienated from his Father) and the ejection of Satan, the ruler of this world. (John 12:31)

The effect of Jesus’ being “lifted up” from the earth would be his drawing “all” to him, indicating that people from everywhere would respond to him in faith and accept his having died for them. The expression “lifted up” indicated that he would be lifted up on the implement on which he would be crucified. Understanding Jesus as having referred to his experiencing the kind of death associated with being “lifted up,” certain ones in the crowd expressed the view that the “law” or their holy writings indicated that the Christ would remain forever. So they asked Jesus why he said the Son of Man would be lifted up and who this one is. (John 12:32-34)

No specific part of the Hebrew Scriptures says that the Messiah would remain forever. Possibly based on what they had heard about the coming Messiah, they came to this conclusion. Psalm 89:36(37) did point to the permanence of rule in the line of David, and Daniel 7:13, 14 portrays someone “like a son of man” being granted eternal dominion, and it may be that such passages provided a basis for the belief that the Messiah or Christ would remain forever.

The Son of God did not answer their question directly. His words, however, should have made it possible for them to recognize that he was the promised Messiah, the one through whom true enlightenment was available. It would only be a little while longer that the “light” (he as the one through whom the light was available) would be among them. Jesus admonished the people to “walk” while they had the light, conforming their ways to what the light revealed, and avoiding the hazards of walking in darkness or without the dependable guidance he provided. Persons who walked in darkness would not know where they were going, placing themselves in danger. At this point, the Son of God clarified that faith in him was essential. “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” (John 12:35, 36)

All who put faith in Jesus came into possession of true light, for acting in harmony with his example and teaching made it possible for them to have his Father’s approval and to conduct themselves aright. As persons fully enlightened and conducting themselves accordingly, they would be able to testify concerning God’s Son, imparting light or enlightenment to others. Thus, through their conduct and testimony, they would prove to be “sons of light.”

At this point, Jesus left and concealed himself from the unbelieving people. This suggests that he recognized that his life was in danger, but it was then not the time for him to give up his life. (John 12:36)

Although Jesus had performed many “signs” or miracles, the people did not believe in him. In their case, the words of prophet Isaiah were fulfilled, for they manifested the same unresponsiveness to Jesus as did their forefathers to Isaiah and the message he proclaimed. “Lord [LXX, but not in the extant Hebrew text], who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text] been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1, LXX; John 12:36-38)

The implied answer is that the message (or the word of which the Most High was the source and, therefore, of what Isaiah and Jesus had heard from him) was not believed. Although God had revealed his “arm” or his activity and power, the contemporaries of Isaiah and of Jesus generally remained blind to it. The reason for their unbelief is set forth in Isaiah 6:10, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart [mind], that they may not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart [mind], and they change [literally, turn], and I would heal them.” (John 12:39, 40; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

According to John 12:41, “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke about it.” The prophet did have a vision of the glory of God after which he said, “My eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts.” (Isaiah 6:1-5) Being the perfect reflection of the Father or his very image, the Son possessed the glory that Isaiah saw in vision. (John 1:14; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3) Isaiah also spoke prophetically concerning him. (Isaiah 9:6, 7; 53:1-12) Accordingly, the words of Isaiah could be represented as spoken by one who saw Christ’s glory and whose experience with unbelief to the message from the Most High found its exact parallel or fulfillment in the case of Jesus. The Father did not prevent the people from choosing to remain blind and refusing to believe and change. Consequently, he is represented as blinding their eyes and hardening their heart.

Nevertheless, not all of the people remained unresponsive. Even among the prominent ones (“rulers”) of the nation, there were those who believed. But, at the time, because of the unbelieving Pharisees, they did not openly acknowledge him as the Christ, not wanting to be cast out of the synagogue. They were more concerned about maintaining their honorable standing in the Jewish community (“the glory of men”) than about glorifying God by honoring his Son. Thus they revealed themselves to be persons who loved “the glory of men more than the glory of God.” (John 12:42, 43; see the Notes section for additional comments.) The expression “glory of God” could (as commonly rendered) mean the glory he bestows on those who put faith in his Son, accepting them as his beloved children.

It appears that before Jesus went into hiding he raised his voice, telling the people of the need to put faith in him. Anyone who believed in him would also be believing in the one who had sent him. Likewise, whoever saw him, recognizing him as the unique Son of God, would see the one who had sent him, for Jesus perfectly reflected his Father. No one who believed in him would remain in darkness, for Jesus had come as “light into the world,” making it possible for individuals to have his Father’s approval and to have the essential guidance for conducting themselves aright as his children. (John 12:44-46)

Jesus did not come to judge or condemn those who heard his words but did not heed them. His mission was to save the world of mankind, not to condemn it, opening up the opportunity for all to change their ways, become his disciples and his Father’s beloved children, and be liberated from sin and thus saved from condemnation. There would, however, be a basis for judgment or condemnation in case of individuals who disregarded Jesus and refused to accept what he said. “On the last day” or at the time of judgment, the “word” he had spoken would serve as judge, condemning those who deliberately rejected it. This would be because the Father was the source of Jesus’ teaching. The Son did not speak of his own but spoke only what his Father had commanded him to speak. Regarding his Father’s commandment, Jesus said, “I know that his commandment is eternal life.” (John 12:47-50) Obedience to that “commandment,” which included putting faith in the Son, would result in having an approved relationship with him and his Father, and that enduring relationship constitutes the real or eternal life. (John 17:3)

Because of what he knew about his Father’s commandment, Jesus did not in any way depart from it in his teaching. He expressed only what his Father had told him. (John 12:50)

In the evening, Jesus left Jerusalem. He and the apostles then stayed in Bethany for the night. (Matthew 21:17; Mark 11:19)

Notes:

In Matthew 21:19, Jesus is represented as saying that the fig tree should never again bear fruit. Mark 11:14 conveys the same basic thought but focuses on no one’s ever again eating from its fruit. While the wording is different (being expressed in a language other than the one Jesus spoke), both passages are in agreement that the fig tree should never again bear fruit.

According to Matthew 21:19, the fig tree withered instantly. Mark 11:20, however, indicates that it was early the next morning that the apostles saw that the fig tree had already withered. So it appears that Matthew 21:19 either means that the fig tree immediately started to wither but that the process could not initially be seen or that the withering occurred in such a short time that it could be spoken of as having taken place at once.

In Mark 11:17, the quotation from Isaiah 56:7 is longer, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.”

The words in John 12:40 are not an exact quotation from the extant Septuagint text of Isaiah 6:10 nor from the extant Hebrew text. The Septuagint reading represents the unresponsiveness of the people as being their choice (“they have shut their eyes”). In the Masoretic Text and also the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, the words are a directive to Isaiah (“shut their eyes”). In the Scriptures, whatever takes place by God’s permission is commonly attributed to him. Therefore, the way in which Isaiah 6:10 is quoted in John 12:40 and applied preserves the basic meaning.

Possibly the “rulers” mentioned in John 12:42 included Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who later did identify themselves as disciples.

Back to and in Jerusalem for the Third Time (Matthew 21:20-24:2; Mark 11:20-13:2; Luke 20:1-21:6)

On the way to Jerusalem the next morning, the fig tree that Jesus had cursed the day before was dried up from the roots. As they passed by on the road, the apostles were surprised to see this and wondered how this could have happened so soon. Peter appears to have been the first one to speak up, “Lord, look, the fig tree you cursed has dried up.” (Matthew 21:20; Mark 11:20, 21)

In his reply, Jesus stressed the need for faith in God. Prefacing his comments with a solemn “amen” (truly), he directed attention to the power of faith. If they had faith and did not doubt, the apostles would be able to do what Jesus had done to the fig tree and, in fact, even more. He continued, “If you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and tossed into the sea,’ it will occur.” (Matthew 21:21) In Mark 11:23, Jesus is represented as using a more detailed qualifying statement, “If [the person] does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be [so] for him.” In their hearts or their inmost selves, the apostles should have the firm conviction that God would answer their prayers. They would come to have whatever they prayed for in faith. Their appeal should be with the kind of certainty reflective of their already having received whatever they requested. (Matthew 21:22; Mark 12:24) Prayers, expressed in faith, would of necessity have to be in harmony with God’s will, as nothing that is opposed to his will is compatible with faith in him.

Besides having faith in God as the hearer of prayer, all who appeal to him should also maintain a forgiving spirit. Jesus told the apostles that when they stood to pray, they should forgive what they might have against anyone. The heavenly Father would then also forgive them their trespasses. (Mark 11:25) Numerous later manuscripts add, “But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who [is] in the heavens forgive your trespasses.” (Mark 11:26; these words [which parallel Matthew 6:15] are missing in numerous modern translations because they are not found in the oldest extant manuscripts as well as many others.)

It may be noted that letting go of resentment and anger when being transgressed against may appear as difficult as moving a mountain out of one’s way. With faith in God, however, it can be done. For the apostles, the drying up of the fig tree provided an object lesson regarding the power of faith.

By implication, the withering of the fig tree also revealed that there are serious consequences for not believing. In the case of the nation of Israel, faith in God should have led to accepting his Son. When the “time of visitation” arrived for Jerusalem and so also for the people for whom the city with its temple was the place of worship, Jesus did not find the fruit of faith among the prominent ones and those who followed their lead. Like the barren fig tree, the people had showy leaves, observing the traditions and the ritualistic aspects of worship at the temple. But the fruit that counted—the faith that would have moved them to accept Jesus as the Son of God and to become his loyal disciples—was lacking. Accordingly, just as the fig tree had dried up, they would face serious adverse judgment. (Compare Luke 19:41-44.)

If not then, the apostles later must have recalled Jesus’ earlier parable about the barren fig tree and the effort to save it from being cut down as useless. (Luke 13:6-9) That parable had specific application to the nation of Israel and the opportunities extended to it to be found divinely approved and to escape adverse judgment for failing to bear fruit to God’s praise.

Arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus and the apostles went to the temple, where he began to teach and proclaim the good news (which likely included the message about how to become part of the realm where his Father is Sovereign). The chief priests, scribes, and elders of the nation approached him, demanding to know by what authority he acted (likely referring to his driving out those who conducted commercial activities in the Court of the Gentiles) and who had granted him this authority. (Matthew 21:23; Mark 11:27, 28; Luke 20:1, 2; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 21:23.)

Jesus told them that, if they answered one question for him, he would let them know about his authority. “The baptism from John—from where was [it], from heaven or from men?” They realized that, if they said, “From heaven,” he would ask them why they did not believe John. If, however, they said, “From men,” they feared this would lead to trouble from the multitude. The unbelieving leaders knew that the people considered John to have been a prophet. So, if their answer discredited him, the people could have become so enraged as to resort to stoning them. Realizing that they could not give either answer without creating a problem for themselves, the prominent ones said, “We do not know.” Therefore, the Son of God said that he would not tell them by what authority he acted. (Matthew 21:24-27; Mark 11:29-33; Luke 20:3-8)

The Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32)

By means of a parable, Jesus then had those who did not believe in him condemn themselves. He started with a question, “What do you think?” A man asked one of his two sons to go to work in the vineyard that day. The son refused to do so, but later regretted his decision and actually did labor in the vineyard. When approached with the same request, the other son agreed to labor in the vineyard but then did not do so. “Which of the two,” Jesus asked, “did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” (Matthew 21:28-31; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Applying the point of the parable, Jesus told the unbelieving leaders of the nation that the tax collectors and the prostitutes were going ahead of them into God’s kingdom. John the Baptist had come to them in the “way of righteousness” or had called to their attention the divinely approved way of life. But, as Jesus said to the prominent ones, “You did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did believe him.” Even though the leaders witnessed this development, they did not have a change of mind and believe John. (Matthew 21:32)

Tax collectors and prostitutes were among those who responded to John’s proclamation, repenting of their sins and submitting to water baptism. By abandoning their wrong course, they demonstrated themselves to be like the son who initially refused to work in the vineyard but afterward had a change of heart and complied with his father’s request. They did what was required to be part of the realm where God is Sovereign.

The ones whom Jesus addressed represented themselves as agreeing to do God’s will but then failed to do so. They disregarded John as God’s prophet and rejected Jesus, the one who had come from God and imparted his teaching. Thus they kept themselves out of the kingdom of God, the realm where his loyal subjects acknowledge his Son as the king whom he has appointed.

The Parable of the Evil Vinedressers (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19)

The Son of God then asked the people to listen to another parable. A man planted a vineyard, encircled it with a fence (a stone wall or a thorny hedge), dug out a wine press, built a tower (where a watchman would be stationed to guard against loss from thieves or wild animals), contracted it out to vinedressers, and left the country for some time. At harvesttime, he sent his slaves to obtain his share of the grapes. The vinedressers beat up one of the slaves, another one they killed, and still another slave they stoned. The vineyard owner sent a larger group of slaves, and the vinedressers likewise mistreated and killed them. Finally, the man sent his own son, believing that they would respect him. When the vinedressers saw him, they determined to kill him and thereby come into possession of the vineyard. They seized the son, cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Jesus then asked what the owner, upon his arrival, would do to these vinedressers. They replied that the evil men would be destroyed and the vineyard would be contracted out to others who would give him his due share of the grapes at harvesttime. (Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

In the parable, the owner of the vineyard represents the Most High; the vineyard, the nation of Israel; the tenant vinedressers, the leaders of the people; the slaves, the prophets who were mistreated and killed; and the son, Jesus. The people, including the chief priests, scribes, and elders, doubtless were familiar with the words of Isaiah (5:1-7), which identified the “house of Israel” and the “people of Judah” as YHWH’s vineyard and revealed the severe punishment for failing to produce fruit in the form of justice and uprightness. According to Luke 20:16, the listeners appear to have discerned the implication of ruin for the nation, prompting them to say, “May it not occur” (basically meaning “God forbid!”).

Applying the parable, Jesus asked the hearers whether they had never read in the Scriptures, “The stone that the builders rejected has come to be the head of the corner; this has come to be from the Lord, and it is amazing in our eyes.” The leaders of the nation, like the builders of the parable, had rejected Jesus like a stone unfit for their purposes. His Father, however, decreed for him to be highly exalted like the most important stone, the “head of the corner.” In the eyes of God’s servants, the reversal from being rejected to being granted unparalleled honor is something truly marvelous. (Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10, 11; Luke 20:17)

Continuing, Jesus told those listening to him that the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to a nation producing its fruit. The one who fell on the rejected stone would be shattered and the one upon whom this stone fell would be crushed. For those who persisted in unbelief, Jesus would prove to be like a large stone in their way, over which they would stumble, leading to their ruin. He would also be like a large boulder that could come crashing down upon them, crushing them completely. As a nation, the Israelites would lose their divinely favored status, and the non-Jewish peoples would be granted the opportunity to become part of the kingdom. Thus another nation or people, by responding in faith, would be given the kingdom that the unbelieving Israelites and their leaders chose to reject. (Matthew 21:43, 44 [the words of verse 44 not being included in all ancient manuscripts]; Luke 20:18)

The chief priests and Pharisees (“scribes,” Luke 20:19) discerned that Jesus had spoken the parable with them in mind. They wanted to seize him, but they feared the multitude who considered him to be a prophet. (Matthew 21:45, 46; Mark 12:12)

Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22:1-14)

Jesus related yet another parable, likening the kingdom of the heavens to a wedding banquet that a king arranged for his son. (Matthew 22:1, 2) This parable revealed that there are conditions for being part of the realm where God is Sovereign and where his Son is his appointed king. It also highlights the serious consequences for failing to respond properly or not acting in harmony with divine requirements.

The king sent out his servants to call the invitees, but they did not want to come. He then sent out other servants to tell the invitees that the preparations for the wedding banquet had been completed. Those who had been invited, however, had no interest in being present for the event. They continued pursuing personal affairs, going to their own field or handling business transactions. Others seized the servants, treated them contemptuously, and killed them. (Matthew 22:3-6)

Infuriated, the king sent out his forces to execute vengeance. The armies slaughtered the murderers and burned their city. (Matthew 22:7)

After telling them that the wedding banquet was ready but that the invitees were undeserving, the king instructed his servants to go into the main roads and to invite anyone whom they might find. His servants did so, inviting all whom they found, “both bad and good.” The banquet hall came to be filled with those who reclined on couches to partake of the food. (Matthew 22:8-10)

When entering the banquet hall to see the guests, the king noticed a man who was not wearing a wedding garment. Asked how he had gained entrance without the appropriate attire, the man was speechless, unable to offer any valid reason for his unsuitable clothing. The king ordered him to be bound hand and foot, and thrown out of the illuminated banquet hall into the darkness outside. There in the darkness, he would become aware of his loss and shed bitter tears and gnash his teeth as he vainly tried to control his sobbing. As Jesus said, “There will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.” He concluded the parable with the words, “For many are the called, but few [are] the chosen.” (Matthew 22:11-14)

In this parable, the original invited ones represent the people of Israel. To them, the promise had been made that, if obedient, they would come to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5, 6) With the arrival of the Son of God, they had the opportunity to be part of the realm where he is king by his Father’s appointment. In the parable, this is represented by acting on the invitation to attend the wedding banquet. Through the servants or Christ’s disciples, the invitation continued to be extended, but it was largely ignored, and the disciples were mistreated and even killed. Punitive judgment came through the withdrawal of divine favor and protection. In 70 CE, the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem.

The disciples of God’s Son continued to extend the invitation, going into the roads or telling the non-Jewish peoples how they could become part of the realm where God is Sovereign. The invitation was extended to “both bad and good,” the “good” being like the godly centurion Cornelius who responded compassionately to persons in need and the “bad” being those whose way of life was by no means commendable. (Acts 10:1-4; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Titus 3:3)

At inspection time, all those who are properly identified as being in the realm where God rules by means of his Son will come to enjoy the blessings associated therewith, comparable to being partakers of the wedding banquet. Mere claimants, however, who prefer their own attire rather than complying with the divine requirements for entering the kingdom will lose out. For royal wedding banquets, the invited guests were provided with a garment to wear. Therefore, the man in the parable could be represented as being without excuse for his failure. To be approved, it is not a matter of merely professing Jesus as Lord but it requires a life that harmonizes with that acknowledgment. As Jesus said on another occasion, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46)

In the case of the Israelites, all of them were invited, but few responded. Therefore, in their case, few were chosen. Similarly, when the invitation went out to the non-Jewish peoples, many did not act on it and so did not come to be among the chosen. Still others, like the man without the wedding garment, have not submitted to God’s requirements but have chosen to follow ways that seemed appropriate to them. As indicated by the parable, this would result in severe judgment.

The leading individuals in or the “founders” of a multitude of movements have been responsible for creating their own “garments” of unique doctrines and practices that distinguish them from other denominational and nondenominational bodies professing to be Christian. Within the various religious communities, these doctrines and practices are perpetuated, and the leadership and the loyal membership are pleased with the distinctive “garments,” which in numerous ways do not represent or seriously misrepresent the teaching and example of God’s Son. Thus, many reject the garment offered them, which requires unqualified acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior and living accordingly, and prefer their own attire, with its distinctive sectarian label.

Notes:

Matthew 21:23 makes no mention of the scribes, as do Mark 11:27 and Luke 20:1. In Matthew 21:45, however, the Pharisees are included, and Luke 20:19 refers to the scribes. This suggests that these scribes were Pharisees.

For Matthew 21:28-31, the readings of ancient Greek manuscripts vary, and this accounts for different renderings in translations. One commonly followed Greek text has been translated as follows: “‘A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, “Son, go and work in the vineyard today.” He answered, “I will not”; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, “I go, sir”; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?’ They said, ‘The first.’” (NRSV)

A different Greek text of Matthew 21:28-31 reverses the responses of the two sons and provides a corresponding answer to Jesus’ question. This is the basis for the rendering of The Revised English Bible: “‘There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first, and said, “My son, go and work today in the vineyard.” “I will, sir,” the boy replied; but he did not go. The father came to the second and said the same. “I will not,” he replied; but afterwards he changed his mind and went. Which of the two did what his father wanted?’ ‘The second,’ they replied.’”

A comparison of Matthew 21:33-41, Mark 12:1-9, and Luke 20:9-16 reveals variations in the parable about the evil vinedressers. Matthew 21 mentions two groups of slaves and how they were treated, whereas both Mark 12 and Luke 20 are more specific when focusing on the treatment of individual slaves. The vinedressers beat up the first slave and sent him away without anything. (Mark 12:3; Luke 20:10) They beat the second slave over the head, insulted him, and gave him nothing. (Mark 12:4; Luke 20:11) Another slave they killed (Mark 12:5) or, according to Luke 20:12, they wounded the third slave and then threw him out of the vineyard. Mark 12:5 adds that the owner sent out many more slaves, some of whom were either beaten up or killed.

Mark 12:9 and Luke 20:16 do not mention that Jesus requested an answer to his question about what would happen to the evil vinedressers. The answer was obvious from what he had said. Therefore, in Mark 12:9 and Luke 20:16, the substance of this answer is rightly presented as part of the parable.

The Tax Question (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26)

After hearing Jesus’ words, the unbelieving Pharisees departed and plotted how they could trap him in his speech. (Matthew 22:15) Although strongly disagreeing with the Herodians in their active support of the Herodian dynasty, they allied themselves with them, for they were of the same mind in opposing the Son of God. The Pharisees selected certain disciples (probably younger men whom Jesus would not have recognized) to send to him, and the Herodians must have chosen their own adherents to be included in this group. According to Luke 20:19, the chief priests were also involved in devising the scheme to ensnare Jesus, and the scribes mentioned in that text appear to have been unbelieving Pharisees. The objective was to have Jesus make statements that could be used against him, making it possible to hand him over to the Roman governor for punishment as a seditionist. Those sent pretended to be upright men and sincere questioners. In an effort to throw Jesus off guard, they resorted to flattery. After addressing him as “teacher,” they claimed to know him to be “true,” sincere, or honest, teaching the way of God in harmony with truth, and not being influenced by position or status. (Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:13, 14; Luke 20:20, 21)

Then they raised the question that was designed to trap Jesus. “Is it lawful to pay tax to Caesar or not?” (Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:22) They knew how unpopular the payment of taxes was (especially because a foreign power had imposed it), and an affirmative answer would not have gone over well with the people. While a negative answer would have appealed to the masses who hated the Roman system of taxation, it would have made Jesus guilty of promoting sedition.

Fully aware of the questioners’ sinister intent and cunning, Jesus identified them as hypocrites, men who only pretended to want an answer, and asked them, “Why do you test me?” He requested that they show him a denarius (a Roman coin with which tax would be paid and which amounted to a day’s wage for a laborer). After being approached with the coin, Jesus asked them to identify the image and the inscription. They replied, “Caesar’s.” He then told them, “Give Caesar’s things to Caesar, and God’s things to God.” This was not an answer the questioners could use against Jesus, for it required their determining what belonged to Caesar and what belonged to God and following through accordingly. The answer took them by surprise and silenced them, and they left. (Matthew 22:18-22; Mark 12:15-17; Luke 20:23-26)

Questioned About the Resurrection (Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40)

The Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, did not believe in a resurrection from the dead. (Acts 23:8) Knowing that Jesus taught that there would be a resurrection, the Sadducees determined to try to make this teaching appear unreasonable. They referred to what Moses had written concerning levirate marriage, which required that the brother of a man who died childless take the widow of the deceased as his wife and father offspring for his brother. They cited the example of a woman who, through the provision of levirate marriage, came to have seven husbands, all of whom died childless. (Matthew 22:23-27; Mark 12:18-22; Luke 20:27-32) Whether this involved an actual case or a hypothetical one cannot be determined from the narrative.

The Sadducees asked whose wife she would be in the resurrection. (Matthew 22:28; Mark 12:23; Luke 20:33) Seemingly, in their view, it would have been unthinkable for a woman to be the wife of seven husbands upon being raised from the dead and, therefore, the idea about a resurrection was problematic and unreasonable.

Jesus reproved them for knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. “The sons of this age,” or humans in the present state of earthly existence, “marry and are given in marriage.” In the age to come, Jesus indicated that there would be a different kind of life, one that existed among the angels, heavenly beings who neither marry nor are given in marriage and who do not die. As persons raised to unending life or “sons of the resurrection,” the resurrected ones would be “sons of God.” Thus Jesus showed that the Sadducees did not know the power of God. They had rejected belief in a resurrection on the basis of only one kind of existence and allowed their narrow view to limit what divine power could accomplish. (Matthew 22:29, 30; Mark 12:24, 25; Luke 20:34-36)

Next Jesus made it clear that they did not know the Scriptures, failing to see indications about future life in words that they professed to accept. He called attention to the incident involving Moses at the burning bush. (Exodus 3:1-6) Moses heard the words, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Jesus added, “He is God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all alive to him.” (Matthew 22:31, 32; Mark 12:26, 27; Luke 20:37, 38)

His being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob confirms an existing and continuing relationship with them as persons. The Most High does not have a relationship with the lifeless elements of the ground to which the three patriarchs had returned long before the revelation to Moses at the burning bush. This enduring relationship confirmed the certainty of the resurrection hope. So sure was it that, to God, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were living.

Mark 12:27 indicates that Jesus also told the Sadducees that, by denying belief in the resurrection, they were very much in error. Many who had been listening to Jesus’ teaching about the resurrection were astounded, likely because of its clarity and simplicity. (Matthew 22:33) Even certain scribes acknowledged that Jesus had expressed himself well as a teacher. Thereafter the Sadducees did not dare to question him any more, doubtless because of having failed in their attempt to discredit him. (Luke 20:39, 40)

The Foremost Commandments (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34)

When certain Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees on the subject of the resurrection, they gathered around him. One of their number, a scribe (a legal expert, according to numerous manuscript readings of Matthew 22:35) approached him with the objective of testing him. This scribe had overheard the interchange with the Sadducees and recognized that Jesus had answered them well. He then asked which was the first or greatest commandment in the law. (Matthew 22:34-36; Mark 12:28; see the Notes section for additional comments on Matthew 22:36 and Mark 12:28.)

In answer, Jesus identified the first commandment with a quotation from Deuteronomy 6:4, 5, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord [Hebrew, YHWH our God—YHWH (is) one], and you must love the Lord [Hebrew, YHWH] your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” (Mark 12:29, 30; see the Notes regarding Matthew 22:37.) This commandment stressed the all-embracing nature of love for God, with not a single faculty being omitted.

According to Matthew 22:38, Jesus identified this commandment as “the greatest and first.” Referring to the second one as being like it, he then quoted from Leviticus 19:18, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” “No other commandment,” Jesus continued, “is greater than these.” (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31) The two greatest commandments express the complete intent of the law and the prophets, with love for God and for one’s neighbor or fellow guiding one’s attitude, thoughts, words, and actions. As Jesus said, “On these two commandments, all the law and the prophets hang.” (Matthew 22:40) The law and the teaching that the prophets conveyed are based on love. Therefore, it logically follows that the law and the prophets cannot be rightly understood or appreciated when one lacks love for God and for fellow humans.

The scribe who had raised the question was moved to acknowledge, “Excellent, Teacher, you have spoken in truth, ‘He is one, and there is no one other than he; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love [one’s] neighbor as oneself surpasses [in importance] all the holocausts and sacrifices.” Recognizing that he had responded wisely, Jesus said to him, “You are not far from God’s kingdom.” (Mark 12:32-34)

To be in the realm where the Most High is Sovereign requires living a life of love, for love uniquely distinguishes him and expresses who he is. By acting in harmony with the words he had uttered, the scribe would have put faith in Jesus and imitated his love.

The question had not stumped the Son of God. Therefore, no one among the group dared to ask him any more questions. (Mark 12:34)

Notes:

The scribe’s question is not worded the same in Matthew 22:36 (“Teacher, which commandment [is the] greatest in the law?”) as in Mark 12:28 (“Which commandment is [the] first of all?”). The difference is understandable when one considers that the question was not originally expressed in Greek. Both passages, however, convey the identical thought.

In Matthew 22:37, the quotation is limited to the words in Deuteronomy 6:5. Both Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30 include the phrase “with all your mind.” This phrase is not found in extant manuscripts of the Septuagint nor is there any corresponding wording in the Masoretic Text. With the exception of the missing phrase and a different word for “strength” or “might,” the extant text of the Septuagint and the text of Mark 12:29, 30 are the same. Matthew 22:37, in the abbreviated quotation from Deuteronomy 6:5, omits “with all your strength.” The differences in the Greek of Mark 12:29, 30 and Matthew 22:37 are minor and have no bearing on the meaning of Jesus’ words.

Whose Son Is the Christ? (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)

While the Pharisees were still in his presence, Jesus asked, “What do you think about the Christ [or Messiah]? Whose son is he?” “David’s,” they replied. “How, then,” said Jesus, “[could] David, by [holy, Mark 12:36] spirit, call him lord, saying, ‘The Lord [Hebrew, YHWH] said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies underneath your feet”’?” After having quoted from Psalm 110:1, Jesus asked, “If, then, David calls him lord, how is he his son?” No one among those there could give him an answer. From that “day” or time, no one among the unbelievers dared to ask Jesus any more questions. (Matthew 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; see the Notes section for additional comments.) According to Mark 12:37, the large crowd that heard the interchanges found delight in listening to Jesus.

Being the Son of God, Jesus was greater than David and would be the one who would raise him from the dead. All creation came into existence through the Son. So, even from the beginning, David owed his life to him. Not David, but Jesus is the appointed king in the realm where the Most High is Sovereign. David, upon being raised from the dead, would therefore be among all who bend the knee to Jesus, acknowledging him as their Lord.

Notes:

In Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44, the point about David’s lord is presented in an abbreviated form. Jesus is represented as asking how they [the scribes, according to Mark 12:35] can say that the Christ is David’s son when David, by holy spirit, calls him lord. As in Matthew 22:44, the words of Psalm 110:1 are quoted in Mark (12:36) and Luke (20:42, 43). Luke 20:42 additionally identifies the quotation as being from the “book of Psalms.”

It should be kept in mind that Jesus’ sayings are expressed in a language other than the one in which they were spoken, and the writers’ words convey the substance of what occurred and of what was said. These factors account for the differences in the narratives.

Scribes and Pharisees Denounced and Destruction of Temple Foretold (Matthew 23:1-24:2; Mark 12:38-13:2; Luke 20:45-21:6)

Directing his words to his disciples in the hearing of the multitude, Jesus told them to watch out for the scribes, many of whom would have been Pharisees. In pronouncing “woe,” grief, or distress for the scribes and Pharisees, he called attention to their wrong attitude and practices. (Matthew 23:1, 13; Mark 12:38; Luke 20:45, 46)

It is noteworthy that the first-century Jewish historian Josephus did not hold back from making unfavorable comments about the Pharisees in the time of Herod the Great. He called them a “cunning sect,” and spoke of them as having caused mischief and greatly opposed kings. (Antiquities, XVII, ii, 4) Yet, he, at the age of 19 and after having made an examination of the sects among the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), “began to conduct [himself] according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees.” (Life, 2)

Therefore, the strong language Jesus used should not occasion surprise. Earlier, while a guest in the home of Simon (a Pharisee), he had made some of the same or similar expressions. (Luke 11:39-52)

The scribes and Pharisees had seated themselves on the “seat of Moses,” occupying the position of teachers of the law. When it came to the instruction that was based on the law, Jesus told those who were listening to observe it but not to follow the practices of the scribes and Pharisees. This is because, although teaching what the law said, they did not act in harmony with their words. (Matthew 23:2, 3)

The scribes and Pharisees imposed heavy burdens on the people, loading them down with harsh and unreasonable regulations and restrictions that went far beyond what the Mosaic law outlined. When they saw how difficult their added commands had made it for the people, they did nothing to rectify the situation. As Jesus said, they were unwilling to lift a finger to move the burdens. (Matthew 23:4)

The scribes and Pharisees were chiefly concerned about how they appeared in the eyes of others. The aim underlying all the “works” they performed was a desire to be seen, impressing others with their devotion to God. They used larger phylacteries than their fellow countrymen, and wore garments with longer fringes than the rest of the people. (Matthew 23:5)

In the Dead Sea area, phylacteries dating from either the first century BCE or the first century CE have been found. They are small leather cases measuring between a half inch to one inch and a quarter in length and less than a half inch to one inch in width. Usually, strips of parchment with neatly written minute characters from Exodus (13:1-10; 13:11-16) and Deuteronomy (6:4-9; 11:13-21) were folded to fit into tiny compartments in the small leather cases. If the ancient phylacteries are representative of those commonly used when Jesus was on earth, the ones the Pharisees had were noticeably larger. They also wore garments with larger fringes. According to the Tosefta (Berakhot, 6:25), the phylacteries on a man’s head and on his arm, as well as the mezuzah on his doorpost and the “four fringes” on his garment meant that he was surrounded by the commandments, and these would protect him.

The scribes and Pharisees dressed in fine robes, not in the common attire of workers. They wanted to be greeted respectfully in the marketplaces, to be acknowledged as godly men and called “Rabbi” (literally, “my great one” or “Teacher”), and to be honored with the front seats in the synagogues. These front seats faced the audience and were reserved for synagogue officials and notable guests. At meals and banquets, the scribes and Pharisees desired to recline in the foremost positions on the couches that were arranged on three sides of the table. (Matthew 23:6, 7; Mark 12:38, 39; Luke 20:46)

Jesus told his disciples that no one among them should be called “Rabbi,” for they had only one teacher (Jesus himself). All of them were brothers, indicating that no one was to lift himself up as being of superior rank. As brothers, they were not to call any man among them “father.” They had only one Father, the heavenly one. The disciples were not to call any individual their “instructor,” for they had only one instructor, the Christ. To him alone, they were to look for direction and guidance. The greatest among them would be identified by his being a servant, laboring among them in a loving and unassuming manner. To impress upon the disciples the importance of conducting themselves like lowly servants, Jesus said, “The one who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matthew 23:8-12)

When pronouncing “woe” for the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus called them “hypocrites.” They were like actors on a stage who played a role but whose face was hidden by a mask. Their true identity was concealed by an outward appearance of piety. Instead of helping fellow Jews to be in a state of preparedness to be part of the realm where God is Sovereign, they shut them out of the “kingdom of the heavens.” This they did by maligning and opposing Jesus, the one whom his Father had appointed as king. They created a climate of fear and intimidation, making it difficult for others to put faith in Jesus. The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees refused to go into the kingdom. By their attitude, words, and actions, they cowed others into fearfully holding back from becoming Jesus’ disciples. (Matthew 23:13)

Many later manuscripts include another pronouncement of woe (Matthew 23:14) that is found in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees for devouring the houses of widows and making a pretense with long prayers. Writing regarding certain Pharisees during the reign of Herod the Great, Josephus referred to them as men “who valued themselves highly” for being skilled “in the law of their fathers” and made others believe that God had “highly favored” them. (Antiquities, XVII, ii, 4) The strong language Jesus used suggests that they influenced widows to give of their resources to a degree that jeopardized their livelihood. The long prayers would have served to impress these widows, prompting them to respond to the scribes and Pharisees as men whom God highly favored.

The scribes and Pharisees insisted on observing the tradition of the elders, which led to undue stress on appearances. In the Tosefta (Berakhot, 3:20), mention is made of Haninah the son of Dosa who, though bitten by a poisonous lizard, continued to pray. His students reportedly later found the lizard dead at its hole.

For what they did to widows, influencing them in ways that meant loss instead of compassionately looking out for their welfare, the scribes and Pharisees would face a more severe divine judgment than would others for their wrongs. (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47)

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” Jesus continued. They crossed land and sea, doing everything possible, to make one proselyte or convert. That convert would then be worse off than before, coming to be twice as much a “son of Gehenna” than they were. (Matthew 23:15) As a convert, he would be even more rabid than they in his attachment to the traditions that nullified God’s law and be even less inclined to put faith in Jesus. For the proselyte, there would be an even greater likelihood of grave loss. As a person whom God rejects, he would be thrown into Gehenna or tossed like a carcass unfit for burial into a dump where fires burn continually and maggots feed on whatever the flames do not consume. (Isaiah 66:24)

Again pronouncing “woe” or grief for the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus called them “blind guides.” They provided others with the wrong direction that, when followed, contributed to spiritual ruin. An example of this involved their teaching about oaths. They maintained that a person who swore by the sanctuary was not bound by the oath, nor was one who swore by the altar. If, however, he swore by the gold of the sanctuary or the offering on the altar, the oath was binding. With questions, Jesus exposed them as being senseless and blind. “Which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that sanctifies the gold?” “Which is greater, the gift [offering] or the altar that sanctifies the gift?” Summing up the right view of oaths, Jesus continued, “He who swears by the altar swears by it and everything on it, and he who swears by the sanctuary swears by it and by him who dwells in it [by God whose temple it was], and he who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who is seated on it.” (Matthew 23:16-22)

Ancient Jewish sources indicate that not all formulas used in swearing had the same binding force. According to the Tosefta (Shebuot, 2:16), he who referred to himself as being subject to an oath “by the Torah” was liable, whereas one who said “by heaven” was exempt.

Verses 23, 25, 27, and 29 of Matthew 23 start Jesus’ denouncement with the words, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.” His exposure is not focused on their beliefs or doctrines but on the serious flaws of their inner life.

They tithed mint (an aromatic plant), dill (a plant of the carrot family, the aromatic seeds of which are used for seasoning), and cummin (also a plant of the carrot family having aromatic seeds that are used for seasoning), but they “neglected the weightier matters of the law,” justice, mercy, and faith. (Matthew 23:23)

Ancient Jewish sources set forth many rules about tithing. According to the Tosefta (Maaserot, 3:7), the seeds and leaves of coriander and mustard plants were subject to the law of tithes. There were sages, however, who did not consider that tithing applied to the leaves of the mustard plant. These examples illustrate that seeds used for seasoning were tithed.

The scribes and Pharisees did not treat others with impartiality but looked down on those who did not conduct themselves according to the tradition of the elders, thereby failing to uphold justice. (John 7:47-52) Their abundant rules and regulations imposed a burden on the people. In their failure to respond reasonably and humanely to fellow Israelites whose lot was very difficult as subjects of a foreign power, they demonstrated themselves to be lacking in mercy or compassion. Although they knew what was contained in the Scriptures, they did not respond in faith to Jesus, the very one to whom the Scriptures pointed as the promised Messiah and the prophet greater than Moses. By failing to conduct themselves in harmony with the spirit of the law, with its emphasis on justice, mercy, and obedience, the scribes and Pharisees proved themselves to be unfaithful (faithfulness or fidelity also being a meaning that the Greek word for “faith” [pístis] can convey).

Jesus upheld the law that required tithing, referring to tithing as being among the things not to be neglected. Foremost, though, he placed acting with justice, mercy, and faith. (Matthew 23:23) When scrupulously tithing but disregarding the weightier matters of the law, the scribes and Pharisees manifested themselves as blind guides, persons whose example could not be trusted. As Jesus said, “Blind guides, you strain out the gnat but swallow the camel.” (Matthew 23:24)

Both the gnat and the camel were unclean for food according to the Mosaic law. By attending to minutiae while neglecting the truly important things, the scribes and Pharisees acted like persons who filtered out the tiny gnat but then swallowed something unclean as large as a camel.

They were very concerned about outward appearances and ceremonial cleanness. According to ancient Jewish sources, merely intending to do something that would make a utensil unclean did, in fact, do so. (Tosefta, Kelim Baba Batra, 3:13)

Jesus decried the emphasis the scribes and Pharisees placed on externals while overlooking the more important matters involving the deep inner self. He spoke of them as cleaning the exterior of the cup and the dish, being scrupulous about ceremonial cleanness. The inner self, though, was defiled, filled with plunder or greed and self-indulgence or intemperance. (Matthew 23:25)

Instead of compassionately responding to those in need, the scribes and Pharisees were guilty of causing widows to give what they actually needed to live, thereby robbing them. Though wanting to appear as pious and to be highly honored, the scribes and Pharisees were willing to rob others of dignity, calling them accursed and ignorant of the law. In their inordinate desire for honor and praise from others, they showed themselves to be intemperate. Their focus on themselves and appearances made them self-indulgent, which led to their serious failure to be loving, compassionate, just, and impartial.

Jesus called upon the “blind Pharisee” to change, first cleaning the interior of the cup and the dish so that the exterior might become clean. With moral purity existing in the deep inner self, the whole person would be clean. (Matthew 23:26)

The scribes and Pharisees resembled whitewashed burial places, which on the outside appeared attractively clean but contained the bones of the dead and everything else that was unclean. (Matthew 23:27) According to the law, anyone who touched a grave would be ceremonially defiled for seven days. (Numbers 19:16)

The whitewashing of graves or tombs identified them as places of uncleanness, making it possible for people to avoid inadvertently walking over them or getting too close to them and becoming ceremonially unclean. Ancient Jewish writings indicate that defilement could even result from an implement that one carried and which passed over a grave. According to the Tosefta (Ahilot, 15:12), a man was pronounced unclean because part of the goad he carried on his shoulder overshadowed a grave.

Like whitewashed tombs, the Pharisees appeared to be righteous or upright to others but in their inmost selves they were filled with hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:28) In attitude, word, and action, they were not the pious ones they seemed to be, for they were woefully lacking in love and compassion for the needy and afflicted fellow Israelites in their midst. They were guilty of lawlessness, for they did not live up to the law’s requirements to act justly, compassionately, and faithfully.

The scribes and Pharisees built the burial places of the prophets and beautified the tombs of righteous ones. (Matthew 23:29) This suggests that they endeavored to locate where prophets and others known for their uprightness were buried. They then may have built tombs they considered more suitable to honor the prophets and, with decorative motifs, beautified the burial places or monuments of those known for their godliness.

The scribes and Pharisees maintained that they would not have participated with their “fathers” in shedding the blood of the prophets. Jesus pointed out that, by making this claim, they testified against themselves, admitting that their “fathers” killed the prophets. He then told them, as persons who were the children of murderers and so just like them, to fill up the measure of their fathers. This filling up would refer to their completing the record of bloodshed for which they would face the culminating judgment. (Matthew 23:30-32)

The scribes and Pharisees may have felt that they were distancing themselves from the sin of their ancestors, making amends by building the burial places of the prophets who had been unjustly killed. They, however, failed to consider the reason for their forefathers’ murderous hatred of the prophets and did not recognize that, in their desire to kill Jesus, they revealed themselves as having the same murderous disposition.

Rightly, he referred to them as “serpents,” vipers’ offspring. Their murderous fathers or ancestors could be compared to poisonous snakes, and they were just like them as part of their brood. He provided a serious warning with the question, “How can you flee from the condemnation of Gehenna?” (Matthew 23:33) How could they, with their murderous disposition, possibly escape the most severe judgment, being tossed like worthless carcasses on a garbage heap to be consumed by fire or maggots? (Isaiah 66:24)

To reveal the kind of persons they were in reality, Jesus would send them prophets, sages and scribes (knowledgeable men). The response of the scribes and Pharisees to those sent would expose them as deserving of punitive judgment. Some of those sent they would kill and crucify; others they would scourge in the synagogues and persecute in one city after another. (Matthew 23:34)

In this manner, they would add to the record of bloodguilt that began with the murder of Abel and continued to grow for centuries thereafter. A notable case from later centuries was the murder of Zechariah who reproved the people for transgressing God’s law. By the command of King Joash, Zechariah was then stoned and died “between the sanctuary and the altar.” (2 Chronicles 24:20-22; see the Notes section for additional comments about Matthew 23:35.) The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees would be held to account for the entire record of bloodshed (all the blood unjustly spilled from that of Abel to that of Zechariah). They and the rest of the unbelieving generation would experience this, which is what happened during the Roman military campaign that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem. (Matthew 23:35, 36)

As on a previous occasion (Luke 13:34, 35), Jesus called Jerusalem “the killer of the prophets and stoner” of those whom God had sent. Despite what the inhabitants of Jerusalem had done over the centuries and what the prominent ones of the nation were about to do to him, Jesus felt great compassion for the people. Often he had wanted to gather them like a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, providing care and protection. The majority, however, did not want this, rejecting him and persisting in unbelief. (Matthew 23:37)

Therefore, their “house” would be left or abandoned to them. (Matthew 23:38) Likely the “house” refers to the temple, and a number of translations make this specific in their renderings. “Look! There is your temple, forsaken by God and laid waste.” (REB) “And now your temple will be deserted.” (CEV) Without a sacred status, the temple would eventually come to ruin, and so would the city.

As for the people, they would not see Jesus again until they acknowledged him as “blessed” and as coming in God’s name or as his representative. (Matthew 23:39) Seemingly, Jesus referred to his future return in glory. At that time, believers would welcome him, acknowledging him as the blessed representative of his Father, but all who persisted in unbelief would lament. With their “house” having been left to the unbelieving Jews, neither it nor they would have any special standing with God. Nevertheless, the people would not be debarred from accepting Jesus in faith and coming to be among those who would recognize him as coming in his Father’s name.

In the Court of the Women, where (according to ancient Jewish sources) 13 trumpet-shaped chests lined the surrounding wall and where people put their monetary offerings and contributions, Jesus had seated himself and observed the wealthy putting many coins into the chests. Among those contributing, he saw a widow. Her attire must have revealed that she was very needy. Yet she contributed two lepta. These two coins had very little value, not even being enough to buy one sparrow for a meager meal. (Matthew 10:29, where the price of two sparrows is mentioned as being one assarion or eight lepta [four quadrantes]) Jesus, however, recognized the great worth of her contribution, telling his disciples that she had given more than all the others. The rich had contributed just a little from their great abundance, but the destitute widow had given everything she had to live on. (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4) Her contribution was a bountiful expression of the her love for God, whose house the temple then still was.

On his way out of the temple precincts, the disciples approached Jesus and, impressed with the grandeur of the entire complex, directed his attention to the buildings—the beautiful stones and the costly gifts that served as ornamentation. One of them exclaimed, “What stones and what buildings!” (Matthew 24:1; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5)

The Jewish historian Josephus personally saw the temple before its destruction and provided details about its magnificence. In his Antiquities (XV, xi, 3), he wrote that “the temple was built of stones that were white and strong, and each of their length was twenty-five cubits [37.5 feet, based on a cubit of 18 inches], their height was eight [12 feet], and their breadth about twelve [18 feet].” In another account, he referred to some of the stones as being “forty-five cubits [67.5 feet] in length, five [7.5 feet] in height, and six [9 feet] in breadth.” According to him, the front of the temple was covered with heavy gold plates, which, “at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor.” The brilliance was so intense that those who looked at the temple had to “turn their eyes away.” From a distance, the structure looked like a “mountain covered with snow,” for the parts that were not overlaid with gold were exceptionally white. “Spikes with sharp points” protruded from the top of the temple. These spikes served to prevent pollution from birds sitting on the top. (War, V, v, 6)

Tacitus (c. 55 to c.117 CE), a Roman historian, also indicated that the temple was an impressive structure, one of “immense wealth.” It “resembled a citadel, and had its own walls, which were more laboriously constructed than the others. Even the colonnades with which it was surrounded formed an admirable outwork. It contained an inexhaustible spring; there were subterranean excavations in the hill, and tanks and cisterns for holding rain water.” (Histories, Book V, translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, and edited by Moses Hadas)

Jesus told his disciples that not a stone would be left remaining upon a stone. Everything would be cast down. (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6)

Jesus’ words were fulfilled when the Roman armies under the command of Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Although Titus did not want the temple to be destroyed, a Roman soldier, according to Josephus, snatched burning materials and, being lifted by another soldier, “set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house.” When a messenger informed Titus about the fire, he hurried to the temple area and ordered the soldiers to put out the flames, but his words could not be heard above the din. (War, VI, iv, 3-7)

In his comments about Vespasian, the ancient Roman historian C. Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 71 to c. 135 CE) wrote: “After an obstinate defence by the Jews, that city [Jerusalem], so much celebrated in the sacred writings, was finally demolished, and the glorious temple itself, the admiration of the world, reduced to ashes; contrary, however, to the will of Titus, who exerted his utmost efforts to extinguish the flames.” (English translation by Alexander Thomson; revised and corrected by T. Forester)

Notes:

It is probable that the “Zechariah son of Barachiah” referred to in Matthew 23:35 is the Zechariah who was killed during the reign of King Joash. If this identification is correct, “Barachiah” may have been another name for Jehoiada. The original reading of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and a few later manuscripts do not include the words “son of Barachiah.” Whether this is a reflection of the original reading or an attempt to correct a seeming error cannot be established with certainty.

The postexilic prophet Zechariah was the “son of Barachiah” (Zechariah 1:1, LXX), leading some to conclude that he is the one referred to in Matthew 23:35. This does not appear to be likely, for there is no indication that he was murdered “between the sanctuary and the altar.” Furthermore, the remnant that had returned from exile responded favorably to his message and that of his contemporary Haggai.

Among those who deny that Jesus said these words, the view has been advanced that Zechariah is the eminent citizen whom two zealots killed in the temple precincts after he was acquitted of false charges. (Josephus, War, IV, v, 4) This occurred many years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, and so does not harmonize with the setting in which the words of Matthew 23:35 were spoken.

When Will It Take Place? (Matthew 24:3-25:46; Mark 13:3-37; Luke 21:7-38)

With his disciples, Jesus left Jerusalem, crossed the Kidron Valley, and ascended the western slope of the Mount of Olives. At a location on the eminence from which the temple could be seen, Jesus seated himself. (Mark 13:3) Being well over 100 feet higher than the temple site, the Mount of Olives provided a panoramic view of the area. (See http://bibleplaces.com/mtolives.htm for pictures of and comments about the Mount of Olives.)

Jesus’ words about the future destruction of the temple prompted wonderment among the disciples. Peter, James, John, and Andrew approached him privately to ask when this would occur. Peter’s being mentioned first in Mark 13:3 may indicate that he, as on other occasions, took the initiative to question Jesus.

Matthew 24:3, Mark 13:4, and Luke 21:7 represent the disciples as wanting to know, “When will these things be?” For the disciples, the temple would have been the most important building in existence. As the center of worship for Jews everywhere, it was inseparably linked to their identity as a nation or people. (See http://holylandphotos.org for a model of the temple [type “second temple model” in the search box]. Also, for additional information, see http://bibleplaces.com/templemount.htm [where you will find pictures of the Temple Mount and accompanying comments].)

Understandably, the disciples would have wondered whether an event as significant as the future destruction of the temple might not be preceded by a specific sign. This is, in fact, the way the question is continued in Mark 13:4 (“and what [will be] the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”) and Luke 21:7 (“and what [will be] the sign when these things are about to happen?”).

In Matthew 24:3, the continuation of the question is more directly linked to Jesus (“and what [will be] the sign of your [royal] presence [parousía] and of the termination of the age?”) In the basic sense, the wording of the question does not significantly differ from that in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7. To the disciples, the destruction of the temple and the end of the age would have been parallel expressions. Because of the temple’s importance in their life as Jews, its destruction would have been considered the end of an age or a world as they knew it. Moreover, they expected Jesus, the one whom they had acknowledged as their Lord and King, to restore the kingdom to Israel. (Acts 1:6) Therefore, in view of their expectations, it would not have been unusual for them to think in terms of a sign preceding Jesus’ royal presence and the end of the age.

In his response, Jesus directed attention away from the “when” of the question. Instead, he primarily emphasized matters that should be of concern to his disciples in the future. His answer, though given to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, applied to all of his disciples who would be affected by the events he was then about to relate.

Jesus warned them not to be deceived. (Matthew 24:4; Mark 13:5) Many would come in his name or lead others to believe that they were the longed-for Messiah who would liberate them from the Roman yoke. According to Matthew 24:5, they would say “I am the Christ [the Messiah].” In Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8, the abbreviated version of their words is, “I am,” meaning “I am he” or “I am the one.” As a consequence, many would be deceived. The deceivers would foster false hopes about imminent deliverance from foreign oppression, saying, “The time is near.” Jesus admonished his disciples to give no heed to their words, “Do not go after them.” (Luke 21:8)

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that many men deluded the people before the destruction of Jerusalem and during the time the city was under siege. (War, VI, v, 3) While Felix was procurator of Judea, numerous deceivers acquired a following. These men “deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration” but had revolution as their aim. They persuaded “the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty.” Perceiving the start of a revolt, Felix sent an armed force against them, and many of the deluded people were slaughtered. (War, II, xiii, 4)

A certain Egyptian came to be viewed as a prophet. This man gained a considerable following and later led thousands of men from the wilderness to the Mount of Olives. From there, he purposed to force his way into Jerusalem, overpower the Roman garrison, and, with the aid of those with him, establish himself as ruler over the people. His attempt failed, for Felix met him with his Roman soldiers. The deceiver and a few others escaped, but many of those who followed him were killed or captured. (War, II, xiii, 5)

Jesus told the disciples that they would hear about “wars and rumors of wars” (“wars and uprisings” or revolts [Luke 21:9]), but that they should not become alarmed or fearful. This probably means that they were not to give in to the troubling uneasiness or the kind of terror people experience when they, without any option for escape, anticipate a horrific outcome or end. Distressing developments were certain to come, but the end about which the disciples had asked would be still future. As Jesus said, “The end is not yet” or would not follow “immediately.” The wars and insurrections would not serve as a “sign” for ascertaining the imminent destruction of the temple or for determining that Jesus’ parousía or royal presence was at hand. One nation would rise up against another nation, and one kingdom against another kingdom. Earthquakes would occur in one place after another. There would be famines and plagues. People would see fear-inspiring portents and “great signs.” (Matthew 24:6, 7; Mark 13:7, 8; Luke 21:9-11; see the Notes section for what ancient histories indicate regarding developments before Jerusalem’s destruction.)

The wars, famines, earthquakes, and pestilences would be only the start of distress. “All these things,” said Jesus, “are the beginning of birth pangs [the plural of odín].” (Matthew 24:8; Mark 13:8) The Greek term odín can designate “birth pain” or any intense pain, woe, or distress (as experienced when giving birth). Ancient Jewish sources provide a basis for concluding that the expression “woe of the Messiah” was used in the first century and was understood to mean the distress immediately preceding the Messianic age. Therefore, the words “the beginning of birth pangs,” woes, or distress appear to have expressed the opposite of the prevailing view. Greater suffering, not the Messianic age, lay ahead.

During the turbulent time marked by wars, uprisings, food shortages, earthquakes, and pestilences, the disciples would face intense hostility from unbelievers. Jesus told them to watch out for themselves, suggesting that they needed to be on guard to avoid needlessly placing themselves in a position of danger. (Mark 13:9) He himself had set the example by taking steps to get away from those who were determined to harm him. (John 8:59; 11:53, 54; John 12:36)

The disciples would be arrested and imprisoned, handed over to Jewish councils for trial, beaten in the synagogues, tortured, and brought before governors and kings because of being Jesus’ disciples. This would serve as a testimony to those before whom they made their defense and to all who heard them speak. (Matthew 24:9; Mark 13:9; Luke 21:12, 13)

When they were being taken before authorities, they were not to give in to anxiety, struggling to formulate their defense in advance and worrying about what they might say. Jesus assured them that they would be “given” what they were to speak, for the holy spirit would be guiding their defense. (Mark 13:11; Luke 21:14) According to Luke 21:15, Jesus told them, “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all who oppose you will be unable to withstand or contradict.” As they would be receiving the holy spirit through him, Jesus would be the one who would grant them the capacity and wisdom to make their defense. (Acts 2:33)

Within families serious divisions would arise, with some proving themselves to be loyal disciples of God’s Son, whereas others would persist in unbelief and become openly hateful. As a result, a brother would hand over his brother to be put to death, and a father his children. Children would betray their own parents and have them killed. Friends and other relatives would turn against Jesus’ disciples, and betray them. (Mark 13:12; Luke 21:16)

Faced with bitter persecution, many professing disciples would “stumble,” denying their faith in Jesus and becoming traitors and hateful enemies of those who would remain loyal to him. In the community of believers, false prophets would arise and mislead many. On account of increasing lawlessness, fear would replace love. For many, the love for God and for others would “cool off” or be squelched. The distressing circumstances would call for endurance, and those who remained loyal to Christ would be saved. (Matthew 24:10-13; Mark 13:13)

Although remaining true to him could cost them their lives, Jesus assured his disciples that their eternal life would be secure. Not a “hair from [their] head” would perish; not even a fragment of their real identity as persons dearly loved by God would be lost. Through faithful endurance, they would gain their “souls,” which would mean preserving the real life of an enduring relationship with Jesus and his Father. (Luke 21:18, 19)

The book of Acts and the letters Paul and others wrote to fellow believers preserve the record of what the apostles and other disciples faced in the time after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Persecution initially came from unbelieving Jews. Then, just as Jesus said, his disciples did come to be hated by all nations because of his name or on account of being identified as attached to him as disciples. (Matthew 24:9; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:17)

An example of this hatred and associated suffering is preserved in the Annals ( XV, 44) of the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 55 to c. 117 CE): “Nero fastened the guilt [for the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

“Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.” (Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb; edited by Moses Hadas)

Besides the hatred of unbelievers, Christ’s disciples had to contend with false brothers, teachers of error, and false prophets. (2 Corinthians 11:24-27; 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:16-18; 3:8-13; 4:14, 15) The treachery of former friends would have been especially painful and disheartening. Nevertheless, despite the hardships, the glad tidings about Jesus and how to become part of the realm where he is king by his Father’s appointment continued to be proclaimed. As Jesus said, this message would be declared in the whole world and then the end would come. (Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:10) Prior to the end that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the magnificent temple, the glad tidings about God’s kingdom had spread throughout the then-known world, reaching people throughout the Roman Empire. (Compare Colossians 1:23.)

The time for a speedy flight out of Jerusalem to the mountains to escape the disaster that would befall the city would be when the “abomination of desolation” stood in the place where it should not be. It was the prophet Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11, LXX) who referred to this abomination. The parenthetical expression (“let the reader understand”) likely refers to the reader of the book of Daniel, where the “abomination of desolation” is mentioned. (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14 [but this passage in Mark does not include the reference to the prophet Daniel])

In Luke 21:20, there is no mention of the “abomination of desolation,” but the time for flight is identified as being when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies. If these armies are the “abomination,” this would fit a development the Jewish historian Josephus related. At the time Cestius Gallus with his entire Roman army came against Jerusalem, he led a force of soldiers with archers to begin an assault on the north side of the temple. For a time, the Jews succeeded in resisting the attack, but the many missiles from the archers finally caused them to give way. Protected by their shields, the Roman soldiers began to undermine the wall and prepared to set the gate of the temple on fire. (War, II, xix, 5) As the Roman soldiers were then on ground the Jews considered to be holy and close to the most sacred precincts with their idolatrous ensigns, one could conclude that they were the “abomination of desolation” in a position where they should not have been standing.

Unexpectedly, Cestius Gallus did not continue with the siege. Although he had experienced no reverses, he recalled his troops and withdrew from the city. His retreat emboldened the Jews who opposed Rome, and they left the city to pursue his army, succeeding in slaying about 5,300 of the infantry and about 380 [480, according to another extant text of Josephus] of the cavalry. The Jews lost only a few of their number. (War, II, xix, 6-9)

After this disastrous retreat of the Romans, many of the distinguished Jews fled from Jerusalem as from a ship about to sink. (War, II, xx, 1) In his Ecclesiastical History (III, v, 3), Eusebius relates that those who believed in Christ left Jerusalem before the war began and settled in Pella. He did not, however, say that they did so in obedience to Jesus’ words but attributed their departure to “an oracle given by revelation to acceptable persons,” ordering them to leave the city. (Translated by G. A. Williamson)

In the book of Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11, LXX), the expression “abomination of desolation” or “desolations” is linked directly to a defilement of the temple and the discontinuance of the sacrifices. Moreover, 1 Maccabees 1:54 (LXX) appears to refer to a pagan altar erected over the altar of burnt offering at the direction of Antiochus Epiphanes as the “abomination of desolation.”

If the “abomination of desolation” specifically involves the temple, the time when the “armies” surrounded Jerusalem (Luke 21:20) would relate to another development in the war with Rome. The “abomination of desolation” may then apply to a defilement of the temple, which occurrence would have signaled the last opportunity for escape from Jerusalem. This could have been when the Zealots seized control of the temple precincts and made it the base of operations for violent actions. According to Josephus, the high priest Ananus, when appealing to the populace to rise up against the Zealots, said that it would have been better for him to have died than to see “the house of God full of so many abominations, or these sacred places that ought not to be trodden upon at random, filled with the feet of these blood-shedding villains.” (War, IV, iii, 10)

The effort to dislodge the Zealots failed. With the aid secretly obtained from a force of about 20,000 Idumeans, the Zealots secured their position, and Ananus and his supporters were killed in the ensuing slaughter. (War, IV, iii, 11-14; iv, 1-7; v, 1, 2) Thereafter the situation continued to deteriorate in Jerusalem, and escape became extremely difficult. The Zealots guarded every passage out of the city, killing those whom they caught fleeing. Only the wealthy were able to purchase the opportunity for flight, whereas the poor were slain. (War, IV, vi, 3)

Regardless with what specific development the “abomination of desolation” may be identified, history confirms that postponement of flight after Cestius Gallus withdrew would have meant exposure to graver dangers and the possibility of not being able to get out of the city. This agrees with the kind of urgency that Jesus’ words conveyed. Those in Judea were to flee to the mountains, not seeking security from the Roman armies within the walls of Jerusalem. Persons inside the city were to make their speedy departure, and those outside the city were not to enter it. (Luke 21:21) To emphasize the importance of not delaying, Jesus said, “The one on the roof should not go down to take things out of his house, and the one in the field should not go back to get his garment.” (Matthew 24:16-18; Mark 13:14-16)

In warm climates, the flat roofs of houses were often places were people found a more comfortable location on hot days. Access to the roof was either by means of a ladder or outside stairs. Even when people left the housetop, they did not need to enter the home. Therefore, the point of not going into the house to get things may indicate that flight should be undertaken without delay. It is also possible that the quick escape is like that of a person who jumped from the flat roof of one house to that of another and thus made his way out of the city. The same portrayal of urgency is conveyed with the person finding himself working in the field. Time was not to be lost in going back to the house to get a garment.

It would then be a time for executing judgment (literally, “days of vengeance”). “All the things written” would be fulfilled. (Luke 21:22) This likely relates to the things previously written in the Scriptures, including Daniel 9:26 regarding the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. In his Antiquities (X, xi, 7), Josephus specifically commented about this, saying, “Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.”

Speedy escape would be especially difficult for pregnant women or those nursing an infant that had to be carried. With travel restrictions imposed on the Sabbath and the extra hazards of flight in winter, the disciples would have every reason to pray that they not then have to make their escape. (Matthew 24:19, 20; Mark 13:17, 18; Luke 21:23)

The suffering to befall Jerusalem would be greater than had taken place “from the beginning of the world” or “creation” until that time and would not happen again. (Matthew 24:21; Mark 13:19) It would be a time when great distress would come upon the “land” (Judea) and the wrath of the besieging army would be directed against the people. Those not perishing “by the edge of the sword” would be taken away as captives and scattered among the nations. Jerusalem would be “trampled on” by the non-Jewish nations until the times of these nations would be “fulfilled” or until they would face their day of reckoning. (Luke 21:22-24)

Josephus, a former resident of Jerusalem who witnessed the suffering of the inhabitants while with the Roman army, confirmed the fulfillment of the prophetic words. “Our city Jerusalem had arrived at a higher degree of felicity than any other city under the Roman government, and yet at last fell into the sorest of calamities again. Accordingly it appears to me, that the misfortunes of all men, from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to these of the Jews, are not so considerable as they were.” (War, Preface, 4)

Jesus had said that, unless the time of the distress upon Jerusalem would be cut short, no flesh would be saved. (Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20) Once the Romans entered the city, they indiscriminately slew anyone whom they encountered and set fire to the houses in which they knew people had taken refuge. If the siege had been protracted, the rage of the Roman military could have intensified to the point where they would have been determined to kill every Jew in the Roman Empire. Indicative of this are the words of Josephus, “As soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other such work to be done), [Titus] gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple.” (War, VII, i, 1)

For the sake of the “chosen,” the believing remnant of the nation, those horrifying days of suffering were cut short, the siege of Jerusalem being ended within a comparatively brief time. (Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20) Therefore, through God’s providential care of his own, the Jews as a people survived in other parts of the Roman Empire.

During the war itself and before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, many inside the city looked for divine deliverance. Jesus, though, had made it clear that no Messiah would stop the impending calamity. Any claim about the Messiah or Christ (according to the reading of the Greek text) being at one location or another should not be believed. No credence should be given any report about his being in the wilderness and ready to come with a liberating army or about his hiding in an inner room, planning for a surprise attack against the enemy. (Matthew 24:23-26; Mark 13:21-23)

The return of Christ, the true Messiah, would not be an event about which only a few would know and through whom the news would originally spread. The return of Christ, the royal presence of the “Son of Man,” would prove to be as observable as lightning illuminating the sky from the east to the west. It would be as noticeable as the circling of vultures in the sky, indicating that a carcass is lying on the ground. Still, as Jesus warned, there would be false messiahs and false prophets who, with signs and wonders, would lead many astray and, if possible, “even the chosen” or those who believe in him. Therefore, having been forewarned, the disciples needed to remain alert, not allowing themselves to be deluded. (Matthew 24:24-28; Mark 13:22, 23; see the Notes section on Matthew 24:28 about the Greek term aetós.)

Josephus confirms that many deceivers and false prophets did appear in Jerusalem. One of them persuaded many to go to the temple and there wait for God to deliver them. A crowd of about 6,000, including women and children, then took refuge on a portico of the outer court. In their rage, the Roman soldiers set the portico on fire from below, and the entire multitude perished. (War, VI, v, 2, 3)

“Immediately after the distress of those days,” Jesus continued, “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not shed its light, and the stars will fall from heaven [probably wording based on meteor showers], and the powers of the heavens will be shaken [celestial phenomena characterized by a markedly different appearance of the sky].” (Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24, 25)

Parallel expressions are found in the words of the prophets. In the proclamation against Babylon, the fall of that world power is portrayed as YHWH’s coming to desolate the “earth” or land. Next the prophecy refers to the darkening of stars, sun, and moon, and YHWH is represented as making the heavens tremble and as shaking the earth or land out of its place. (Isaiah 13:1, 9, 10, 13) Similarly, in the lamentation over Egypt’s Pharaoh, Ezekiel 32:8 (NRSV) represents YHWH as saying, “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens, and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the shining lights of the heavens I will darken above you, and put darkness on your land.” As to the effect this would have on other peoples and nations, Ezekiel 32:9 (NRSV) continues, “I will trouble the hearts of many peoples, as I carry you captive among the nations, into countries you have not known.” In the book of Joel (3:14, 15), the “day of YHWH” for executing judgment on the nations is likewise associated with the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars. (See also Jeremiah 4:23, 24; Joel 2:10, 30, 31.)

In these prophecies, the world or realm in which the people of a particular nation or nations carried on their activity is portrayed as a unit consisting of land and the celestial dome. When calamity strikes, the changed condition of the people is represented as a darkening of the heavens, with no light to mitigate the gloom of the day or the night, and the land is depicted as becoming unstable as when shaken by an earthquake. In its desolated state, the earth or land is spoken of as mourning, and the heavens above it are portrayed as growing black. (Jeremiah 4:23-28) The parallel language found in the writings of the prophets provides a basis for understanding the references (in Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:24, 25; Luke 21:25, 26) to the darkening of the sun and the moon, the falling of the stars, the shaking of the earth and the powers of the heavens, and the raging of the sea to be figurative.

If the term “immediately” (euthéos) in Matthew 24:29 has the literal sense, this would mean that the darkening of the heavens and the other troubling developments are descriptive of the gloom that set in immediately after the suffering or tribulation associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. For the some 97,000 survivors of that horrific end, there was nothing to brighten either their days or their nights. The tallest and most handsome of the young men were reserved to be exhibited as humiliated captives in the triumphal march. Many of those above the age of 17 were sent to work as slaves in the mines of Egypt. Others were sent to the various provinces of the Roman Empire to put on a spectacle in the arenas and there to perish by the sword or to be killed and devoured by beasts. Those under the age of 17 were sold into slavery. (War, VI, ix, 2, 3)

In the case of Jews living in other parts of the Roman Empire, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would have meant the end of their world. The triumphal Arch of Titus in Rome and the Western or Wailing Wall of Jerusalem remain as ancient reminders of a development comparable to the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars, and an upheaval in the celestial dome (with what appear to be stars dropping from the sky) and a violent shaking of the land.

In Luke’s account, the falling of the stars and the darkening of the sun and moon are referred to as “signs” in the sun, moon, and stars. Regarding the earth, the narration of Jesus’ words continues, “Upon the earth [there will be] panic among nations, [being] in confusion from the roar and raging of the sea. Men will faint from fear and foreboding of the things coming upon [their] habitation, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (Luke 21:25, 26) If applying to first-century developments, this description could relate to the effect the utter destruction of a prominent city would have on the nations. (See the Notes section for additional comments on Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24, and Luke 21:25.) Among people generally, any hint of revolt would likely have given rise to dread and alarm. Josephus wrote that his description of the disciplined and formidable Roman army had as one of its objectives to deter others from revolting as had the Jews. (War, III, v, 8)

People would have reacted much like those on a ship during a storm, tossed about by the wind and the waves. With fear and foreboding, they would envision what would lie ahead for them in case of revolt or insurrection, making them faint or causing them to be overwhelmed with a sense of weakness and helplessness. Their world would have taken on an appearance of darkness, as if the “powers of the heavens” were being shaken, eclipsing all illumination during the day and the night.

While darkness or a time of gloom marked by serious troubles would exist, the sign of the Son of Man would appear. The nature of this sign is not disclosed, but reasonably it would be something that would leave no doubt about his arrival. He would be seen “coming on the clouds [in clouds (Mark 13:26); in a cloud (Luke 21:27)] with power and great glory.” Upon the appearance of the “sign” followed by the arrival of the Son of Man (the glorified Jesus Christ), unbelievers would be overwhelmed with fear. In expression of their grief, they would beat their breasts. Right from the start of the developments Jesus described, believers, however, could stand confidently, lifting their heads, knowing that their deliverance from distress was near. (Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27, 28)

As Christ’s chosen or elect, they would have his favorable attention. At a given signal, comparable to a loud trumpet sound, the Son of God would have his angels gather them from every part of the earth. (Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27) The apparent reason for the gathering the angels would undertake, as indicated elsewhere in the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:51, 52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17), would be to unite the chosen with Jesus so that they could be forever with him.

The Son of God next called attention to the fig tree (and all the other trees [Luke 21:29]) as teaching a parable or likeness. One would know that summer was near when the twigs of the tree became soft and began to sprout leaves. Likewise, when all the things Jesus mentioned would be taking place, “it,” “he” or “the kingdom of God” would be near, “at the doors.” (Matthew 24:32, 33; Mark 13:28, 29; Luke 21:29-31)

In the Greek text of Matthew 24:33 and Mark 13:29, the verb estín can be translated either as “it is” or “he is.” If the meaning is “it is,” the reference could be to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which event was the focus of the disciples’ question. “All the things” that would occur would include wars, famines, earthquakes, the proclamation of the glad tidings, persecution of the disciples, and the appearance of the “abomination of desolation.”

For the meaning of estín as “he is,” the application would be to the approach of Jesus’ return in glory, which would also signify that the kingdom of God would be near. Possibly the reason for the nonspecific language is that most of the developments were not unique to a specific time and so did not serve as a “sign” by which to ascertain the precise time for the destruction of the temple or for the return of Christ in glory.

In the centuries that have passed since Jesus answered the disciples’ question, earth’s inhabitants have never experienced a time free from natural disasters, wars and their frightful consequences, and the persecution and the betrayal of Christians for their faith. Not until the Roman armies were actually on the scene around Jerusalem would it have been clear that the destruction of the temple was at hand. Likewise, not until the appearance of the “sign” of the “Son of Man” would there be no question about his return in glory. Therefore, all the things would take place both before the destruction of the temple and before his return.

Continuing the application of the lesson that could be learned from the fig tree, Jesus said, “Amen [Truly] I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things happen. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matthew 24:34, 35; Mark 13:30, 31; Luke 21:32, 33) He had told his disciples that the temple would be destroyed, with not a stone being left upon a stone, and answered the question that his prophecy about the temple had prompted. Jesus’ solemn declaration confirmed that his words would be fulfilled and that this fulfillment would prove to be more certain than the continued existence of heaven and earth.

When Peter, James, John, and Andrew heard the words “this generation,” they would most likely have understood this to mean the generation of which they were a part and which included all their contemporaries. Within the lifetime of that contemporary generation, Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed, and the events that Jesus said would occur prior thereto would have taken place.

It appears that Jesus, to clarify that his return in glory was not to be equated with the destruction of the temple, added, “But concerning that day and hour, no one knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36 [The words “nor the Son” are missing in numerous manuscripts but have ancient manuscript support]; Mark 13:32)

Jesus knew that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed within the lifetime of the then-existing generation and that the people would experience horrific suffering. (Luke 19:41-44; 23:27-31) Based on that knowledge, he could tell the disciples what to look for in order not to be among those who would suffer inside besieged Jerusalem. In view of his not knowing just when his Father had determined for him to return with great power and glory, he framed his admonition to the disciples accordingly. Jesus told them to be watchful, remain awake, and (according to many manuscripts) pray, for they would not know the time. (Mark 13:33)

He likened the situation to a man who, before undertaking a long journey, assigned his servants their respective tasks and instructed the doorkeeper to remain awake or alert, with the implication that the doorkeeper would be ready to welcome him upon his return. Applying the parable or likeness, Jesus continued, “Stay awake [remain alert and watchful], for you do not know when the master of the house is coming.” It could be “late,” “midnight,” “cockcrowing” (the third watch of the night or from about midnight to about 3:00 a.m.) or early in the morning. Therefore, the disciples needed to remain watchful, which would mean being prepared to welcome the Son of God whenever he might arrive and not to be found asleep as would be persons who had failed to discharge their responsibilities as his disciples. Jesus then added the command for everyone, “But what I say, I say to all, Stay awake.” (Mark 13:34-37)

For Christ’s disciples to remain awake would necessitate guarding against everything that could adversely affect faithfulness to him. They needed to watch that they did not dull their senses, giving in to excesses with food and drink and thereby “burdening” their “hearts.” Besides making their “hearts” (either meaning their minds or their inmost selves, which would include their consciences) callous, the “burdening” could include adding the weight of guilt. Their hearts could also become burdened or dulled with the worries or cares of life, resulting in their no longer being alert respecting their responsibilities as Jesus’ disciples. They needed to be on guard that undue concerns and useless worries about procuring life’s necessities would not begin to weaken or wreck their faith. (Luke 21:34)

If they failed to pay attention to themselves, the “day” of Christ’s return would find them in an unprepared state. That “day” would catch them suddenly just like an animal that is caught by a snare or in a trap. There would be no escape from the consequences of that day for anyone in an unprepared state, for it would come upon all of earth’s inhabitants. “But remain awake at all times,” Jesus urged, “praying that you may be strong [enough] to escape all these things that will happen and to stand before the Son of Man.” (Luke 21:34-36)

For the disciples to escape the adverse judgment that would take place upon Jesus’ return in glory would require that they remain strong in faith and devotion, always relying on the strength the heavenly Father provides in answer to prayer. As persons who faithfully lived as devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, they would then “stand” before him as approved.

The arrival of the Son of God or the start of his royal presence would be as unexpected as the flood in the days of Noah. At that time, people were preoccupied with the common affairs of life (eating, drinking, and marrying), but this ended when Noah entered the ark. They had chosen to know nothing about what lay ahead. So the deluge unexpectedly and suddenly engulfed them and swept them all away. The Son of Man would arrive just as unexpectedly. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Those whom he found approved would be preserved and united with him, and the disapproved ones would be left behind to suffer adverse judgment. Even close associates would be affected, as Jesus’ arrival would not necessarily have the same outcome for them individually. Two men might be working in the same field, with one being found approved and the other left behind as disapproved. Two women might be grinding grain together, with one being taken to be with her Lord but the other one being abandoned. Jesus continued with the admonition, “Remain awake, therefore, for you do not know on what day [at what hour, according to other manuscripts] your Lord is coming.” (Matthew 24:40-42)

He then illustrated the importance of watchfulness. If the owner of a home had known when in the night a thief would come, he would have remained awake. The owner would not have permitted the thief to break into his house. Similarly, the disciples needed to be ready or prepared at all times, for the Son of Man would come at an unexpected “hour.” (Matthew 24:43, 44)

With the passage of time, there would be disciples who would cease to use what had been committed to them for the benefit of fellow servants. To warn about this danger and the serious consequences, Jesus related a parable. He introduced it with the question, “Who then is the faithful and wise slave whom his master put in charge of his body of servants, to give them their [due portion of] food at the appropriate time?” In this question, the slave is represented as a steward in charge of the food supplies. He had been entrusted with the duty of seeing to it that all the other slaves who labored for the master received their allowance of food at the appropriate time. If, upon his return, the master found that this slave had proved to be faithful or trustworthy, he would grant him far greater responsibility, putting him in charge of all of his possessions. As one whom his master approved, the slave would be happy, having faithfully discharged his duty. (Matthew 24:45-47 [Many of the details of this parable parallel the one in Luke 12:41-48, which includes additional features.])

On the other hand, the slave would be unmasked as evil if he misused his position, ignoring his accountability to his master and acting as one who thought he was delaying his coming. His having been entrusted with the food supplies required that he faithfully work for the good of his fellow slaves. When starting to abuse them, beating them for not complying with his tyrannical demands and indulging his selfish desires like one who chose to eat and drink with lowlifes, the evil slave also acted against the interests of his master. This evil slave was himself but a slave and had not been granted the authority of an owner, let alone an abusive and corrupt owner. (Matthew 24:48, 49)

On a “day” and in an “hour” or at a time the evil slave did not expect, the master would arrive and severely punish him (literally “cut him asunder”), treating him like the hypocrites who conceal their base ways and actions with a false front. Cast out as disapproved from the master’s household, the slave would weep bitterly and gnash his teeth (in anger over his loss, because of the pain of losing out, or in a vain effort to suppress his uncontrollable sobbing). (Matthew 24:50, 51) What a strong warning this is to all who begin to act the part of masters and fail to conduct themselves as lowly and unassuming slaves! The coming of the Son of God will definitively answer the question as to who has proved to be faithful and wise in the community of believers, selflessly laboring for them.

Notes:

During the time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, much warring occurred. Besides conflicts between Jews and Samaritans and insurrections in Galilee and Judea, battles were being waged in various parts of the Roman Empire.

News about the wars in more distant places must have reached Galilee and Judea. Commenting on reverses for the Romans during Nero’s reign, C. Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 71 to c. 135 CE; Lives of the Caesars, VI, xxxix) wrote that two major towns in Britain were sacked and many citizens and allies were slaughtered. A humiliating defeat was experienced in the “East, where, in Armenia, the legions were obliged to pass under the yoke, and it was with great difficulty that Syria was retained.” (Translation of Alexander Thomson; revised and corrected by T. Forester)

The Roman historian Tacitus described the period that included events not long before the destruction of Jerusalem as follows: “I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once. There was success in the East, and disaster in the West. There were disturbances in Illyricum; Gaul wavered in its allegiance, tribes of the Suevi and the Sarmatae rose on concert against us; the Damacians had the glory of inflicting as well as suffering defeat; the armies of Parthia were all but set in motion by the cheat of a counterfeit Nero.” (Histories, I, 2)

With the exception of Festus who succeeded Felix as procurator of Judea, the other Roman procurators administered affairs in a corrupt and oppressive manner, which gave rise to uprisings and finally to war with Rome. Tacitus described Felix as “indulging every kind of barbarity and lust” and exercising “the power of a king in the spirit of a slave.” (Histories, V, 9) Josephus referred to Albinus, the successor of Festus, as one who stole and plundered everyone’s substance, burdened the nation with taxes, and allowed the relatives of criminals to ransom them. (War, II, xiv, 1) The successor of Albinus, Gessius Florus, who assumed his office in 64 CE, was even worse. Regarding him, Josephus said, “This Florus was so wicked, and so violent in the use of his authority, that the Jews took Albinus to have been [comparatively] their benefactor; so excessive were the mischiefs that he brought upon them.” (Antiquities, XX, xi, 1)

It was during the time that Florus exercised authority, that revolt against Rome erupted. Josephus continues, “It was this Florus who necessitated us to take up arms against the Romans, while we thought it better to be destroyed at once, than by little and little. Now this war began in the second year of the government of Florus, and the twelfth year of the reign of Nero.” (Antiquities, XX, xi, 1) Tacitus (Histories, V, 10) summarizes what followed: “Yet the endurance of the Jews lasted till Gessius Florus was procurator. In his time the war broke out. Cestius Gallus, legate of Syria, who attempted to crush it, had to fight several battles, generally with ill-success. Cestius dying, either in the course of nature, or from vexation, Vespasian was sent by Nero, and by help of his good fortune, his high reputation, and his excellent subordinates, succeeded within the space of two summers in occupying with his victorious army the whole of the level country and all the cities, except Jerusalem. The following year [69 CE] had been wholly taken up with civil strife, and had passed, as far as the Jews were concerned, in inaction. Peace having been established in Italy [when Vespasian became emperor], foreign affairs were once more remembered. Our indignation was heightened by the circumstance that the Jews alone had not submitted. At the same time it was held to be more expedient, in reference to the possible results and contingencies of the new reign, that Titus should remain with the army.”

As Jesus had indicated to his disciples, there would be famines or food shortage. One severe famine affected Judea in the time of Claudius (41 to 54 CE). (Acts 11:28; Josephus, Antiquities, XX, ii, 5; v, 2) Scarcity of food was also experienced in Rome. Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, V, xviii) referred to a shortage of grain because of bad crops for several successive years. As a result, a mob once stopped Claudius in the middle of the Forum, heaped abuse on him, and threw pieces of bread at him. With difficulty, he escaped to the palace by a back door. Later, during the period of civil strife, the stored grain in Rome had dwindled to a ten day’s supply when a shipment Vespasian had sent arrived, relieving the critical shortage. (Tacitus, Histories, IV, 53) Whenever towns and cities came under siege, extreme shortages of food were experienced by the inhabitants. So desperate did the situation become that there were instances of cannibalism. (Josephus, War VI, iii, 3, 4)

While Claudius was emperor, houses collapsed in Rome from frequent earthquake shocks, and a major earthquake occurred in Apamea, a city in Syria. (Tacitus, Annals, XII, 43, 58) During Nero’s rule (54 to 68 CE), an earthquake destroyed much of Pompeii. (Tacitus, Annals, XII, 43, 58); XV, 22) There were earthquakes in various cities of what is today Turkey, including Laodicea. (Tacitus, Annals, XIV, xxvii) Josephus (War, IV, iv, 5) referred to a frightful storm and an earthquake being experienced in Jerusalem, which he spoke of as portending a future destruction.

According to Suetonius, one of the frightful developments during Nero’s rule proved to be a plague that left about 30,000 dead in a single autumn.(Lives of the Caesars, VI, xxxix) This would fit what Luke 21:8 represents Jesus as saying about pestilences.

In the ancient world, people looked for portents and assigned meanings to various happenings. Both Josephus (War, VI, v, 3) and Tacitus mentioned signs as occurring prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, which may reflect the fulfillment of Luke 21:11 regarding fear-inspiring portents and “great signs.” The account of Tacitus, though much shorter and including fewer signs than that of Josephus, is similar: “There had been seen hosts joining battle in the skies, the fiery gleam of arms, the temple illuminated by a sudden radiance from the clouds. The doors of the inner shrine were suddenly thrown open, and a voice of more than mortal tone was heard to cry that the gods were departing. At the same instant there was a mighty stir as of departure.” (Tacitus, Histories, V, 13)

The words of Matthew 24:28 (“Wherever the carcass may be, there the vultures [plural of aetós] will gather”) probably constitute a proverbial saying. Although the Greek word aetós is the usual designation for the eagle, the vulture seems to fit the context better. Eagles are primarily solitary hunters that catch living prey, whereas vultures gather in large numbers to feed on carcasses.

Luke 21:25 refers to “signs” in the sun, moon, and stars but makes no mention of the “distress” or “tribulation” of “those days” (as do Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24). Verse 24 in Luke 21 tells about the consequences of the fall of Jerusalem, with the people either perishing or being taken captive and the city being trampled upon by the non-Jewish nations until their “times” are fulfilled. This would allow for the possibility that the signs in the sun, moon and stars, the panic and fear among the people, the roaring of the sea, and the shaking of the powers of the heavens (mentioned in Luke 21:25, 26) relate to a more distant future time. Accordingly, the words in Luke 21 could be used to support the view that euthéos (“immediately”) does not necessarily have a strict temporal sense in Matthew 24:29.

Both the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the Son of Man in power and glory are associated with adverse judgment on unbelievers. In Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel, the imagery (including the darkening of the heavenly bodies) associated with such judgments is the same as Jesus is represented as having used. Therefore, it does not seem likely that the “signs” in the sun, moon, and stars designate extraordinary celestial phenomena. The imagery, if applying to the situation just prior to Christ’s return in glory, would simply serve to convey a very distressing time.

Another possibility is that Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24 may refer to the dark or gloomy period subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, whereas verses 25 and 26 of Luke 21 may be descriptive of the distressing time immediately preceding Jesus’ coming in glory. Verse 31 of Luke 21 may support this conclusion. There the reference is to the nearness of the kingdom of God, which event is directly associated with Jesus’ coming in power and glory. Upon his return, he would manifest his full kingly authority, removing all opposition to his rule. Regardless of how one may understand the words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all three accounts do place the period of darkness after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Three Parables (Matthew 25:1-46; 26:1, 2)

To illustrate what he looked for in those whom he would acknowledge as belonging to him when he returned, Jesus related three parables or likenesses. The first one dealt with ten virgins who were waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom. In the second parable, Jesus referred to slaves whom their master had entrusted with talents prior to his undertaking a long trip. Then, in the third parable, Jesus represented himself as separating people like a shepherd separates sheep from goats.

Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13)

Jesus likened a feature of the “kingdom of the heavens” to ten virgins who, with lamps in their hands, went to meet the bridegroom and also, according to a number of manuscripts, the bride. (Matthew 25:1) In the case of actual wedding festivities, this would have been in the evening, at the time the bridegroom would be conducting his bride from the home of her parents and taking her to his home or that of his father. Friends, musicians, and singers would accompany the bridegroom and the bride. Along the way, others would join the procession. The ten virgins of the parable are represented as intending to do this.

Five of the virgins were foolish or failed to use good judgment, and the other five were wise or sensible. Whereas all ten virgins took their lamps, the thoughtless ones did not prepare themselves with a supply of olive oil for their lamps in case they would need to wait a long time for the bridegroom to arrive. The sensible virgins, however, did take containers filled with oil. (Matthew 25:2-4)

After waiting for a long time alongside the road where the bridegroom would be passing with his entourage, the ten virgins fell asleep. Then, in the middle of the night, they were awakened by a joyous shout coming from a distance, “Look! The bridegroom. Go out to meet him.” The ten virgins then got up and “trimmed” their lamps, probably meaning that they adjusted the wicks. (Matthew 25:5-7)

Noticing that their lamps were about to go out from lack of oil, the senseless virgins asked the others to share their supply with them. This the sensible virgins refused to do, as it could have meant that the reduced amount of oil would have been insufficient to keep their own lamps lit. They advised them to leave and buy oil. (Matthew 25:8, 9)

While the foolish virgins were on the way to make their purchases, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who had properly prepared themselves joined the procession and entered the house with him to share in the wedding banquet. After all those who had joined the procession were inside, the door was shut, preventing anyone else from joining the festivities. (Matthew 25:10)

When the other five virgins arrived, they stood before the closed door, calling out, “Lord, lord, open to us!” He turned them away, saying that he did not know them. They had not been a part of the joyous procession, using their lamps to shed light along the way. So he accorded them no recognition as welcome guests. (Matthew 25:11, 12)

Applying the point of the parable, Jesus concluded, “Stay awake, therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour [in which the Son of Man is coming, according to numerous later manuscripts].” (Matthew 25:13) The parable illustrates that there would be those who appeared to be part of the realm where God is Sovereign and reigns by means of his Son, the king whom he has appointed. Yet, when the Son of God would arrive in glory, they would be found in an unprepared state.

Being ready at that time would not mean remaining in what might be regarded as a state of eschatological frenzy or of the heightened alertness and intensified activity associated with extreme emergencies. In the parable, all the virgins are portrayed as falling asleep, suggesting that the normal routine of life is maintained.

On another occasion, Jesus stressed the need for his disciples to let their light shine, which would be by making expressions about their faith in him, maintaining exemplary conduct, and responding compassionately to the needs of others (Matthew 5:14-16) For a time, the senseless virgins of the parable did have lit lamps. When, however, the bridegroom arrived, their lamps were about to go out. Accordingly, upon his return in glory, Jesus will find professing believers whose love for him and his Father has been extinguished and whose disposition, words, and actions have ceased to be praiseworthy. In their case, it will be too late for rekindling that love and letting their light shine brightly in word and deed, and a participatory sharing with those whose light is brilliant will then not be possible.

The Talents (Matthew 25:14-31)

With apparent reference to another feature associated with the kingdom of the heavens, Jesus likened it to a man who, when about to travel out of the country, called his slaves and entrusted them with his belongings. Based on his evaluation of their individual ability, the master gave five talents to one slave, two to another, and one to a third slave, and then left on his journey. (Matthew 25:14, 15) A talent was the largest monetary unit in the first century CE and equaled 6,000 drachmas or a sum a common laborer would earn in approximately 15 years. So even the slave entrusted with one talent would have been responsible for a large amount of money, reflecting his master’s confidence in his ability and trustworthiness.

The slave with five talents immediately went to work to increase his master’s assets and eventually doubled the amount. With his two talents, the other slave likewise engaged in business activities and, in time, acquired two additional talents. The slave to whom one talent had been given did nothing to increase the asset. He merely dug a hole in the ground and then hid the money. (Matthew 25:16-18)

After a long time had passed, the master returned and had his slaves render an account respecting the talents entrusted to them. The one to whom the five talents had been committed told him that he had gained an additional five talents. “Excellent, good and trustworthy slave,” said the master. “You were trustworthy over a few things. I will put you in charge over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.” His trustworthiness brought pleasure to his master, and he would be sharing in his master’s joy upon being highly honored with a position of even greater trust and responsibility. (Matthew 25:19, 20)

When the slave with the two talents reported that he had gained two more, his master commended him with the identical words. “Excellent, good and trustworthy slave. You were trustworthy over a few things. I will put you in charge over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.” (Matthew 25:22, 23) The master is thus represented as highly valuing trustworthiness in keeping with individual ability and as having the same appreciation for both slaves.

With a demeaning view of his master, the slave with the one talent said, “I knew that you were a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not disperse. And being fearful, I went and hid your talent in the ground. Look! [Here] you have yours.” (Matthew 25:24, 25) This response represents the slave as implying that he had fulfilled his duty, keeping the talent safe for his master, and so had no additional responsibility upon returning it.

After condemning him as evil and lazy, the master continued, “You knew, [did you], that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not disperse? So, then, you should have given my money [literally silver] to the bankers, and, upon my return, I would have received my [money] with interest.” (Matthew 25:26, 27)

The master then commanded that the talent be taken away from the useless slave and given to the one who had ten talents. This action was in harmony with the principle that more would be given to the one who has, and he would come to have an abundance; but the one who does not have much because of his untrustworthiness and sluggishness would have the little he does have taken away from him. (Matthew 25:28, 29) In having been represented as one who proved himself trustworthy with what had been entrusted to him and commendably capable of greatly increasing his master’s assets, the slave with the ten talents is the one who received the additional talent.

The master ordered the useless slave to be thrown out of the estate. Without a place in a lighted residence, the slave would then find himself in the darkness outside. There, in expression of his loss, grief, and possibly also anger, he would weep bitterly and gnash his teeth. (Matthew 25:30)

Jesus’ parable suggested that a long time would pass before he would return in glory and that among those professing to be in the realm where he reigns by his Father’s appointment would be individuals who would fail to advance his interests. In expressing his judgment, Jesus would take into consideration individual circumstances and abilities. He would richly reward all who have proved themselves to be faithful or trustworthy in using what has been given them to advance his cause.

Inaction, on the other hand, constitutes working against Jesus and would lead to serious loss. In the parable, the useless slave is represented as having a wrong view of his master and working against his master’s interests by not even letting others help him to increase the asset committed to him. This suggests that a failure to appreciate the Son of God for who he is and what he has done contributes to serious neglect and eventual loss of everything.

Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31-46; 26:1, 2)

Upon his arrival in glory, the Son of Man, accompanied by angels, would seat himself on his glorious or splendid throne as king. In this portrayal, Jesus revealed that he would come as one vested with royal authority, which included his role as judge. In this capacity, he would separate people (all the nations assembled before him) in the manner that a shepherd separates sheep from goats, placing the one group on his right and the other one on his left. (Matthew 25:31-33) The right side would denote approval and a favorable judgment, whereas the left side would signify disapproval and condemnation.

As animals, goats are hardier than sheep, less dependent on the care of a herder, and can be destructive to the environment on account of their feeding habits. The negative light in which persons placed on the left are represented, however, does not reflect on the value of goats as domestic animals. In the parable, the use of sheep and goats serves primarily to illustrate the separation of a collective whole into two distinct groups. The differences in sheep and goats are not the focus of the parable, for both animals are incapable of the kind of human actions that provide the basis for judgment.

Jesus speaks of himself as king and identifies those on his right as blessed by his Father, inviting them to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the world’s foundation. (Matthew 25:34) This reveals that from the very beginning, his Father’s purpose was for humans to be in his realm and to conduct themselves as his loyal subjects. The invitation to those who are judged as approved is for them to share in all the benefits and blessings associated with the realm where Jesus rules by his Father’s appointment and where his Father is recognized as Sovereign.

Jesus represented himself as explaining the reason for the favorable judgment. Those on his right had given him food when he was hungry, supplied him with drink when he was thirsty, welcomed him when he was a stranger, clothed him when he lacked needed apparel, cared for him in times of sickness, and came to him in prison, the implication being for the purpose of providing aid and comfort.

The upright, compassionate individuals would be surprised by his words. They would wonder when they had seen him in the state he had described and cared for his needs. The answer would be, “Amen [Truly], I say to you, Insofar as you did it to one of the least of my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25:37-40)

The least, most insignificant, or lowly ones are commonly persons who are overlooked in their time of desperate need. In the parable, those who responded compassionately did so when they became aware of the plight of the lowly ones.

The parable of the merciful Samaritan reveals that any human in dire straits is rightly the object of a compassionate aid. As Jesus did not restrict the meaning of “neighbor,” there is no reason to conclude that this parable is to be construed to mean that the least of Christ’s brothers refers to a very limited number of people who adhere to a certain set of beliefs and practices. Jesus himself surrendered his life for all. Therefore, when regarded in the widest sense, he is a brother to the whole human family and looks favorably upon those who reveal themselves to be caring persons. The Roman centurion Cornelius proved to be such a compassionate man. Both his prayers and the kindly aid he had rendered to others ascended as a “memorial before God.” (Acts 10:4)

While loyal disciples of God’s Son recognize the prior claim of family members and those related to them in the faith as taking precedence, they help needy fellow humans whenever they are in position to do so. They recognize their obligation to do good to all. (Galatians 6:10)

Turning to those on his left, Jesus represented himself as saying, “Go away from me, cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matthew 25:41) This dreadful judgment of loss would not be temporary but permanent and irreversible. The “fire” would be like the “eternal fire” that reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to perpetual ruin. (Jude 7) The judgment is the same as that reserved for the devil and his minions.

The reason for the dreadful judgment is that the disapproved ones had proved to be without compassion. In the person of needy ones, they had seen Jesus hungry and thirsty, as a lone stranger, naked, sick, and in prison, but they did nothing. These disapproved ones, like the approved ones, are quoted as addressing Jesus as Lord and asking when they saw him “hungry or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not attend to [him].” The answer is that they failed to care for the least of Christ’s brothers in their time of need. Therefore, they would experience an eternal punishment, losing the opportunity for the enjoyment of the real life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with the Son of God and his Father. This is the life, the eternal life, to be enjoyed in the sinless state, which those whom Jesus approves will receive as their inheritance. (Matthew 25:42-46)

When individuals can render aid to those in dire need but refuse to do so, they reveal themselves to be callous, seriously lacking in love and compassion. Without essential food, drink, clothing and shelter, humans cannot survive. Those who are seriously ill need care; otherwise they will die. In the first century CE, many people were unjustly imprisoned and their circumstances were so deplorable that their survival depended on the provisions visitors would bring to them. These loving and caring visitors proved to be courageous persons who were not ashamed to identify themselves as friends of those who were imprisoned. (Compare 2 Timothy 1:16, 17; Hebrews 10:34.)

Accordingly, persons who refuse to render aid when they could have done so make themselves guilty of a neglect tantamount to murder. As hateful murderers like the devil, they would deserve the same punishment in store for him and his angels. (Compare John 8:44; James 2:15, 16; 1 John 3:15-17.)

After relating the parables, Jesus told his disciples that he would be crucified. It was then just two days before the Passover. (Matthew 26:1, 2)

Plot and Betrayal (Matthew 26:3, 4, 14-16; Mark 14:1, 2, 10, 11; Luke 21:37-22:6)

During the time Jesus was in the vicinity of Jerusalem, he spent the day teaching in the temple precincts. At night, he would leave, heading for the Mount of Olives and usually, if not always, stay in Bethany at the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. Early in the day, people would arrive at the temple to listen to Jesus’ teaching. (Luke 21:37, 38)

Viewing him as a threat to their security as a nation, the chief priests, scribes, and other prominent men of the nation resolved to have him killed. They met at the home of Caiaphas, the high priest, and plotted how they might stealthily attain their objective. In view of the approach of Passover, the influential unbelieving Jews considered it inadvisable for them to seize Jesus during the festival. They feared this would lead to a tumult among the crowds who were eager to listen to his teaching. (Matthew 26:3-5; Mark 14:1, 2; Luke 22:1, 2)

According to Luke 22:3, “Satan entered into Judas,” one of the twelve apostles. This probably means that Judas yielded to desires that stood in opposition to the Son of God, making him a tool of the great opposer or resister, Satan. Earlier, Judas had been entrusted with the common fund, which was used to purchase food and other necessities and to assist the poor. (John 13:29) He, however, ceased to be trustworthy and stole money from the fund on a regular basis. (John 12:6) Thus he demonstrated himself to be lacking in love for Jesus, his fellow apostles, and the poor.

The Scriptures do not reveal how and why Judas became corrupt, leading to the ultimate sin of betrayal. He went to the chief priests, asking them what they would give him for having Jesus handed over to them. They were highly pleased with his offer and agreed to pay him 30 silver pieces. During the time Judas conferred with the chief priests, temple guards were also present. (Matthew 26:14, 15; Mark 14:10, 11; Luke 22:4, 5) With the cooperation of Judas, the unbelieving Jewish leaders no longer needed to wait until after the festival to arrest Jesus. What Judas had offered to do made it possible for them to carry out their plot in secret, avoiding any possible uprising among the people.

The sum of 30 silver pieces was the price of a slave. (Exodus 21:32) This sum reflected the low esteem in which the unbelieving leaders of the nation held Jesus. At the same time, the payment of 30 silver pieces paralleled what was given to Zechariah for his having served as a shepherd for the people of Israel. (Zechariah 11:12) Therefore, in the case of the greatest shepherd, Jesus Christ, the payment of thirty silver pieces fulfilled what had been recorded in Zechariah regarding one who served as a shepherd but was not appreciated nor valued.

After his agreeing to betray Jesus, Judas watched for an opportune time to hand him over to the unbelieving influential Jews. (Matthew 26:16; Mark 14:11) For the plot to succeed, Judas needed to look for a time without the presence of a crowd and a circumstance that would allow for a secretive arrest. (Luke 22:6)

Preparations for the Passover (Matthew 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13; John 13:1)

With the approach of the Festival of Unleavened Bread preceded by the observance of Passover, Jesus knew that his “hour” or time had come to leave the world in which he had lived and to return to his Father. He was fully aware that it was the time for him willingly to surrender his life, not resisting or seeking to avoid being executed like a criminal seditionist. By laying down his life, he would express his great love for his disciples and for the world of mankind, as his sacrificial death would provide the basis for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with his Father. (John 13:1)

Jesus’ death would also serve to reveal his Father’s boundless love for mankind. By not sparing his dearly beloved Son from sacrificing his life, the Father reached out to the human family in a manner that should have left no doubt about his love. He thereby extended to all the opportunity to respond in faith or trust in him, appreciatively accepting his arrangement to be forgiven of their sins and to become his dear children.

As for his disciples, Jesus had always loved them and he “loved them to the end.” This could mean that his love continued to the very end or that he loved them to the limit, completely or utterly. The ultimate expression of his love proved to be the surrender of his life for them. (John 13:1)

When the disciples asked Jesus about arrangements for eating the Passover meal, they had no idea that this would be the very last time they would be sharing with him in the observance. It was then the “first [day] of the unleavened [bread]” (when the Passover animals were sacrificially slaughtered in the temple courtyard) and would be followed by the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread. (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7)

According to ancient Jewish sources, the people burned all leaven at the beginning of the sixth hour (noon) prior to the night on which the Passover lamb or goat was eaten. Either one or two hours earlier, they ceased to eat anything that had been leavened. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 1:4) Their not eating any leavened bread during the entire festival served as a reminder that their ancestors had departed in haste from Egypt, taking with them their dough before it was leavened. (Exodus 12:34; Deuteronomy 16:3) This feature is the basis for the name “Festival of Unleavened Bread.”

In response to the question about Passover observance, Jesus sent Peter and John to make preparations. The instructions he gave them did not reveal the location. Thus Judas Iscariot would not have been able to provide advance notice about Jesus’ whereabouts before the Passover meal.

Peter and John were to go to Jerusalem. Upon seeing a man carrying a vessel containing water, they were to follow him. Peter and John should then tell the owner of the house where the man entered, “The Teacher says, ‘Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’” (Mark 14:13, 14; Luke 22:8-11; see the Notes section for comments regarding Matthew 26:17, 18; and Luke 22:8, 9.)

The owner would then show Peter and John a large upper room that was furnished and ready for use. This probably means that the room contained a table and couches for reclining on three of its sides. In that large room, Peter and John were to make the necessary preparations. (Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12)

The accounts do not reveal whether Jesus had made any prior arrangements with the owner of the house or whether everything that happened exactly as he had said to Peter and John involved his foreknowledge. Women usually carried water jars, and so the man with the vessel would have been readily identifiable. The home itself must have belonged to a family of disciples, for the owner responded as would a person who knew the “Teacher” who made the request for a place to observe the Passover.

In subsequent years, the home in Jerusalem where Mark lived with his mother Mary served as a meeting place for the disciples. Therefore, it may have been the house with the large upper room. (Acts 12:12)

After finding everything as Jesus had said, Peter and John followed through on making preparations for the Passover meal. (Matthew 26:19; Mark 14:16; Luke 22:13) No details are provided regarding whether they had to obtain everything needed for the meal or whether the bitter greens, the unleavened bread, and the dip (haroset) primarily consisting of fruit and nuts were available for them at the home.

Ancient Jewish sources provide considerable detail about preparations for the Passover and the meal. The unleavened bread could be made from wheat, barley, spelt, rye, or oat flour. (Mishnah, Pesahim,Pesahim, 2:6)

In the afternoon before the Passover meal, the second daily whole burnt offering was slaughtered at about 1:30 p.m. (unless the day was also the Sabbath) and offered up on the altar about 2:30 p.m. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 5:1) Around this time, the first of three groups of Israelite men would enter the courtyard of the temple to slaughter their one-year-old unblemished male lambs (or goats). While the blood drained from the slaughtered animal, a priest would let it fill the basin he was holding. He would then pass it to a priest standing next to him in the row of priests and receive an empty basin. Thus full and empty basins would pass from hand to hand. The priest nearest the altar would, in a single act, toss the blood toward the base of the altar. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 5:5, 6)

To flay the carcasses, the men would suspend them from the iron hooks in the walls and pillars of the courtyard. In case an Israelite found no place for hanging the carcass, he used one of the available smooth poles. With the end of one pole on his shoulder and the other end on the shoulder of his companion, he would flay the suspended carcass. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 5:9) After skinning the animals, the men would slit the carcasses open, remove the sacrificial portions, and place them on trays. Thereafter a priest would burn the sacrificial portions on the altar. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 5:10)

If Peter and John cared for this part of the preparation of the Passover, they would have left the temple courtyard with the skinned animal and headed back to the house in the city. Before placing the slaughtered animal in the oven for roasting, they would have rinsed the entrails and scorched the hair of its legs and head in fire. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 6:1; Tosefta, Pesahim, 5:10) According to the Mishnah (Pesahim, 7:1, 2), a stick of pomegranate wood would be passed through the mouth of the carcass to the buttocks. Suspended on this spit, the slaughtered animal would be roasted whole. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 7:1, 2)

Notes:

In Matthew 26:17, the disciples raise the question about preparing for the Passover. According to the next verse, Jesus answered, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is near; at your [home] I will observe the Passover with my disciples.’” While not expressed in question form (as in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11), the words in Matthew 26:18 do convey the basic thought about the observance of the Passover meal in the owner’s house. Moreover, all of the accounts are highly condensed. At least in part, the differences may be attributed to paraphrasing in Greek what was said in another language.

Only Matthew 26:18 includes the statement, “My time is near.” These words reflected Jesus’ awareness that the time had come for him to lay down his life for the world of mankind.

According to Luke (22:8, 9), Peter and John, after Jesus told them to make preparations for the Passover meal, asked him where they should do so. The narration in Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:12 represents the disciples as asking the question. It is possible that the question was raised before Jesus designated Peter and John to make preparations and then a second time by the two disciples (with Peter [as on other occasions] acting as the spokesman). The other possibility is that Luke 22:8-11 provides the chronological sequence, with Jesus first telling Peter and John to make the needed preparations for the Passover meal.

Many have attempted to explain why Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to Jesus as observing the Passover with his disciples, whereas John 18:28 indicates that those who led Jesus to Pilate had not as yet eaten the Passover meal. The Scriptures and other extant ancient sources, however, do not provide sufficient details to account for this in a definitive way.

Final Night With the Apostles (Matthew 26:20-56; Mark 14:17-50; Luke 22:14-53; John 13:2-18:11)

In the evening, Jesus and the apostles arrived at the house in Jerusalem where they would be partaking of the Passover meal. The reference in Mark 14:17 to the “twelve” may indicate that, after having completed the preparations, Peter and John returned and that thereafter Jesus and all twelve apostles departed. Another possibility is that “twelve” functions as a collective designation for the apostles, meaning that Jesus arrived with the company of apostles numbering ten at the time. This included Judas Iscariot (the son of Simon) who had already, in his “heart” or deep inner self, yielded to the devil in the determination to betray him. (John 13:2)

Ancient Jewish sources provide background for understanding developments in connection with the Passover meal. The eating did not begin until after dark and all had reclined at the table. Four cups of wine were to be available. (Mishnah Pesahim, 10:1) The meal itself was to end by midnight. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 5:13) The head of the household or the one officiating pronounced a blessing over the first cup of wine. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:2; Tosefta, Pesahim, 10:2, 3) In conjunction with the second cup of wine (if the celebrants were part of a household), the son would ask his father about the significance of the event. If the boy was too young to ask questions, the father would teach him as much as he could comprehend. The head of the household would then begin a recitation of the Hallel, either all of Psalm 113 or both Psalm 113 and 114. The mixing of the third cup of wine was followed by a blessing for the food. When it came time for the fourth cup, the Hallel was completed. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:4, 6, 7) After the meal, the entire night would be spent in consideration of the laws of the Passover. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 10:11, 12)

After all were reclining at the table, Jesus, in view of the suffering that would soon befall him, mentioned that he had very much desired to share the Passover meal with the apostles. (Matthew 26:20; Luke 22:14, 15) He indicated that this would be his last Passover meal with them, for he would not be eating it until it would be “fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 22:16) He thus appears to have alluded to his role as the “Lamb of God,” or the fulfillment of the Passover sacrifice, and the joy he would be sharing with his disciples when he returned in glory, revealing himself to be the king by his Father’s appointment. For his devoted disciples, this joy would be comparable to sharing in a royal banquet when united with him either upon being resurrected in an incorruptible state or upon experiencing a change from mortality to immortality. (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 15:51-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17)

Probably early during the course of the meal and likely before the introduction of the third cup of wine, Jesus, fully aware that his Father had given all things into his hands and that he had come from him and would be returning to him, undertook the task of a lowly servant. (John 13:3) Not one of the apostles had thought to serve his fellow apostles by washing their feet, which would have become dusty during the course of their walk.

Jesus, however, stood up, laid his outer garment down, girded himself with a towel, poured water into a basin, and commenced washing the feet of the disciples. To Peter it seemed inconceivable that his Lord, the Son of God, would wash the feet of a disciple, prompting him to say by way of objection, “Lord, are you washing my feet?” Jesus told Peter that, though he did not then comprehend this action, he would later come to understand it. Still, Peter protested, “You will never wash my feet.” He simply could not understand that Jesus, whose greatness he recognized, would perform the task of a lowly servant; it did not seem right to him. “If I do not wash [your feet],” said Jesus to Peter, “you have no share with me.” Immediately Peter stopped objecting. Highly valuing his relationship with Jesus and not wanting to jeopardize it in any way, he declared himself ready to submit to more extensive washing. “Lord, not my feet only,” Peter said, “but also my hands and head.” (John 13:4-9)

Jesus pointed out that one who had bathed only needed to have his feet washed. Whereas the hands and the head were not in contact with the ground as one walked about, the sandals did not keep the feet clean. Therefore, as Jesus said, the bathed person who had his feet washed would be completely clean. Making an application to more than physical cleanness, he continued, “And you [apostles] are clean, but not all.” Jesus said this because he knew the one who would betray him and, therefore, the one who was not morally clean. (John 13:10, 11) He had treated Judas just like the other apostles, washing his feet and in no way acting in an unloving or resentful manner toward him. Nothing in Jesus’ words and actions gave a hint to the other apostles as to who the betrayer could possibly be.

Viewed from a moral standpoint, Jesus’ washing the feet of his disciples seemingly revealed the necessity of completely relying on him for cleansing from sin. Whereas believers have been forgiven of their sins on the basis of their faith in Christ and his sacrificial death for them, they still commit sins. Accordingly, they continue to need Jesus’ washing or cleansing from the transgressions committed in their daily walk. (1 John 1:8-2:2)

Jesus’ washing the feet of the apostles served as a vital object lesson for them about the way in which they should conduct themselves as unassuming servants. After having finished washing the feet of all twelve men, Jesus put on his robe and then reclined at the table. His question (“Do you know what I have done for you?”) served to draw to their attention the important lesson they should learn from his example. They rightly called him “Teacher” and “Lord,” for he indeed was such. Since he as their Teacher and Lord had washed their feet, they should have been willing to perform lowly tasks for others in imitation of his example. With a repetition of a solemn “amen” (truly), Jesus continued, “I say to you, a slave is not greater than his lord [master] nor is the one being sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, happy are you if you do them.” (John 13:12-17)

It would have been contrary to the sense of propriety for underlings to refuse to render the kind of service a master or one with authority to commission was willing to perform and to consider the service as beneath their dignity. With a proper understanding of their position as fellow servants, the disciples would be happy to act in that capacity. They would find joy in serving others in ways that could be considered as lowly.

Jesus’ words about experiencing happiness from doing what he had taught were not directed to everyone. He fully knew the ones whom he had chosen, not being blinded by any outward appearances. Among them was one whose actions were portrayed in the treachery described in Psalm 41:9(10), “The one who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me.” (John 13:18) The expression “lifting up of the heel” evidently signifies base treachery, the figure apparently being of a raised foot that is ready to kick. (See the Notes section for additional comments regarding John 13:18.)

Jesus explained why he had revealed that he would become the object of base treachery, saying, “When it happens, you may believe that I am [the one].” Amen, amen, [Truly, truly] I say to you, Whoever receives anyone I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” (John 13:19, 20) The fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic words would provide additional confirmation that he was indeed the Son of God. This would serve to strengthen the faith of the loyal apostles, for this development would be part of the cumulative evidence for their belief in him. All who would accept those whom Jesus had sent would recognize them as trustworthy witnesses about him. Therefore, the acceptance of those sent would constitute acceptance of Jesus as the sender, the one to whom the testimony of the messengers would have led all who embraced it. Acceptance of Jesus also signified acceptance of his Father, as he was his Father’s representative.

After Jesus referred to the words of the psalmist, he became greatly disturbed in spirit, or inwardly, and solemnly declared, “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, One of you will betray me.” (John 13:21) In great perplexity, the apostles looked at one another, with none of Jesus’ loyal apostles having any idea about who the future betrayer could possibly be. Among themselves they discussed regarding whom Jesus might have been speaking. His words distressed them. Not being able to imagine that they would make themselves guilty of betrayal, they asked, “Not I, [is it]?” (Matthew 26:21, 22; Mark 14:18, 19; Luke 22:21-23; John 13:22)

Leaving no doubt that the future betrayer was then in their midst, Jesus said, “One who, with me, dips his hand in the bowl will betray me. As it is written about him, the Son of Man is going away [according to what had been determined (Luke 22:22)], but woe to the man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Better would it have been for him had he not been born.” Seemingly, to divert attention away from himself, Judas asked, “Not I [is it], Rabbi?” Jesus responded, “You said [so],” which implied that Judas’ words did not conceal the truth concerning what he was about to do. (Matthew 26:23-25; Mark 14:19-21; Luke 22:21-23; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Based on what his Father had determined respecting him, Jesus knew that he would be going away, finishing his earthly course in death and returning to his Father after being resurrected. Whereas the Son of God had to lay down his life to serve as his Father’s means for liberating from sin those who put faith in him, this did not mean that the treachery of Judas was excusable. Judas chose to follow a course in opposition to Jesus. Like the other apostles, he could have remained loyal but, instead, allowed satanic influence to corrupt him. That is why Jesus pronounced woe on the future betrayer. The nature of the treachery was such that it would have been better for Judas not to have be born.

Peter must have wanted to ask Jesus personally who the betrayer would be, but he appears not to have been close enough to do so without being overheard. He then got the attention of the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved (John), requesting him to raise the question. John seems to have been reclining on Jesus’ right side, with his head being in close proximity to Jesus’ breast. This would have made it possible for him to lean back to speak to Jesus (doubtless in a subdued manner or whisper) without any of the other apostles being aware of it. (John 13:23-25)

In response to the question about who the betrayer would be, Jesus said, “It is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and [to whom] I shall give it.” He then took the morsel, dipped it, and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. It would appear that Judas was within easy reach of Jesus, probably reclining on his immediate left. Thus, to the very end, Jesus treated him with kindness and even favored him with being in his close proximity. The account says that, as soon as Judas took the morsel, “Satan entered into him.” This suggests that, despite the love Jesus has shown him, Judas completely yielded to the satanic inclination that made him a traitor. Jesus then told him, “Quickly do what you are doing.” (John 13:26, 27)

As Judas handled the common fund, some among the apostles thought that he was being instructed to buy something needed for the festival or to give something to the poor. Immediately after he accepted the morsel, Judas left. The account adds, “And it was night.” (John 13:28-30) This reference to “night” seems to have had more than a literal significance. It proved to be a night of darkness, for Jesus was betrayed and arrested. If judged from outward appearances, the powers of darkness had seemingly triumphed. (Luke 22:53)

It would not have been unusual for someone to leave during the Passover meal or for several private conversations to be carried on among those eating. The meal itself was not a hurried affair. According to the Mishnah (Pesahim, 10:8), some might even fall asleep. If not all of the group fell asleep, they could resume eating upon waking up. One rabbinical view was that if all merely drowsed and did not fall into deep sleep, they could eat again. The Tosefta (Pesahim, 10:8) refers to those who had no one to recite the Hallel for them. They would then go to the synagogue for the reading of the first part, return home to eat and drink, and then return to the synagogue to complete the Hallel. If the distance was too great for them to return to the synagogue, the entire Hallel was completed the first time. This interruption of the meal with the Hallel may provide a basis for concluding that Judas left before the introduction of the third cup of wine.

Notes:

The quotation in John 13:18 from verse 9(10) of Psalm 41(40) conveys the basic thought of the Septuagint rendering (“the one eating my bread has magnified [his] treachery against me”), but the words are not identical. In the Septuagint, the Greek word for “treachery” is pternismós, a term incorporating the word ptérna, meaning “heel.” The related verb pternízo basically denotes “to bite someone’s heel,” to go behind someone’s back, to deceive, or to outwit. The quotation in John 13:18, however, says “heel,” contains a different Greek word for “eat,” and uses a term for “lifted up,” not “magnified.”

Earlier, Jesus had expressed the teaching found in John 13:20. When sending out the twelve apostles, he had also told them that those who would receive or accept them would be accepting him and the one who had sent him. (Matthew 10:40)

In Matthew 26 and Mark 14, Jesus’ words about the one who would betray him precede the institution of what is commonly known as the “Lord’s Supper.” Luke 22:21-23, however, narrates the discussion about betrayal after this event. It appears that Luke’s account is not chronological but presents the progression of the Passover meal in a condensed manner from the start through to the institution of the “Lord’s Supper.” In view of the other accounts, the reference to the betrayal in Luke 22 can be understood as having taken place during the course of the Passover meal. Lending weight to this conclusion are Jesus’ words that the hand of his betrayer was with him at the table, indicating that he was then eating the meal with him. (Luke 22:21)

Institution of the “Lord’s Supper” (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20)

While the Passover meal was in progress, Jesus took a cup of wine, gave thanks, and then said to the apostles, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, From now on I will not drink from the produce of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Based on the events (narrated in the biblical accounts) that intervened between the beginning of the Passover meal and the reference to the cup, this particular cup of wine may have been the third one used during the course of the meal. (Luke 22:17, 18; see, however, the Notes section for additional comments.)

According to the Mishnah, a blessing was said for the food after the third cup of wine. This would appear to fit what Jesus did after the apostles passed the cup of wine among themselves. He took bread from the table, pronounced a blessing or gave thanks, broke the bread, and handed it out, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; see the Notes section regarding Luke 22:19.)

Next Jesus took the cup (probably the fourth cup of wine), said a blessing, and told his disciples, “Drink from it, all [of you]; for this is my blood of the covenant poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:27, 28; Mark 14:23, 24; Luke 22:20)

Many have taken the “is” in the Greek text to mean that the bread is to be identified with the actual body of Christ and the wine with his actual blood. In ancient Hebrew and Aramaic versions of these words, however, no “is” appears in the text. In keeping with the idiom of the language in which Jesus would have addressed the apostles, he would not have used any form of a “to be” verb. With Jesus personally being present, the apostles could not have imagined that he was literally identifying the bread with his actual fleshly body and the wine with his actual blood. Moreover, the manner in which he expressed himself in their native tongue would not have suggested such identity.

Even with the “is” included in the Greek text, identity is not inherent in the language. In the expression “this is my body,” all of the accounts are in agreement in using the word “this” (toutó). Although the Greek term for bread or loaf (ártos) is masculine, toutó is neuter, raising a question about whether the “bread” or “loaf” is being identified with Christ’s body of flesh. One explanation for the neuter is that “this” reflects the neuter gender of the word for “body” (somá). From a strict grammatical standpoint, however, the Greek word for “this” should be masculine to establish the kind of relationship of the bread to the fleshly body of God’s Son that many believe it to have.

The Greek word for “cup” (potérion) is neuter and so there is grammatical agreement with the word for “this” (toutó). It should be noted, though, that the direct reference is to the cup and not to the wine. Clearly, the cup itself cannot be understood as being identified with the blood of Christ. The link to the blood can only be made with the wine inside the cup.

In connection with the loaf, the neuter “this” (toutó) could refer to everything Jesus did as it related to his body. This would include his body consisting of all believers. Regarding the cup of wine, the “this” (toutó) could apply to everything Jesus did with the cup and could refer to what his shed blood would effect—forgiveness of sins and the validation of a new covenant.

While the accounts in Matthew and Mark and numerous manuscripts of Luke (22:19) do not include the words “given for you” after “my body,” the oldest extant manuscript (P75 from the late second century or early third century) and many other manuscripts of Luke include them, and 1 Corinthians 11:24 contains the shorter phrase, “for you.” Jesus surrendered his own body and thereby made it possible for a body of believers to come into existence and to be united to him. Individually, all believers benefit from what Jesus did in delivering up his body for them and also for making it possible for them to become part of the body of which he is the head. Thus, both from the standpoint of his own body and that of the composite body of believers, Jesus could be spoken of as having given his body for the individual believers. The resulting fellowship with Jesus and the community of believers that constitutes his body promotes the spiritual growth and the strengthening of the individual members in faith and love. (Compare Ephesians 4:11-16.)

The apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians indicates how believers in the first century regarded partaking of the bread and the wine. They did so in remembrance of Christ, focusing on what he did by sacrificing his body and pouring out his blood. Whenever they ate of the loaf and drank from the cup, they proclaimed the death of the Lord until he would return in glory, which would result in their being united with him. In the presence of all partakers, they thus tangibly announced their faith in what Jesus’ death had done for them. (1 Corinthians 11:25, 26)

Believers also recognized that, through Christ’s sacrificial death, they had become members of his body. Their partaking of the one loaf proved to be concrete evidence of this reality. The apostle Paul wrote, “Because one loaf [there is], we, the many, one body are, for all [of us] partake from the one loaf.” (1 Corinthians 10:17) When partaking of the wine, they were sharers in the “blood of the Christ,” which indicates that they were beneficiaries of the new covenant that had been put into effect through Christ’s blood and which made forgiveness of sins possible. (1 Corinthians 10:15)

The linkage to the corporate body of the community of believers is also reflected in the prayer contained in the Didache (thought to date from the late first or early second century), “We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you [be] the glory for eternity. As this broken bread was dispersed on the mountains and gathered to become one, thus may your congregation be gathered from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” (9:3, 4) The scattering or dispersing “on the mountains” appears to refer to the sowing of seed in hilly or mountainous regions, with the harvested grain from many ears being ground into flour and coming to be just one loaf of bread.

According to Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25, Jesus, after passing the cup to the apostles, told them that he would not again drink of the fruit of the vine with them until his doing so in his Father’s kingdom. He thereby indicated that the intimacy they then enjoyed would not occur again until his return in glory as the king of the kingdom of God. That event would be the beginning of a time when he as king by his Father’s appointment would exercise full authority without the existence of any competing sovereignties. The apostles would then be united with him, sharing in the kind of honor associated with eating and drinking at the royal table. (Regarding Luke 22:18, see the Notes section.)

Notes:

The possibility that Luke 22:17 refers to the third cup would not agree with manuscripts that omit the words of verse 20 (with its reference to the cup linked to the new covenant). In the case of texts that do not include verse 20, the cup mentioned in Luke 22:17 could be understood to designate the one used for the institution of the “Lord’s Supper.” This would mean that, in Luke’s account, the narration follows a reverse order (cup of wine and then bread, not bread and then cup).

One reason for favoring the abbreviated text of Luke is that, after Jesus had referred to “my blood of the covenant,” Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25 set forth his words about not drinking of the produce of the vine. The expanded text of Luke (found in most extant Greek manuscripts), on the other hand, introduces these words before mentioning the cup used at the institution of the “Lord’s Supper.” (Luke 22:18)

In Luke 22:19, many manuscripts read, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” There are manuscripts, however, that do not contain this expanded text but end with “my body” (as do Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22). In the Westcott and Hort Greek text, words after “my body” and all of verse 20 are printed within double brackets, indicating that B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort doubted that the words were included in the original.

The longer text in the most ancient extant Greek manuscripts, however, requires that they be retained in modern translations, especially since they can be regarded as complementing the other accounts. According to Luke 22:20, Jesus introduced the cup after the meal and linked its contents with the “new covenant in [his] blood,” which would be poured out for the disciples. In connection with the new covenant, the words “in my blood” (based on other biblical passages) indicate that the new covenant would be put into effect by means of Jesus’ shed blood. (Hebrews 10:29; 13:12, 21, 22)

Interchanges Between and With the Apostles (Matthew 26:31-35; Mark 14:27-31; Luke 22:24-38; John 13:31-38)

After Judas had left, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man when speaking of his glorification and that of his Father “in him.” In the Greek text, the verb for “glorified” is in the aorist tense, which is commonly used to denote something that happened in the past. By willingly submitting to his Father’s purpose for him and what this would ultimately accomplish, Jesus was glorified as the unique and beloved Son of God. “In him,” or by means of everything Jesus had done and would do as one fully submissive to his Father’s will for him, the Father was glorified or honored. Jesus’ willing surrender of his life would climax an earthly ministry devoted to glorifying his Father. At the same time, his Father had glorified him through the works he had empowered him to perform. Seemingly, because his ultimate glorification (his resurrection and ascension to heaven) was an imminent reality that would complete the glorification process, Jesus introduced his reference to the past glorification with the word “now” (nyn), “Now the Son of Man has been [or, was] glorified, and God has been [or, was] glorified in him.” (John 13:31)

Numerous Greek manuscripts represent Jesus as saying, “If God has been glorified in him [the Son of Man], also God will glorify him in himself, and he will immediately glorify him.” (John 13:32) The omission in many other manuscripts of the introductory phrase (“If God has been glorified in him”) does not materially affect the meaning of the words that follow. The action of God’s Son in glorifying his Father, especially in the surrender of his life in full submission to his will, would lead to his Father’s glorifying him and doing so immediately. On the third day after Jesus’ death, his Father did glorify him, raising him from the dead and granting him unparalleled authority in heaven and on earth. (Matthew 28:18) When Jesus returned to his Father, he did so as the exalted Son who had the right to be universally acknowledged as Lord. (Philippians 2:9-11)

As the night passed, Jesus did not do all the talking. There appear to have been interchanges among the apostles. During the course of conversations in which Jesus was not personally involved, they got into an argument about who among them seemed to be the greatest. In response to their dispute, Jesus admonished them that they should not be like rulers of the nations who are called benefactors but dominate over their subjects. The greatest among the disciples should be as the youngest, not one who sought to exercise control over others but assumed the role of the least among them. As for a disciple who took the lead, he should be the one serving among them. Focusing on the example he had set for them, Jesus raised the questions, “Who is greater, the one reclining [at the table] or the one serving? [Is it] not the one reclining?” These questions were designed to cause the disciples to reflect on their role in relation to him, and he then told them, “In your midst, however, I am as one who is serving.” (Luke 22:24-27)

That very night Jesus had washed the feet of the apostles, acting as one who served in their midst. They, however, had not yet learned to conduct themselves in harmony with this object lesson and Jesus’ earlier teaching and personal example that true greatness requires a willingness to serve others. (Matthew 20:25-28; 23:11; Mark 9:33-37; 10:41-45; John 13:3-10)

Although the apostles needed to be corrected about their attitude, Jesus commended them for their faithfulness. They had stayed by him in his trials, not fearfully abandoning him when he faced intense hostility and murderous intent. As the one to whom his Father had entrusted kingly authority, Jesus conferred a kingdom on his loyal disciples. Portraying their future close association with him as persons honored to be eating at the king’s table, he told them that they would eat and drink at his table and “sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:28-30)

Jesus chose expressions that were adapted to their understanding of the kingdom, enabling them to discern how intimate their association would be with him as king. Because they viewed the kingdom as one that would be restored to Israel, Jesus spoke of their role as including the judging of the twelve tribes of Israel. His accommodating his words to their understanding made it possible for him to convey the message he wanted them to grasp about their future role. (Acts 1:6) After Jesus’ death and resurrection, they would come to recognize that the realm where he rules by his Father’s appointment is universal and not limited to Israel. Accordingly, the judging of Israel would be representative of a far greater role toward all nations.

Jesus made known to the apostles that, in their relationship to him, they would all be “stumbled” in that very night. This indicated that they would fearfully abandon him, fulfilling the prophetic word (Zechariah 13:7), “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.” This scattering would be temporary, for Jesus added, “After I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.” (Matthew 26:31, 32; Mark 14:26-28 [In Zechariah 13:7, the striking of the shepherd is portrayed as taking place by God’s permission, and the words, “I will strike,” are evidently to be understood in this sense. The extant text of the Septuagint reads “shepherds.”]) It seems that Jesus’ meeting with the disciples in Galilee after his resurrection occurred when he appeared to upward of 500 believers. (1 Corinthians 15:6)

Affectionately referring to his disciples as “children,” Jesus told them that he would be with them only a little while longer. “You will seek me,” he continued. As he had said on an earlier occasion to the unbelieving Jews (John 7:33, 34), he now told his disciples, “Where I am going you cannot come.” (John 13:33) In the case of the disciples, their “seeking” would be indicative of a strong inner desire to be with Jesus. (Compare 2 Corinthians 5:1-6; Philippians 1:23.) He, however, would be absent from them, and they, in their earthly state of existence, would not be able to join him.

While Jesus had been with his disciples, he had shown them the kind of love that surpassed everything they had formerly experienced. Now when he was about to make the superlative expression of his love by surrendering his life for them, he gave them a new commandment, one that required their loving one another as he had loved them. All observers would be able to recognize them as his disciples by the love they had for one another. (John 13:34, 35) What made this commandment new is that it went beyond the law’s requirement of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. In imitation of God’s Son, the new commandment called for a love that put the interests and well-being of others ahead of one’s own. This love was a self-sacrificing love that found its fulfillment in selfless giving and serving.

It may have been after Peter insisted that he would not be stumbled even though all the others might be that Jesus said to him, “Simon, Simon, see! Satan has demanded to sift you [plural, meaning all of the apostles] as wheat. I, however, have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” Then, once he had “returned” or recovered from his temporary “stumbling,” Peter was to strengthen his “brothers” or his fellow disciples. (Matthew 26:33; Mark 14:29; Luke 22:31, 32)

Possibly on account of the weakness (instead of rocklike strength) Peter would shortly manifest, Jesus may have chosen not to call him by the name he had personally given him (Peter, meaning “rock”) but addressed him as “Simon, Simon.” With reference to Satan, the verb meaning “demand” (exaitéo) seems to express his aim or desire. He wanted to submit the disciples to a severe test. The intensity of that test would be comparable to the sifting process that separates wheat from chaff, the implication being that Satan would have wanted to expose the disciples as worthless chaff, persons with a wrecked faith. Jesus’ prayer for Peter and the assurance that he would be in a position afterward to strengthen his fellow disciples, infusing them with courage, indicated that the satanic assault would not succeed.

In response to Jesus’ words that the disciples would not be able to come to the place where he would be heading, Peter asked, “Lord, where are you going?” “Where I am going,” Jesus replied, “you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” (John 13:36) Jesus would surrender his life, be resurrected, and return to his Father. Later, Peter would also die and, upon being raised from the dead, would again be with Jesus.

As one who deeply loved God’s Son, Peter felt that he was prepared to go anywhere with him regardless of what the circumstances might be. Even if it were to mean imprisonment or death for him, he would not hesitate to go. (Luke 22:33) Though all the other disciples might stumble, he would not. Firmly convinced about his loyalty to Jesus, Peter said, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will give up my soul [life] for you.” (Matthew 26:33; Mark 14:29; John 13:37)

“Will you give up your soul for me?” Jesus replied. Then, with a solemn introductory “amen, amen” (truly, truly), he declared that Peter would disown him three times that night before a cock crowed, probably just before dawn. (Matthew 26:34; Luke 22:34; John 13:38) According to Mark 14:30, Jesus said “before a cock crows twice,” indicating that Peter’s denial of association with him would take place before a cock crowed the second time.

Peter could not imagine that he would deny his Lord and protested, “Even if I must die with you, I will never disown you.” The other disciples also expressed their loyalty to Jesus in the same manner. (Matthew 26:35; Mark 13:31) He, though, knew what effect his arrest would have on them, but they overestimated their strength to remain resolute.

Alerting them to the changed circumstances in which they would find themselves, Jesus drew a sharp contrast. He had earlier sent them out without their having to take a pouch containing money for making purchases, a bag with supplies, or an extra pair of sandals. When Jesus asked them whether they had lacked anything at that time, the apostles acknowledged that they had not. Now, however, he told them to equip themselves differently. If they had a pouch for money and a bag for supplies, they should take such with them. He even advised them that the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. His words indicated that they would find themselves in a perilous situation and would have to rely on their own resources. This was because what would happen to him in fulfillment of the prophetic word (Isaiah 53:12) about his being “counted with lawless ones.” (Luke 22:35-37) He would be treated and condemned as a vile criminal.

In response to Jesus’ words about obtaining a sword, the disciples told him that they had two swords. (Luke 22:38) These weapons may primarily have been used for utilitarian purposes. Additionally, the disciples may have had these swords for defense, particularly in view of the life-threatening dangers travelers could face from encounters with wild animals or robbers along the way.

From Jesus’ standpoint, the availability of two swords was enough. He said to the disciples, “It is sufficient.” (Luke 22:38)

Jesus’ Imminent Departure (John 14:1-31)

Concerning his leaving them (if not also his words about their abandoning him and Peter’s denial), Jesus said to the apostles, “Do not let your hearts be troubled.” Within themselves, they were not to give way to feelings of alarm and uneasiness. Instead, Jesus admonished them to believe in God and also in him. Their faith would then enable them to come through the difficult time that lay ahead. (John 14:1)

Jesus’ leaving them would not be an event they were to dread. There was ample room for them in his Father’s house, with its “many dwelling places.” If that had not been the case, Jesus would have told the disciples. His departure and return to the Father meant that he would be preparing a place for them. This assured them that he would come again and take them to be with him. Where he had his home, they also would be. Jesus then added, “You know the way [to the place] where I am going.” (John 14:2-4) His earlier comments should have helped them to discern that “the way” involved faith in God and in him.

Thomas may not have been alone in failing to make this connection. Thinking that Jesus had spoken about a literal way or path, he raised the question, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” (John 14:5)

In his response, Jesus made it clear that he was not referring to a literal road or path. “I am the way,” said Jesus, “and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known [know, P66 (second century) and other manuscripts] me, you would have known [will know, P66 and other manuscripts] my Father also. From now [on] you know him and have seen [him].” (John 14:6, 7)

Jesus is “the way,” for through him alone can one come to the Father. The Son’s example and teaching provide the dependable guidance. As the unique Son of God, the one who has fully revealed the Father in a manner that he alone could, Jesus is “the truth” or the embodiment of the truth. He is “the life,” for through him and faith in him one comes into possession of the real life, the life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with his Father.

If P66, the earliest extant manuscript, preserves the original reading, then Jesus said that, by knowing him, the disciples would come to know his Father. This would suggest that, in the future, they would come to know the Father fully. The meaning conveyed in many other manuscripts appears to be that the disciples had not yet come to know Jesus from the standpoint of coming to know the Father fully through him. In that case, Jesus’ words would have constituted a reproof. The phrase, “from now [on] you know,” then appears to suggest that, based on what he had revealed to them, the disciples did know the Father. They also had seen him. Jesus could say this, for he, the unique Son, was the express image of his Father. On the other hand, if P66 contains the original text, Jesus’ words could be understood to mean that their knowing the Father would not come about at some future time but was possible from then on. Based on what Jesus had revealed in his own person, the disciples did know the Father and had seen him.

Seemingly, Philip understood Jesus’ reference to seeing in a literal sense. This prompted him to say, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” (John 14:8) Philip felt that, if Jesus would let the disciples actually see the Father just once, they would be completely satisfied.

Jesus appears to have directed his reply to Philip in a way that included all of the apostles. This is suggested by the plural “you,” seemingly indicating that Philip may not have been the only one wanting to be shown the Father in a perceivable manner. “Have I been with you [plural],” Jesus said, “[for] so much time, and [still], Philip, you do not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak to you [plural] I am not speaking [as originating] from myself, but the Father who remains in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and [that] the Father [is] in me. But if not, believe for the reason of the works themselves.” (John 14:9-11)

Philip was among Jesus’ first disciples and so, along with the other early disciples, had been with him from the start of his ministry. Therefore, Jesus could refer to Philip and the other apostles as having been with him for considerable time. Nevertheless, Philip still had not fully recognized in Jesus the complete reflection of his Father. Philip’s request to be shown the Father revealed that he had not as yet understood that, in the face of the Son, he had seen the Father. (Compare 2 Corinthians 4:6.) Jesus perfectly reflected everything about him. As Hebrews 1:3 indicates, the Son is the exact imprint of his Father’s very being. Therefore, when seeing Jesus, being closely associated with him, and witnessing the works his Father had empowered him to perform, the disciples were being given an all-encompassing and clear vision of the Father. Accordingly, they had seen the Father in the Son. On account of what Philip had experienced during a course of many months, Jesus rightly asked him, “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”

In every way, the Son enjoyed a oneness with his Father. Because of being completely at one with him, Jesus could say that he was “in” the Father, and the Father was “in” him. Jesus did not speak of his own but expressed what his Father had committed to him to speak. So, through Jesus, the disciples heard the words of his Father. Although his Father was in heaven, this had no bearing on the intimate relationship he enjoyed with him. In all that Jesus said and did, the Father remained “in” him, was with him, or resided in him. Therefore, the marvelous deeds that Jesus performed (healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, soundness of body to the lame and the crippled, and raising the dead) were his Father’s works.

When Jesus told his disciples, “I am in the Father and the Father [is] in me,” he could rightly say to them, “Believe me.” They had ample evidence for believing him. Yet, if they did not believe him, not accepting his word, they could not deny the fact that they had witnessed marvelous deeds. As Jesus said, “Believe for the reason of the works themselves.” (John 14:11)

For the disciples, their belief, faith, or trust in Jesus would result in their doing works they could not then have imagined. After his solemn introductory words (“Amen, amen” [Truly, truly], I say to you”), Jesus continued, “He who believes in me will do the works I am doing, and greater [works] than these he will do, for I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12) Upon returning to his Father, Jesus would no longer be physically present and bringing relief to the afflicted as he had while with the disciples. They would then be doing the very deeds that he had done. Collectively, their activity would be more extensive, reach far beyond the areas where Jesus had ministered to the people, and continue for much more time. Therefore, he could say that he who believes in him would do greater works.

His being away from the disciples did not mean that his care and concern for them would diminish. Moreover, they could look to him for aid and guidance. “Whatever you ask in my name,” Jesus said, “I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you [plural] ask [me, found in numerous manuscripts] anything in my name, I will do it.” (John 14:13, 14)

After Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the disciples commonly directed their prayers to the Father, doing so in Jesus’ name or as persons who recognized him as their Lord. Colossians 3:17 specifically refers to “thanking God the Father through him [the Lord Jesus].”

At certain times, the disciples directly appealed to Jesus. The apostle Paul mentioned having three times pleaded with the Lord to remove his “thorn in the flesh.” Paul did not say how he received the Lord’s answer, “Sufficient is my grace [unmerited favor] for you, because my power is made complete in weakness.” He humbly accepted it as Christ’s answer, telling the Corinthians that he would prefer to take pride “in [his] weaknesses, that the power of the Christ might dwell with [him].” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9)

This illustrates that Jesus’ words about doing what his disciples requested does depend upon its being in harmony with the divine will or prerogative. In Paul’s case, the power of Christ proved to be more fully manifest through his continuing to bear his “thorn,” with the grace or favor extended to him being sufficient for him to endure it. From a personal standpoint, Paul would benefit from seeing Christ’s interests advanced despite his “thorn” and those who responded in faith would be able to see that the advancement of Christ’s cause did not depend on human strength.

Jesus’ unique oneness with his Father is of such a nature that his will and that of his Father are identical. Accordingly, appeals that are made in Jesus’ name, or in recognition of him as Lord, will be answered. His words to the disciples indicate that he would act in keeping with their petitions and that his doing so would serve to glorify the Father. The Father would be honored “in the Son,” for the Son’s response would perfectly reflect the Father’s will.

The disciples would manifest their love for Jesus by observing his commandments, following his example and adhering to his teaching. (John 14:15) The implication is that they should do so even after his departure.

While with them, Jesus had proved to be their “paraclete” (parákletos), helper, comforter, advocate, supporter, or intercessor. Although he would be going away, he would not leave them without needed aid. He assured them that he would request his Father to give them another paraclete to be with them permanently (literally, “into the age”; forever). (John 14:16)

Jesus referred to the paraclete as the “spirit of the truth.” (John 14:17) When functioning in the capacity of teaching or guiding the disciples or of recalling to their minds Jesus’ teaching, the spirit’s aid would be solidly based on truth and could always be trusted. Regardless of the circumstances, the disciples could rely on the spirit for spiritual strength and for help in their loyally upholding and advancing the interests of God’s Son. Based on the context, the paraclete may primarily be regarded as a helper.

In a state of alienation from and at enmity with the Father, the world of mankind cannot receive the spirit. Not wanting a relationship with the Father and his Son, those of the world in their state of alienation can neither know nor see the spirit’s function in a personal way. With their minds focused solely on what pleases the senses, they are unresponsive and unreceptive to the spirit.

Regarding the spirit, Jesus said to his disciples, “You know it, for it remains with you and is [will be, according to other manuscripts] in you.” (John 14:17; see the Notes section.) In the life and activity of Jesus, the disciples had repeatedly seen the operation of God’s spirit. Empowered by the spirit, they, too, had performed miraculous works. From personal experience, they knew or had acquaintance with the spirit. As they followed through on the commission Jesus had given them to proclaim the glad tidings and to cure the sick and infirm, the spirit had not left them and was at work “in” and through them.

At the same time, however, their acquaintance with the spirit was never independent of Jesus’ personal presence with them. The future reception of the spirit would result in a continuing possession thereof while the Son of God would not be personally among them.

He promised not to leave them as orphans or in a helpless and needy state, adding, “I am coming to you.”` (John 14:18) After his resurrection, Jesus did reveal himself alive to his disciples. The context, though, suggests that this particular coming to his disciples relates more to his turning his attention to them through the provision of another paraclete and, by means of this helper, making his home with them.

His death, resurrection, and return to his Father being imminent, Jesus could say that the world would shortly no longer see him. The disciples, though, would see him, for, as he told them, “I live and you will live.” (John 14:19) As one raised from the dead, Jesus did live, and the disciples were infused with new life upon seeing him and his giving them many proofs that he was indeed alive. (Acts 1:3) Moreover, with the pouring out of God’s spirit upon them on the day of Pentecost, the disciples truly could be spoken of as living. With boldness they began to witness concerning the Son of God. Jesus’ words spoken just before his last post-resurrection appearance were fulfilled, “You will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and all of Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

Jesus’ request to his Father for the disciples to be given another paraclete was answered on the day of Pentecost. Particularly in connection with that day Jesus’ words to them applied, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you [are] in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) Jesus received the holy spirit from the Father and then, through Jesus, the disciples received the spirit. (Acts 2:33) This provided undeniable evidence that he was indeed “in” or at one with his Father. As for the disciples, the reception of the spirit from Jesus established that they were “in” or at one with him and that he was “in” or at one with them.

For one to “have” Christ’s commandments would mean to have received or accepted them. Acceptance and observance of these commandments would demonstrate love for him. The one who thus loved Jesus would be loved by his Father, and Jesus would love the individual and would reveal himself to him. In view of Jesus’ return to his Father, this revealing of himself would be through the spirit. (John 14:21)

Judas (not Iscariot, but the son of James), also called Thaddaeus, asked how it would be that Jesus would be revealing himself to the disciples but not to the world. (John 14:22) His answer indicated that this disclosure depended on a relationship that the world did not have. “If anyone loves me,” said Jesus, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling place with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you [plural] are hearing is not mine, but [is that] of the Father who sent me.” (John 14:23, 24)

Only those who love Jesus, loyally adhering to his word or teaching, would have the clear vision of him that would follow the reception of the spirit. The Father would love the person who loved his Son. By means of the spirit, both the Father and the Son would make their home with the individual who faithfully followed the Son’s teaching. That word or teaching did not originate with Jesus but had been received by him from his Father. Therefore, the individual who did not observe Jesus’ words also disregarded his Father who had sent him, and demonstrated himself to be a person having no love for Jesus. Being unreceptive to the spirit by reason of a state of alienation and enmity, such a person could not come to have a clear vision of the Son nor of the Father. Therefore, just as Jesus had said, the world would not see him.

Regarding the teaching he had then imparted to them, Jesus said, “These things I have told you while remaining with you.” (John 14:25) This kind of personal teaching would end after his going away to his Father. From then onward, the paraclete, the holy spirit, to be sent by his Father in his name (or on the basis of his request as God’s unique Son), would teach them everything they would need and recall to their minds everything he had said to them. (John 14:26; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Jesus’ mention about his departure troubled the disciples. Reassuringly, he told them, “Peace I leave you.” His going away from them was not to occasion disquietude or alarm. Spiritually, the disciples would not experience any lack, and they would have the dependable help and guidance of the paraclete. Continuing, Jesus said, “My peace I give you.” (John 14:27)

This peace was his gift. As recipients thereof, the disciples would enjoy an inner sense of well-being and calm from knowing that he deeply loved them. Jesus’ giving was not like that of the world. (John 14:27; see the Notes section for additional comments.) His giving was an expression of genuine concern and love. Those who are part of the world alienated from the Father often do their giving with impure motives, endeavoring to secure future gain or favors for themselves.

In view of his gift of peace, Jesus admonished the disciples not to allow their hearts to be troubled nor to become fearful. (John 14:27) He thereby implied that his leaving them should not occasion inner alarm, apprehension, uncertainty, or confusion.

Jesus reminded the disciples of what he had said to them, “I am going away, and I am coming to you.” Although the disciples did see Jesus on numerous occasions after his resurrection, his appearances primarily served to show them that he was alive. Often he appeared for just a short time and then vanished. Therefore, the coming to which Jesus referred appears to be the coming by means of the paraclete. This appears to be indicated by the words that follow, which words focus on his again being with his Father and not personally with them. “If you loved me,” Jesus said, “you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I [am].” (John 14:28)

The love of the disciples for Jesus should rightly have moved them to rejoice with him, for he would again be with his Father. As the Son sent by and given the words of the Father to speak, Jesus could say about him, “The Father is greater than I [am].” Upon returning to his Father, Jesus would be the exalted Son to whom his Father had given all authority in heaven and on earth. He would then enjoy the closest relationship possible with his Father, the possessor of unsurpassed greatness. For Jesus’ disciples, his friends, this should have occasioned rejoicing.

By telling them about what would soon be taking place, Jesus provided the disciples with an additional evidence for faith. (John 14:29) Whereas they believed in him as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, his death and resurrection would so overwhelmingly confirm his identity that it would be as if the disciples believed anew, with the strongest conviction possible.

Only a short time remained for Jesus to be with his disciples. Therefore, he told them that he would not be speaking much more to them. The ruler of the world, Satan, was coming, suggesting that Jesus knew that he would shortly face intense assault from the powers of darkness. Confidently, Jesus expressed himself regarding this impending threat, saying that the ruler of the world had “nothing” in him. (John 14:30) Satan had no power over Jesus, for there would be nothing he could get hold of in an effort to sway him from carrying out his Father’s will.

With apparent reference to the surrender of his life in loyal submission to his Father, Jesus spoke of this as the way in which he would show the world that he loved him. For Jesus, his Father’s will constituted his Father’s command. As the loving and obedient Son, he would act on the commandment, which included sacrificing his life. (John 14:31)

The words, “Rise, let us go from here,” do not necessarily indicate an immediate departure from the location where the Passover meal had been eaten. Thereafter Jesus is represented as continuing to speak. Not until a while later did he actually leave with the disciples and head for the Mount of Olives. (John 18:1) Therefore, Jesus’ words about going may have been his way of saying that the time had come for him to surrender his life and of expressing his determination to set out on the course his Father had willed for him.

Notes:

The holy writings or sacred scriptures with which Jesus’ disciples were familiar included numerous references to the spirit (Hebrew, rúach; Greek, pneúma), God’s spirit, or holy spirit. Like the corresponding Greek word pneúma, the Hebrew term rúach can also mean “wind.” Whereas pneúma is neuter gender, rúach is feminine gender. In the holy writings, the spirit is often mentioned in contexts identifying it as a divine agent or the power emanating from God. (Judges 3:10; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Samuel 11:6; Ezekiel 3:14; 8:3; 11:1; 37:14) For the disciples to have come to a changed understanding about the spirit would have required explicit teaching from God’s Son. In expressing his promise about the paraclete or the spirit of the truth, Jesus’ use of some masculine pronouns would have been far too subtle for the disciples to have come to understand the nature of the spirit differently.

The Hebrew, Syriac, and Aramaic forms of the word “paraclete” came into use through Greek influence and, like the Greek, are masculine gender. According to the idiom of the language in which Jesus spoke to his disciples, he would have used feminine pronouns when referring to the spirit and masculine pronouns when speaking of the paraclete.

Therefore, what has been regarded as a fluctuation of masculine and neuter pronouns in the Greek text of John 14 is best understood as being of a grammatical nature. Where the apparent or intended antecedent is pneúma, the corresponding pronouns are neuter. If, on the other hand, the apparent or intended antecedent is parákletos, the corresponding pronouns are masculine.

In John 14:26, the paraclete (parákletos) is identified as “the holy spirit.” The phrase that follows, in keeping with the neuter gender of “spirit” (pneúma), starts with the neuter pronoun hó (“which [hó] the Father will send in my name”). Then, in agreement with the masculine parákletos, the masculine pronoun ekeínos (“that one” or “he”) begins the concluding part of the sentence (“that one will teach you everything and recall to you everything I said to you”).

The reference to the giving that is not like that of the world does not have a designated object in the Greek text of John 14:27. A number of translations have added “it,” making “peace” the antecedent, and other translations have added the word “peace” as the object of the giving. “I am leaving you with a gift — peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give isn’t like the peace the world gives.” (NLT) “I give you peace, the kind of peace that only I can give. It isn’t like the peace that this world can give.” (CEV) “Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. I do not give peace to you as the world gives.” (NLB) According to this meaning, the peace the world gives could be understood to be the kind of seeming well-being and security that is based on attaining positions or possessions and would be temporary.

The world, however, cannot give real peace, the enduring well-being, security, and tranquility that comes from having a relationship with the Son of God and his Father. Some translations render the verse in a way that conveys the inability of the world to give peace. “Peace is my parting gift to you, my own peace, such as the world cannot give.” (REB) “Peace I bequeath to you, my own peace I give you, a peace which the world cannot give, this is my gift to you.” (NJB)

Without an object for “give,” this verb could be understood in a generic sense, indicating that Christ’s giving differs from that of the world. This may be the preferable meaning, considering that it requires no additions to the actual reading of the Greek text.

Jesus, the True Vine, and Love for Him (John 15:1-27)

Illustrating the need for his disciples to be inseparably united to him, Jesus referred to himself as the true vine, his Father as the vine grower, and his disciples as the branches in the vine. (John 15:1, 5) His Father would lop off all unproductive branches and prune (literally, “clean”) fruit-bearing branches so that they might yield more fruit. (John 15:2; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

The word, message, or teaching Jesus imparted to his disciples had already “pruned” or “cleaned” them. They had accepted his word, acting on it by imitating his example and testifying to their faith in him. By their conduct, which reflected favorably on him, and their witness about him, the disciples proved themselves to be productive branches that had been made fruitful through the cleansing power of his word. (John 15:3)

As Jesus remained “in” his disciples, being attached to them, he admonished them to remain “in” him, continuing to be at one with him. Only by remaining part of the vine do branches bear fruit. Likewise, the disciples would only be able to bear good fruit as persons attached to Jesus or at one with him. (John 15:4)

After identifying himself as the vine and his disciples as the branches, Jesus again stressed that the one who remained “in” him (attached like a branch to the vine) and he “in” the individual (attached like the vine to a branch) would bear much fruit. Therefore, apart from him, the disciples could not produce anything, that is, anything which his Father, the vine grower, would consider acceptable fruit. (John 15:5)

The person who failed to remain “in” Jesus or to be attached to him would prove to be like an unproductive branch that is thrown away and the leaves of which wither. Useless branches would be gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. (John 15:6) This indicates that a severe judgment awaits those who forsake Jesus and, in disposition, word, and deed, cease to bear fruit, no longer conducting themselves as persons who recognize him as their Lord.

If the disciples remained “in” or attached to him, and his word or teaching remained in them (being like a deposit in their inmost selves and motivating their thoughts, words, and deeds), whatever they might wish to request would be granted. (John 15:7) In view of their being at one with Jesus and their having made his teaching their own, their asking would have been in harmony with God’s will, and this would have assured their receiving a favorable response to their petitions.

Ultimately, when Jesus’ disciples bore much fruit in word and deed, and proved themselves to be his faithful disciples by advancing his interests, his Father would be glorified or honored. (John 15:8)

Just as the Father loved him, the Son loved the disciples. His appeal to them was, “Remain in my love.” For them to continue in his love would require that they keep his commandments, adhering to his teaching in their life as his disciples. Jesus had set the example for them. He had kept his Father’s commandments and thus had remained in his love. (John 15:9, 10)

The reason Jesus spoke about their remaining in his love by keeping his commandments was so that he might find joy in them. On seeing their faithfulness in bearing much fruit and proving themselves to be his disciples, he would rejoice. Their responsiveness to his word would occasion joy. At the same time, their joy would be made complete. (John 15:11) They would experience the inner contentment from knowing that they were pleasing to him as their Lord and, therefore, also to his Father. Upon attaining their reward, the disciples would attain the ultimate fullness of joy.

Jesus’ principal command for them was, “Love one another as I have loved you.” This called for a self-sacrificing and selfless love, a love that expressed itself in finding delight in serving others. Jesus’ love for them surpassed anything they had ever experienced. As he told them, “No one has greater love than this, that someone give up his soul [life] for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you [to do].” By acting on his command to love one another, they would prove themselves to be his friends, loving as he loved. (John 15:12-14)

Although Jesus was their Lord, he did not treat them in a manner that resembled a master-slave relationship. As he said, “I am not still calling you slaves, for a slave does not know what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, for I have made known to you everything I have heard from my Father.” (John 15:15) In a master-slave relationship, the master primarily issued commands to the slave. He did not treat him as a confidential friend to whom he would have entrusted precious intimate thoughts. The slave primarily obeyed his master out of a sense of duty and fear. Jesus, however, disclosed the teaching of his Father, teaching that he had received as his Father’s dearly beloved and unique Son. Being acknowledged friends of Jesus, the disciples would be motivated to heed his commands because they loved him.

The disciples had not chosen Jesus, granting him the authority to be their Lord and Teacher. He had chosen them to be his disciples and his apostles. His purpose for choosing them was that they might go and bear fruit and that this fruit would remain. They would be going out among the people, and their fruit in the form of words and deeds would move others to accept their testimony about Jesus and put their faith in him. Accordingly, these believers would prove to be the enduring or remaining produce of the apostles’ faithful service. The labors of the apostles yielded fruit that has remained to the present time, for throughout the centuries many have put faith in their testimony and have acted on it. When fulfilling the purpose for their being chosen, the disciples would also have an approved relationship with his Father. So, as Jesus indicated, their fruit bearing would assure that the requests they directed to the Father in Jesus’ name (in recognition of who the Son truly is) would be granted. (John 15:16) In carrying out their commission, the disciples would need the courage to speak with boldness, the strength to endure hostility, and the wisdom to express themselves appropriately and effectively. They could be confident that their petitions respecting the accomplishment of their assigned service would be answered.

Indicative of the prime importance of love, Jesus is quoted as again saying, “These things I am commanding you, that you love one another.” (John 15:17)

In the world of mankind alienated from the Father, they would not find the love they were to enjoy among themselves. They would be hated. If or when this happened, they should be able to understand it, for they knew that the world hated Jesus before expressing its hatred against them. If they were part of the world, living as persons without faith in the Son and, therefore, also without faith in the Father, the unbelievers of the world would love them as their own. Although living in the world of mankind, the disciples were not from that world. Their thoughts, words, and deeds were focused on proving themselves to be Jesus’ disciples. He had chosen them out of the world, no longer to be a part of it in its unbelief and its ways that did not honor his Father. As persons who had ceased to be part of the world, the disciples were objects of its hatred. (John 15:18, 19)

In relation to their encountering the world’s hatred, Jesus wanted them to remember what he had told them previously, “A slave is not greater than his master.” (Compare Matthew 10:24, Luke 6:40, and John 13:16.) Therefore, they should expect the same kind of response and treatment as Jesus had experienced. As he said, “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word [accepting his teaching and observing it], they will also keep yours.” (John 15:20)

Whatever hostility or mistreatment the disciples were to experience would be on account of Jesus’ name or because of their being identified as belonging to him as his disciples. The hateful reaction and treatment would result because those who persisted in unbelief did not “know” the Father who had sent his Son. They did not recognize the Father in the Son, revealing that they had no relationship with him. (John 15:21)

If Jesus had not come and labored among them and spoken to them, “they,” according to his words, “would have no sin.” But he did labor and teach among them, leaving them without any excuse for their sin—their persistence in unbelief and hatred of him. His example in love, compassionately bringing relief to the sick and afflicted, and his teaching gave them no basis for their hateful response. The clear evidence of God’s spirit working through the Son in the accomplishment of good served to condemn their unbelief and hostility. Without this overwhelming evidence, they would have been acting out of ignorance and so would not have had the sin of deliberate unbelief charged against them. (John 15:22, 24)

When hating Jesus, the unbelievers also hated the Father who deeply loved his Son. No one else had done the works that Jesus did among them. If he had not done these marvelous works that resulted in relief for many suffering fellow Jews, the unbelievers would not have had sin. They could not have taken a hostile stand despite evidence of good deeds, for they would not have witnessed these works. Having, however, seen Jesus and the works he did, they nevertheless hated him and his Father (the very one whose works Jesus was performing and whose teaching he was conveying). This fulfilled the “word” of the “law” (in this case seemingly meaning words in the holy writings that had the authority or validity of law), “They hated me without cause.” (John 15:23-25) These words of Psalm 69:4 (68:5, LXX) found their full meaning in the hatred Jesus experienced.

With the aid of the paraclete, the spirit of the truth, the apostles would be able to discharge their commission to testify concerning Jesus. He would send the paraclete from the Father, the one from whom this helper or “the spirit of the truth” proceeded. Upon arriving, the paraclete or helper would testify about Jesus. This testimony would have included opening up to the minds of the apostles how the words of the holy writings and everything Jesus had said to them beforehand had been fulfilled in him. With the spirit operating within them, the apostles would then be in a position to testify concerning Jesus, for they had been with him from the time he began his ministry among the people. The spirit would recall to their minds the things he had said, and they would be able to convey his teaching to others. (John 15:26, 27; see the Notes section for additional comments on verse 26.)

Notes:

In John 15:2, the Greek term used for the removal of an unproductive branch is aíro, literally meaning “to raise” or “to lift up” but here signifying “to remove” or “to take away.” The Greek word for “clean” or “prune” is kathaíro. The use of the two Greek words suggests a play on words (aíro — kathaíro).

The designation “paraclete” (parákletos) at the start of John 15:26, as in John chapter 14, is best understood to mean “helper.” In agreement with its masculine gender, the apparent or intended antecedent parákletos is followed by pronouns in the masculine gender. This is so even though the parenthetical expression that includes the neuter noun pneúma with its corresponding neuter pronoun hó (“the spirit (pneúma) of the truth, which [hó] proceeds from the Father”) separates parákletos and the accompanying phrase (“whom [hón, the masculine pronoun] I will send you from the Father”) from the conclusion of the sentence. Without the parenthetical words about the spirit, the sentence would read, “When the helper arrives, whom I will send you from the Father, that one [or he; the masculine pronoun ekeínos] will testify about me.”

Benefits for the Disciples from the Paraclete (John 16:1-33)

Initially, Jesus did not tell his disciples about the hatred that would be directed against them because of being his disciples. He did not want to stumble them, frightening them to the point that their fragile faith could have given out. (John 16:1)

With the passage of time, their faith had grown and become stronger. Moreover, in view of his imminent departure, Jesus recognized that it was essential for them to know what they would be experiencing. They would be expelled from the synagogues. The hour or time would come when unbelievers would imagine that they were serving God by killing the disciples. (John 16:2) Unbelieving fellow Jews would come to view them as apostates, as persons who were followers of a false Messiah and who posed a threat to the traditional Jewish ways. As the book of Acts reveals, murderous hatred flared up because of regarding the disciples as speaking against Moses, the temple, and the law. (Acts 6:13, 14; 21:27-31) Based on the penalty the law set forth for apostasy, they would have regarded themselves as doing God’s will by killing the disciples. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

The hateful action of unbelievers would stem from their knowing neither the Father nor Jesus. Their traditional views blinded them so that they could not perceive the things of God. Unable to see in Jesus the perfect reflection of his Father, they could not recognize him as the Son of God and so could not possibly know the Father whom they had never seen. (John 16:3)

The “hour” or time was bound to come when the disciples would face persecution and even death. Having been prepared in advance for this, they would then recall what Jesus had told them. While he was with them, the hatred was primarily directed at him, and he came to their defense when others raised an issue about them. (Compare Matthew 12:1-8; 15:1-9.) Therefore, it was not vital for them to know at the start just what might happen to them because of being his disciples. As Jesus said, “I did not tell you these things from the beginning, for I was with you.” (John 16:4)

The situation would soon be different. Jesus would be going back to the one who had sent him, his Father. Earlier, Peter had asked, “Lord, where are you going?” (John 13:36) Thomas, in response to Jesus’ telling the apostles that they knew the way to the place where he was going, said, “Lord, we do not know where you are going.” (John 14:5) In neither case, however, were the words focused on what this would mean for Jesus. Peter’s question related to why he would not be able to follow, and the words of Thomas indicated that the disciples did not know the way to the place where Jesus was going. With apparent reference in relation to himself, Jesus said, “Not one of you asks me, Where are you going? But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.” (John 16:5, 6) Within themselves, they were pained upon hearing that Jesus would no longer be with them. Overwhelmed by their sadness, they did not reflect on what it would mean for him to return to his Father. Therefore, they did not make any inquiry about where Jesus would be going or concerning anything else that specifically related to him in connection with this departure.

In view of their sadness, Jesus reassured them, “I am telling you the truth, It is better for you that I am going away; for if I do not go away, the paraclete will not come to you.” Upon going away, Jesus would send them the paraclete. As a man on earth, he dealt with the limitations human existence imposed. His activity was confined to a comparatively small geographic area, and he could only be with them in one specific location at a time. The paraclete, however, would be with them at all times and in every location where they would be spreading the message about the Son of God. Accordingly, from the standpoint of what would be accomplished, it was really in the best interests of the apostles for him to depart and for them to benefit from the paraclete or from another helper. (John 16:7)

As to what would be accomplished through the powerful working of the paraclete, Jesus said, “That one [ekeínos, masculine gender to agree with the masculine gender of paraclete (parákletos)] will reprove the world about sin and about righteousness and about judgment.” (John 16:8) Jesus then explained the way in which the paraclete would reprove the world, exposing the wrong of those who persisted in unbelief.

They were guilty of sin, rejecting the clear evidence that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. This evidence included his miraculous works (healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and soundness of body to the crippled and the lame, and raising the dead). With God’s spirit operating through them, the apostles would perform like miraculous works, further confirming the sin of the world’s refusal to believe in Jesus to be inexcusable. (John 16:9)

Unbelievers misrepresented the Son of God, slandering him as being a man in league with the demons, a lawbreaker, and a deceiver. (Compare Matthew 12:24; 27:63; Luke 23:2.) His return to his Father and, therefore, his disciples’ no longer seeing him proved that he was righteous in every way. At the same time, this revealed that a right standing with his Father could only be obtained through faith in him and the forgiveness made possible through his sacrificial death. The imparting of the spirit to the disciples established that he had returned to his Father and received the spirit from him. Empowered by the spirit, the disciples boldly testified that Jesus had been raised from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God and that, through him alone, forgiveness of sins was possible. (Acts 2:33, 36, 38; 3:14-21; 5:29-32; 13:27-39) Thus their testimony, backed by miracles, proved to be the spirit’s witness about righteousness. (John 16:10)

Through his death in faithfulness to his Father, Jesus defeated the powers of darkness. This, too, would be a feature of the spirit’s testimony. It would be a witness about judgment, for the ruler of the world had been condemned and exposed as unable to turn Jesus away from doing his Father’s will. (John 16:11) No longer could Satan hold people in slavery by means of the fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14, 15) The visible manifestation of the spirit’s operation through the disciples bore witness to the reality of Jesus’ resurrection, exaltation, and triumph over the power of the enemy, proving that Satan had been judged. This also confirmed that Jesus would be the judge of all, both the upright and the unjust. (Acts 17:31) All who defiantly persisted in unbelief would, like Satan, be condemned. (Compare Matthew 25:41.)

Jesus wanted to tell the apostles much more, but he knew that they were then not prepared to “bear” it. (John 16:12) This suggests that they would have been troubled or overwhelmed, unable to comprehend his words.

With the arrival of the paraclete, the spirit of the truth, they would come to understand, being guided into all the truth. Everything that would be conveyed to them would be completely trustworthy and would meet their needs. The paraclete would not be functioning independently (speaking “of his own”) but would be reliably making known what had been heard from Jesus and ultimately from the Father and would declare or reveal things to come. In the context of Jesus’ words, the “things coming” appear to relate to what lay ahead for him, and the spirit would enable the apostles to see how the Scriptures and his words were fulfilled. (Compare John 2:22.) Through the spirit, the Son would be glorified or honored, for the spirit would be announcing or revealing what had been received from him. (John 16:13, 14)

As the unique Son, Jesus shared everything with his Father. “Everything the Father has,” Jesus said, “is mine.” Therefore, although the Father is the ultimate source of the spirit, Jesus could say that the paraclete received from what is his and then would make announcement to the apostles. (John 16:15)

Again indicating why the apostles would need another paraclete or helper, Jesus reminded them about a change to come. In a little while, they would no longer see him, and then in a little while they would see him. (John 16:16)

This puzzled the disciples, and some of them talked among themselves as to what he meant about not being seen and then being seen, and regarding the words “because I am going to the Father.” They found it impossible to comprehend what he meant respecting “a little while” and concluded that they did not know what he was talking about. (John 16:17, 18)

Discerning that the disciples wanted to ask him about what he had said, Jesus illustrated the developments that lay ahead. After expressing his solemn introductory words, “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you,” Jesus told the apostles that they would weep and mourn, but the world of unbelievers would rejoice. Whereas they were pained, their pain or sadness would be changed to joy. When the hour or time has come, a woman, during the birthing process, experiences pain. After the birth of the baby, however, she does not remember the distress but is happy that a boy has been brought into the world. (John 16:19-21)

Applying the illustration about the woman, Jesus said that while the disciples were then experiencing pain or sadness (with apparent reference to his departure), they would see him again. Their “heart” or they, in their inmost selves, would rejoice upon seeing him, and no one would be able to take their joy away. After his resurrection, the disciples did see Jesus again, and this filled them with boundless joy. Having been given the evidence that he was alive, their joy continued, with no one able to rob them of it by wrecking their faith in him and his word. Moreover, as their resurrected Lord, with all power in heaven and on earth having been granted to him, he would be able to respond to their appeals even after his return to his Father. (John 16:22)

“In that day,” seemingly referring to the time when he would again be with his Father, Jesus said that the disciples would not ask him anything. This may mean that all things would become clear to them, as they would have another helper, the spirit. Moreover, Jesus would continue to be concerned about them. Up to this particular point, they had not made any appeals in his name or in recognition of his being their Lord. Jesus now, with a solemn assurance (“Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you”) told the disciples to ask in his name or on the basis of his authority, and they would receive the things for which they made their requests. This would result in their joy being made complete. All such requests would of necessity harmonize with the divine will and be directed to the Father in recognition of the Son. (John 16:23, 24; for another possible meaning of John 16:23 about not asking anything, see the Notes section.)

Jesus had used figures of speech when talking to the disciples, but he told them that the “hour” or time would be coming when he would no longer do so. He would use clear or plain speech when telling them about the Father. (John 16:25)

“In that day” or at that future time, the disciples would make their appeals in Jesus’ name or in full recognition of his authority. This, however, did not mean that Jesus would have to ask his Father to respond to the prayers of his disciples. As Jesus said, “I am not saying that I shall ask the Father about you.” (John 16:26) This would not be required, for the Father himself loved the disciples because they loved his Son and believed that he had come from him. (John 16:27)

When coming into the world of mankind, Jesus came from the Father. His departure meant that he would be leaving the world and returning to him. (John 16:28) In view of Jesus’ clear statement that he would be going back to his Father, the disciples appear to have understood his words. This prompted them to acknowledge that he had spoken to them plainly and not in figures of speech. (John 16:29)

Jesus had known that the disciples wanted to ask him about what he had meant when telling them that, in a little while, they would not see him and then, in a little while, they would see him again. He answered the question they had wanted to ask. His having done so appears to be the reason they said, “Now we know that you know everything, and you do not need to have anyone question you. On this account, we believe that you came from God.” The disciples realized that, even without a question being asked directly, Jesus would be able to anticipate it and provide the answer. They saw in what he had done for them clear evidence that he had come from God. (John 16:30)

Jesus, though, also knew the great test that lay ahead for the disciples and so raised the question, “Do you now believe?” While they had expressed their belief or faith in him, the “hour” or time would be coming and had, in fact, come when each of them would be scattered to his own place (not remaining together for mutual strengthening) and would leave him alone. Jesus, however, would not be alone, for his Father would still be with him. (John 16:31, 32)

The Son of God had prepared his disciples in advance for what would take place. “In” him or by being united to him, they would have peace, an inner calm and sense of well-being from knowing that they were loved by him and his Father and were objects of their concern and care. In the world of unbelievers, they would experience distress, persecution and intense hostility. Still, they could be courageous, for Jesus, their Lord, proved himself greater than the world. The world of mankind that was in a state of alienation from his Father had no power over him. Despite all the assaults directed against him, Jesus had not yielded. In loyal submission to his Father’s will, he would be surrendering his life. Thus, ultimately through his death, he would defeat the world and be triumphant as the unconquered one. With complete confidence, therefore, Jesus could say, “I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33)

Notes:

As in John chapters 14 and 15, so also in chapter 16, masculine pronouns are used when the apparent or intended antecedent is “paraclete” (parákletos). The Greek word for “spirit” (pneúma) is neuter gender, and this explains why both masculine and neuter pronouns appear in the narration that includes Jesus’ words about the paraclete, the “spirit of the truth.”

In John 16:23, the “asking” could either refer to asking questions or to making requests. If requests, petitions, or appeals are meant, this would indicate that it would not be necessary to direct these to Jesus in order to receive a favorable hearing, for the Father would respond to all requests made in the name of his Son. This significance is explicit in the New Century Version, “In that day you will not ask me for anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you anything you ask for in my name.”

Jesus’ Prayer for the Apostles (John 17:1-26)

After having finished speaking to the apostles, Jesus raised his eyes heavenward and began to pray. Only a shift in his visual focus ended his speaking to the apostles and started his praying, indicative of how natural it was for Jesus to address his Father and of the intimate relationship existing between them. His mentioning the hour that had come referred to the imminent completion of his ministry on earth and the sacrificial surrender of his life in submission to his Father’s will. (John 17:1)

Jesus’ petition, “Glorify your Son, that the Son [your Son, according to numerous manuscripts] may glorify you,” constituted a request to be honored subsequent to the humiliation of a shameful execution. This glorification would have included everything that revealed him to be the Son of God. Awesome signs accompanied his death. After his resurrection from the dead on the third day, he returned to his Father. Thus honored in keeping with his petition, Jesus glorified his Father through what he had accomplished in carrying out the commission entrusted to him. (John 17:1)

The Father had granted his Son authority over all flesh or the entire human family. This authority was bound up with his sacrificial death, which provided the basis for liberating humans from sin and the consequences from sin, namely, death. Through his death, Jesus would purchase or redeem the human race. By his Father’s giving him those whom he redeemed, Jesus would be able to give them eternal life. (John 17:2)

He referred to eternal life as being a life distinguished by an enduring relationship with him and his Father. It is a knowing of the Father as the only true God and Jesus Christ as the one whom he had sent. This “knowing” is an intimate relationship of oneness with the Father and his Son. A life that harmonizes with Jesus’ example and teaching and so also with his Father’s will confirms the existence of this relationship. Recognizing that Jesus had been sent by the Father would require acknowledging the reason for his being sent, putting faith in him, and accepting the atoning benefits of his sacrificial death. Being a relationship that does not end, the life that is distinguished by a relationship with the Father and his Son is eternal and will be enjoyed in the complete sense in the sinless state. In that state, the most intimate knowing of the Father and the Son will be possible. (John 17:3)

Jesus could speak of his having glorified or honored his Father, for he had completed the work he had been given to do. The surrender of his life being at hand, he could rightly refer to the full accomplishment of the work. Upon faithfully carrying out everything that his coming to the earth required, Jesus made it possible for humans to become reconciled to his Father. Moreover, through his words and deeds, Jesus flawlessly revealed him. (John 17:4)

He prayed that his Father would glorify him, granting him the “glory,” splendor, honor, or dignity he had before coming to the earth and which he had alongside him before the world existed. (John 17:5) The glory he previously had was one of being in the very form of his Father, a magnificence that transcended that of all the angels or the other sons of God. (Philippians 2:6)

When acknowledging his Father as the one who had given him the apostles out of the world of mankind, Jesus spoke of having made known his Father’s name (the person of the Father, the one whom the name represented). As his Father’s unique Son, he revealed him in a manner that no one else could have done. Jesus spoke his Father’s words and did his Father’s works. In his activity and interactions, he flawlessly reflected his Father’s zeal for what is right, fair, or just, and manifested his Father’s mighty and beneficent power, concern and care, compassion, and love. Again referring to the apostles as belonging to and having been given to him by his Father, Jesus added, “They have kept your word.” (John 17:6; see the Notes section for additional comments.) He imparted the “word” or teaching that he had received from his Father to the apostles, and they responded to it in faith. They recognized Jesus as their Lord and heeded his word, which in the ultimate sense was his Father’s word.

The apostles came to know that everything that had been given to Jesus had been received from his Father. This was so because of what Jesus had taught them and his identifying his Father as the source of his teaching. (Compare John 7:16-18.) They accepted Jesus’ words, observing them as having come from his Father. Through the words or teaching Jesus imparted to them, the apostles recognized that he had come from his Father and came to believe that his Father had sent him. (John 17:7, 8)

At this time, Jesus did not pray regarding the world that persisted in unbelief but for the apostles, whom the Father had given him and to whom they belonged. Indicating that his Father had the same care and concern he did, Jesus acknowledged, “Everything of mine is yours, and yours [is] mine; and I have been glorified in them.” (John 17:9, 10) Although the apostles belonged to Jesus, they also belonged to his Father, and so would be objects of his Father’s love and concern. By believing in Jesus, they had glorified or honored him as God’s beloved Son. In view of his imminent departure, he deeply cared about them and prayed for them.

Though Jesus would no longer be in the world and would be returning to his Father, the disciples would continue to live in the world, facing the pressures and trials associated with a world in a state of alienation from and at enmity with the Father. Therefore, Jesus made his appeal, “Holy Father, look after them in your name which you have given me, that they be one as we are [one].” (John 17:11)

Being pure in the absolute sense, the Father is holy, and his name identifies him as the God of love, one who deeply cares for his own. The name represents or stands for him. Therefore, if the reference to giving his name to his Son preserves the original reading of the Greek text, this could relate to the Father’s intimate relationship with him, a relationship of oneness stemming from the Father’s having given himself to his Son. (See the Notes section regarding John 17:11.) It would then be the inseparable oneness Jesus enjoyed with his Father that he desired the apostles to share.

While he had been with the apostles, Jesus looked out for them. He did so in his Father’s name. This could mean that he did so on the basis of the authority that his Father had granted him. Jesus’ watchful care meant that all except the “son of destruction” had been safeguarded. To fulfill the scripture that a close associate would betray Jesus (Psalm 41:9[10]; John 13:18), Judas Iscariot alone was lost. By choosing a course that led to his ruin, Judas proved himself to be a “son of destruction.” (John 17:12; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Although he would be returning to his Father, Jesus wanted the apostles to share in his joy. So, while he was still in the world, he expressed himself in prayer as he did. The things he had said centered on his having revealed the Father to them and their relationship to him and to his Father. Jesus’ prayerful words would also have assured the apostles of his Father’s watching over them. Their knowing that they belonged to the Father and were recipients of his loving care would have contributed to their ceasing to be troubled about Jesus’ no longer being with them. This would have enabled them to share in his joy to the full. They could then rejoice in the victory he attained through his death, a triumph that brought liberation from sin to those who put faith in him and spelled defeat for the powers of darkness. Moreover, his again being with his Father as the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been granted would fill them with joy. (John 17:13)

Jesus had given the word of his Father to the apostles, imparting to them the Father’s teaching. That teaching revealed Jesus to be the unique Son of God. In his own person, Jesus revealed the Father to the fullest extent possible. The apostles had embraced the “word” or teaching in faith, ceasing to be part of the world of unbelievers who were alienated from and at enmity with the Father. Therefore, the world hated the apostles, for, like Jesus their Lord, they were no part of it. (John 17:14)

As objects of the world’s hatred, the apostles needed divine aid. Jesus did not pray for them to be taken out of the world and thereby to escape the trials and pressures from a world in opposition to him. Instead, he appealed to his Father to watch over them on account of the evil one. Though no part of the world, just as Jesus was no a part thereof, they would be advancing his interests in the world of mankind. As a result, they would be subject to the attacks of the evil one or the devil. (John 17:15, 16)

In view of their commission, Jesus prayed that his Father would sanctify the apostles “in the truth.” For them to be sanctified meant that they would be set apart for a holy or sacred service. The expression “in the truth” could be understood to mean in the sphere of the truth, suggestive of a life set apart for the advancement of this truth and a life that harmonized therewith. Jesus referred to his Father’s word as being truth and earlier that night spoke of himself as the truth. (John 14:6) So the truth is the teaching which Jesus had received from his Father and which he then imparted to his disciples by his words and deeds. As the perfect reflection of his Father, the Son was the embodiment of the truth about him. For the furtherance of this truth, the revelation of the Father in the Son, the apostles would be set apart to serve. (John 17:17)

The Father had sent Jesus to minister in the world of mankind. Jesus likewise sent his disciples to labor in the world. (John 17:18) He had sanctified himself or set himself apart for them. In submission to his Father’s will, he faithfully imparted his Father’s teaching and was about to surrender his life. Accordingly, as one set apart to do his Father’s will, Jesus acted for the benefit of the disciples. They received his teaching and, on the basis of his sacrificial death and their faith in him, came to be the Father’s sons and Christ’s brothers. So, by what Jesus did in sanctifying himself for them, they were sanctified “in [the] truth” or set apart to serve in advancing the truth (the truth from the Father and revealed through the Son). (John 17:19)

Jesus did not limit his prayerful request to the apostles, but included all who would come to believe in him on the basis of the “word” or message they would proclaim. (John 17:20) The objective for all those putting their faith in him would be that they would form a united whole, enjoying the same oneness that Jesus had with his Father. With all believers being at one with Jesus and his Father, testimony would be given to the world that the Father had sent the Son. Thus the basis would be provided for the world of mankind or for the people to believe in Jesus as the one whom God had sent. (John 17:21)

The glory the Father had given him, Jesus gave to the apostles. This glory, splendor, or dignity appears to relate specifically to Jesus’ being the Son of God. In John 1:14, this glory is described as that of a father’s only or unique son, and Jesus granted those who believed in him the authority or right to be God’s children. (John 1:12) This bestowal of sonship is an honor or dignity of unparalleled greatness. In coming to be part of the family of the Father’s beloved children, a marvelous unity comes into being. Jesus expressed this objective regarding the apostles to his Father, “that they be one as we are one; I in [at one with them] them and you in [at one with] me, that they may be fully one.” (John 17:22) This perfect oneness or unity would provide the basis for the world of mankind to know that the Father had sent the Son and loved the disciples (those who had been granted the honor of being his children on the basis of their faith in his Son) just as he loved him. (John 17:23)

It appears that particularly regarding “what” the Father had given him as the unique Son (provided the oldest extant manuscripts preserve the original reading of the text), Jesus wanted the apostles to be where he was. This would make it possible for them to see the glory or the greatness of the dignity that his Father had given him as the exalted Son with all authority in heaven and on earth. The glory that he would have upon his return to his Father would be an evidence of his Father’s love. This love existed “before the founding of the world” or from the very start and continued throughout the ages. (John 17:24; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

The world had not come to know the Father, the one who is righteous, just, or impartial in all his dealings. Humans who were part of the unbelieving world were in a state of alienation from and at enmity with him. They had no relationship with the Father and so could not possibly know him. Jesus, however, knew his Father as his beloved Son, and the apostles came to know that the Father had sent him. (John 17:25)

During the time he was with the apostles, Jesus made known his Father’s name (that is, the person of the Father, the bearer of the name) to them. As the perfect reflection of his Father, Jesus revealed him through his words and actions. His prayer expressed the resolve to continue making his Father’s name known or revealing him to the apostles. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and opened up their minds to a fuller understanding respecting himself and so also regarding his Father. (Compare Luke 24:26, 27, 32.) Upon returning to him, Jesus continued to reveal his Father by means of the paraclete, “the spirit of the truth.” His making him known was for the purpose that the apostles might have within them the love with which his Father loved him. Through Jesus’ love for them, they would come to experience his Father’s love and, therefore, the love with which he loved his Son. This would also serve to have Jesus “in them” or inseparably attached to them in love. With the Father’s love dwelling in them, the apostles would respond in love for him and for his Son. (John 17:26)

Notes:

The name of God expresses everything he is. Therefore, in making known the name, Jesus revealed his Father’s personality and attributes—his matchless and beneficent power (as, for example, when Jesus raised the dead), compassion and love (exemplified in Jesus’ response to the afflicted and to repentant sinners), and justice (through Jesus’ exposure of harshness, oppressiveness, and mistreatment). To his apostles and other disciples, Jesus disclosed how they could become his Father’s children and thus revealed him as the loving Father with whom they could have an intimate family relationship as persons forgiven of their sins. In what the Father had made possible through him, Jesus revealed the Father in a way that far transcended what had been set forth in the existing holy writings with which the apostles were familiar. After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, the paraclete or the holy spirit aided the apostles to understand everything he had said and done. In this way, he (as expressed in his prayer) continued to make known his Father’s name, and the apostles came to have a fuller understanding of the Father, their relationship to him, and his boundless love in sending his Son to the earth. (John 17:6, 26)

For John 17:11, manuscript readings vary. There are ancient Latin, Syriac and Coptic manuscripts that do not include the words, “which you have given me, that they be one as we are [one].” Certain other manuscripts read, “whom [referring to the apostles] you have given me.” This would mean that Jesus prayed that his Father safeguard the apostles in his own name or in keeping with everything his name represented, the God who he is.

Ancient manuscript readings of John 17:12 introduce the phrase “you have given me” with either “which” (applying to God’s name) or “whom” (referring to the apostles).

In John 17:24, the oldest extant manuscripts read, “which you have given me.” Many later manuscripts, however, indicate the reference to be to the apostles (“whom you have given me”).

To and at Gethsemane (Matthew 26:30, 36-46; Mark 14:26, 32-42; Luke 22:39-46; John 18:1)

According to ancient Jewish sources, the Passover meal could only be eaten until midnight. (Tosefta, Pesahim 5:13) So it may have been around midnight that Jesus and the apostles sang the concluding portion of the Hallel (possibly Psalms 115 through 118) and then headed for the Mount of Olives. Leaving Jerusalem, they descended to the Kidron valley, crossed it, and then ascended the western slope of the Mount of Olives. (Matthew 26:30, 36; Mark 14:26; John 18:1) Although knowing that he would be betrayed, Jesus did not alter his customary routine. (Luke 22:39)

Arriving at a place called Gethsemane, he and the apostles entered a garden. After telling the others to seat themselves, probably near the area where they entered, Jesus had Peter, James, and John accompany him to a more distant location in the garden where he intended to pray. It may have been before leaving the other apostles behind that he told them to pray in order not succumb to temptation. In view of his earlier comments that all of them would be stumbled on his account, they may have understood that the temptation pertained to circumstances that might induce them to disown him. (Matthew 26:36, 37; Mark 14:32, 33; Luke 22:40; see the Notes section for other comments.)

It may have been close to one o’clock in the morning when Jesus left for a place to pray, and the apostles would have been very tired. Upon becoming distressed and experiencing an inner upheaval, Jesus said to Peter, James, and John, “My soul is [I myself am] greatly distressed, [even] to death. Stay here and remain awake with me.” He then walked on a little farther (“a stone’s throw” or the distance one might customarily toss a stone), dropped to his knees, and prostrated himself, with his face touching the ground. He then began to pray. (Matthew 26:38, 39; Mark 14:34, 35; Luke 22:41)

Earlier that night, Jesus had told the apostles that the ruler of the world would be coming. (John 14:30) The great distress that Jesus experienced in the garden and the intensity of his repeated prayer suggest that he was then subjected to a severe mental assault from the powers of darkness. This was the culminating hour for the devil to try to sway him from carrying out his Father’s will respecting the “cup” or the portion meant for him. For Jesus to partake from that “cup” would mean that he would be viciously abused, humiliated, tortured, and die an excruciating death that would portray him as a vile criminal.

He knew that this was his Father’s arrangement for reconciling humans to himself. It would reveal the depth of his Father’s love for humankind. The Father thereby demonstrated that he so much wanted them to be his children that he did not even spare his own Son to reach their deepest emotions, appealing to them to respond in faith or unqualified trust to his way for having their sins forgiven. For those who would put faith in Jesus’ sacrificial death for them, the recognition of the greatness of the Father’s love would be beyond compare. They would deeply feel that the Father and his Son did this for them personally in expression of their love.

At the same time, the suffering that Jesus experienced would serve to reveal the seriousness of sin. Flawed humans tend to have a dulled sense for what is wrong or hurtful and are prone to justify attitudes, words, or actions that are morally corrupt.

Nothing less than the greatest sacrifice could accomplish what was essential to bring sinful humans into a proper family relationship with the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Upon coming to recognize sin in all its hideousness and the greatness of divine love, sinful humans would be able to respond with the kind of faith or trust that our heavenly Father desires his approved children to have.

The reconciliation of humans with the Father was diametrically opposed to the devil’s aim. If there had been another way in which Jesus would have been able to accomplish his Father’s purpose, he would have preferred that. If it had been possible, he would have wanted the horrific “hour” or time to pass from him. His prayer, though, indicated that he did not yield to any assault from the powers of darkness. “Abba, Father,” he prayed, “all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me, but not what I want but what you [want].” (Mark 14:35, 36; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 26:39 and Luke 22:42.) Jesus’ words reflected complete submission to his Father’s will for him.

He then rose and went to the place where the disciples were. Finding them asleep, he directed his words to Peter, “Simon, are you sleeping? Were you not able to stay awake one hour [probably meaning a short time]?” Addressing all three apostles, Jesus continued, “Stay awake and pray, that you do not come into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Mark 14:37, 38) In “spirit,” or in their desired inclination under the circumstances, the apostles would have wanted to remain awake, but the limitations their human frailty imposed on them made this impossible. (Matthew 26:40, 41)

After going away from them, Jesus prayed a second time, “My Father, if this cannot pass [from me] unless I drink it [partake of the portion that had been determined for him], your will take place.” (Matthew 26:42; Mark 14:39) When returning to the three apostles, he again found them asleep. They could not keep their eyes open (literally, “their eyes were weighed down” or “heavy”). (Matthew 26:43) In their sleepy state, they were in no position to answer or to respond to Jesus. (Mark 14:40) After going away from them, he prayed a third time that his Father’s will to be done. (Matthew 26:44)

According to numerous manuscripts, Luke 22:43 relates that an angel or messenger from heaven (not a human messenger) came to strengthen Jesus. Regarding his praying, Luke 22:44 says, “And having come to be in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling upon the ground.” If preserving an original account (despite being missing in the oldest extant manuscripts [late second-century or early third-century P75, probably also third-century P69, fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and a corrector’s reading of fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus]), the incident about the angel is probably to be associated with Jesus’ third prayer. The reference to the sweat may mean that the perspiration flowed from his forehead like drops of blood from a cut. Another possibility is that the extreme emotional stress to which Jesus had been subjected caused blood to seep through his skin and come to be mingled with his sweat. This, however, seems less likely, as it happens rarely and, in the dark, discolored sweat could not have been distinguished from the usual perspiration.

When Jesus approached the apostles for the third time, they were still asleep. His words to them about sleeping and resting indicated that, at this critical juncture, they needed to be awake. The “hour” or time had arrived for the Son of Man to be delivered into the hands of sinners. (Matthew 26:45; Mark 14:41) According to Luke 22:45, sorrow or distress contributed to the sleepy state of the apostles. (See the Notes section regarding Luke 22:46.) This sadness appears to have been because Jesus told them earlier about his leaving them. (John 16:6, 7)

As the betrayer, Judas Iscariot, was about to arrive with an armed crowd who had come to seize him, Jesus said to Peter, James, and John, “Rise, let us go. See! The one betraying me is approaching.” (Matthew 26:46; Mark 14:42) Based on the narrative in John chapter 18, this did not mean that Jesus planned to escape, leaving and, as on earlier occasions when his life was in danger, concealing himself. His prayer had been answered. Through loyal submission to his Father’s will, he had defeated the powers of darkness. So he would “go,” willingly and courageously facing those who had come to arrest him.

Notes:

Luke chapter 22 does not mention that Jesus took only Peter, James, and John with him when setting out for a place to pray. Therefore, it is not certain whether the words of Luke 22:40 about praying so as to not enter into temptation were directed to the apostles whom he told to seat themselves or to Peter, James, and John. In Luke 22:46, the thought regarding praying to avoid succumbing to temptation is repeated, “Rise, pray, that you do not enter into temptation.” This appears to relate to the third time Jesus found Peter, James, and John asleep. The condensed nature of Luke’s account, however, does not make it possible to be certain about which time it was and to whom the words were directed (either to Peter, James, and John, to all the apostles, or to the apostles who were situated closer to the garden entrance).

Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42 express the thoughts of Jesus’ prayer, but the wording is not identical. This is understandable, for the actual words would not have been spoken in Greek. For Matthew 26:39, manuscripts either start the prayer with “My Father” or “Father” and then continue, “Take this cup from me; yet not as I want but as you want.” Luke 22:42 reads, “Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me; yet not my will but yours come to pass.”

Arrest (Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-50; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-12)

The betrayer Judas knew the place where Jesus would be, for he had often been there with the disciples. (John 18:2) Initially, though, Judas and those planning to seize Jesus may have stopped at the house where he had been with the other apostles. Included in the group were Roman soldiers, Levite temple guards, and slaves. (Luke 22:50, 52; John 18:3, 26) They were equipped with torches, lamps, swords, and clubs. (Matthew 26:47; John 18:3) According to John 18:3, besides a contingent of Roman soldiers (probably drawn from among those stationed at the Tower of Antonia and who were responsible for watching for any disturbance or uprising in the temple area and bringing it under control), there were subordinates or deputies of the chief priests and Pharisees.

Matthew 26:47 refers to a large crowd from the chief priests and elders of the people, and Mark 14:43 additionally mentions men from the scribes. In view of the inclusion of Pharisees in John 18:3, they may have been the scribes who were involved in sending their subordinates. Only Luke 22:52 speaks of Jesus as directing words to the chief priests, temple captains, and elders. This may be understood to mean that what he said to those who acted for the chief priests and elders of the nation is being represented as addressed to those who had sent them.

While Jesus was speaking to the apostles, Judas and the armed men arrived. As it would have been hard for anyone without being personally acquainted with Jesus to recognize him in the dark, Judas had given the armed men an advance signal. “The one whom I kiss is he; seize him [and lead him away safely (Mark 14:44)].” (Matthew 26:47, 48; Mark 14:43, 44; Luke 22:47)

Approaching Jesus, Judas greeted him, addressing him as “rabbi,” and then kissed him. The preserved record does not indicate whether Judas responded to Jesus’ asking him why he had come and whether he was betraying the Son of Man with a kiss. (Matthew 26:49, 50; Mark 14:45; Luke 22:48; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 26:50.) At this point, Judas appears to have withdrawn, taking a position with the crowd. (John 18:5)

Jesus was fully aware of what would happen to him. His response to the crowd demonstrated that he, voluntarily and in submission to his Father’s will, chose to enter upon a course of suffering that would terminate in a painful death. Courageously, he walked toward the crowd, asking, “Whom do you seek?” When they said, “Jesus the Nazarene,” he identified himself, “I am,” that is, I am he. (John 18:4, 5) Their reference to him as “the Nazarene” may well have been a slur, for they considered him as no more than a man from Nazareth in Galilee, a city without any distinction.

Jesus’ fearlessness appears to have caught the armed men by surprise. Startled, those in front may suddenly have backed up, causing those behind them to lose their footing and fall. No man among them came toward Jesus. So he again asked them, “Whom are you seeking?” They again responded, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (John 18:6, 7)

“I told you,” he said to them, “I am.” Having left no doubt about his identity as the one whom they wanted to seize, Jesus, like a caring shepherd who looks out for the sheep, spoke up to protect his disciples. “If, then, you are seeking me, let these go.” (John 18:8) Earlier, in prayer, he had said that he had watched over those whom his Father had given him and that none except the “son of destruction” (Judas) had been “destroyed” or lost. (John 17:12) Jesus continued to conduct himself in keeping with his prayer, thereby fulfilling his words, “I have not lost one of those whom you have given me.” (John 18:9)

Becoming aware of what was about to happen to Jesus, the apostles closest to him asked, “Shall we strike with the sword?” With zeal for his Lord, Peter did not wait for an answer, reached for his sword, and struck one of the men. This one, the high priest’s slave Malchus, appears to have succeeded in quickly averting a fatal blow but still lost his right ear. Jesus stopped Peter from continuing to use the sword, telling him, “Put your sword into the sheath. Should I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (Matthew 26:51, 52; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49, 50; John 18:10, 11)

Jesus also told Peter that all who take the sword would perish by the sword. There was no need for fighting, for he could make his appeal for heavenly assistance, asking his Father to supply him immediately with twelve legions (72,000, based on the usual size of 6,000 in a Roman legion) of angels. But this would not have been in harmony with what the scriptures indicated to be his divinely appointed role as the one who would surrender his life. (Isaiah 53:1-8) Jesus added, “How, then, would the scriptures be fulfilled that it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26:52-54) After indicating that matters had gone far enough with Peter’s use of the sword, Jesus healed the injured Malchus. (Luke 22:51)

The Son of God reproved the armed men, revealing that their action under the cover of darkness and as an armed mob had no valid basis. He asked them, “Have you come with swords and clubs as against a bandit to arrest me?” Jesus reminded them that there had been many opportunities for them to seize him. He had publicly taught at the temple and yet they had not arrested him. Now, however, their hour had come and the “power of darkness.” What the Hebrew prophets had foretold respecting him had to be fulfilled. So it was then the time to carry out the evil deed, one that stemmed from unbelief and a willing submission to satanic authority. (Matthew 26:55, 56; Mark 14:48, 49; Luke 22:52, 53)

It may be that the Roman chiliarch (a commander with 1,000 soldiers under him) gave the order to seize Jesus. Roman soldiers and members of the temple guard then took hold of him and bound him. (John 18:12) Fearfully, the apostles abandoned Jesus and fled. (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50)

Notes:

In Matthew 26:50, the last three words of the Greek text literally read, “Upon what are you present.” These words may be rendered as a question. “Why are you here? (CEV) “Why have you come?” (NIV, footnote) Many modern translations, however, represent the Greek text as meaning that Judas should do what he had come to do instead of feigning friendship. “Do what you are here for.” (NJB) “Do what you have come for.” (NAB) “Do what you are here to do.” (REB) “Do what you came to do.” (NCV)

Because different writers were involved, one should not expect to find identical details in their narratives of the same events. Moreover, when there are differences, the highly condensed nature of the accounts does not make it possible to be definitive about how certain specifics are to be understood.

Led Away, Interrogated, Mocked, and Abused (Matthew 26:57-27:1; Mark 14:51-15:1; Luke 22:54-71; John 18:13-27)

Jesus was led away bound, down the western slope of the Mount of Olives, across the Kidron valley, and back to Jerusalem. It was in the city that a young man began to follow the armed crowd. This may have been Mark. Possibly he was awakened by the sound of talking and the tramping of many feet and then quickly put on a linen garment over his naked body, hurried out of the house, and began to follow the crowd. This may have been because he recognized that Jesus was being led away. Certain ones appear to have become aware that the young man was following them, and they attempted to grab hold of him. He, however, slipped out of his garment and ran away naked. (Mark 14:51, 52; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

After this incident, the crowd headed for the residence of the high priest, where Annas would first question Jesus. (John 18:13) According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had appointed Annas (Ananus) as high priest. (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 1) He served in this capacity until the “procurator of Judea,” Valerius Gratus, removed him from office in 15 CE. Although no longer in the position of high priest, Annas continued to wield considerable power and influence. Five of his sons and one son-in-law (Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of Jesus’ arrest) became high priests. (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2; XX, ix, 1) While Caiaphas was then the official high priest, Annas appears to have had rooms in the same residence. This may be deduced from the fact that Peter’s denial occurred in the courtyard of the high priest, and there is no indication that anyone entered more than one courtyard during the course of the night. (John 18:15-18, 24, 25)

In response to Annas’ questioning regarding his disciples and his teaching, Jesus pointed out that he had always spoken openly to the “world” (or the people), doing so in the temple precincts and in the synagogues, where the Jews assembled. After saying that he had not expressed anything in secret, Jesus continued, “Why are you questioning me? Question those who heard what I spoke to them. See! They know what I said.” One of the subordinates (probably a temple guard) then approached Jesus and slapped him, saying, “Is that how you answer the chief priest?” “If I responded wrongly,” Jesus said, “testify about the wrong. But if appropriately, why do you strike me?” (John 18:19-23)

After the interrogation, Annas sent Jesus bound to his son-in-law, Caiaphas the high priest. Earlier, Caiaphas had told the members of the Sanhedrin that it was better for one man to die for the people than for the whole nation to be destroyed. (John 11:49, 50; 18:24)

At the time Jesus was led away, the apostles had scattered. Later, Peter decided to follow the armed crowd, but maintained a safe distance. (Matthew 26:57, 58; Mark 14:53, 54; Luke 22:54) According to John 18:15, another disciple also followed when Peter was on his way to the premises of the high priest. The female servant stationed at the gate there recognized this disciple, for the high priest knew him. She opened the gate, allowing him to follow “Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.” Peter, however, was not permitted to enter but remained standing at the gate. (John 18:16)

Many have assumed that John was the disciple whom the high priest knew. This does not seem very likely. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Peter and John were brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and the other members of the Sanhedrin for questioning. At that time, both of them were perceived to be unlearned and ordinary men, and the members of the high court recognized that they had been associated with Jesus. (Acts 4:5-7, 13) So it seems improbable that an ordinary fisherman from Galilee had the kind of access to the high priest that would have made his word carry sufficient weight for the female servant to allow Peter to enter the courtyard. (John 18:16)

The details in John 18:15 are too limited to draw any definitive conclusions about this other disciple and how it happened that he and Peter were together after Jesus had been taken through the courtyard. One possibility is that the other disciple, as a member of the Sanhedrin, had been summoned by the high priest and, while on his way, had met Peter. Two members of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus and Joseph from Arimathea, were secret disciples, and there may have been others. (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50, 51; John 12:42; 19:38, 39) Members of the Sanhedrin were influential men whose request the female servant would not have hesitated to honor.

Peter had not been with the crowd that brought Jesus in but arrived later. Therefore, the female gatekeeper appears to have thought that Peter could only be one of his followers. So she asked him, “Are you not also one of the disciples of this man?” “I am not,” he replied. (John 18:17; see the Notes section for additional comments.) His answer did not allay her suspicion.

Slaves and subordinates (probably temple guards) who participated in the arrest of Jesus had started a charcoal fire in the courtyard, for it was cold that night. Peter joined those who were warming themselves around the fire. (Luke 22:55; John 18:18)

While he was seated by the bright fire, the female servant (the gatekeeper) looked him over and expressed herself even more definitely, saying, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean [the Nazarene, Mark 14:67].” (Matthew 26:69) “This man also was with him,” she said to those warming themselves around the fire where Peter had seated himself and was waiting to see what would happen to Jesus. When making his denial, Peter claimed that he did not know him and did not understand what the woman was saying. (Matthew 26:69, 70; Mark 14:66-68; Luke 22:56, 57)

At the time, Peter may not have thought that he had denied his Lord, but may have felt that the woman did not really know what she was talking about and that his response would end any further discussion. By his answer, however, he had committed himself to a lie and had failed to put an end to the suspicion about him.

Peter withdrew to the forecourt (an area closer to the gate) or to the gatehouse. According to the reading of Mark 14:68 in many manuscripts, a cock crowed at this time, but there is no mention of this in the oldest extant manuscripts. A little while later, the female servant again noticed Peter, telling those standing there, “This is one of them,” meaning that he was one of Christ’s disciples, but he denied it. Another female servant spoke up, “This one was with Jesus the Nazarene.” Adding an oath, Peter responded, “I do not know the man.” (Matthew 26:71, 72; Mark 14:69, 70) A third person, a man, said, “You also are one of them,” that is, one of Jesus’ disciples. Then followed Peter’s denial, “Man, I am not.” (Luke 22:58)

John 18:25 could suggest that Peter returned to the courtyard, stood there to warm himself, and was again confronted with the question, “Are you not also one of his disciples?” He denied it.

While Peter was in the courtyard, the chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin were trying to find witnesses who would confirm the false charges that would justify having Jesus put to death. Although many witnesses presented their testimony, the members of the Jewish high court could not use their words as a basis for sentencing him to death. This was because the witnesses presented conflicting false testimony, with no two being in agreement. Finally, two witnesses came forward, claiming that Jesus had said, “I can break down this temple of God and rebuild it in three days.” Again, however, their testimony disagreed. (Matthew 26:59-61; Mark 14:56-59; see the Notes section for additional information.)

After all the testimony had been presented, the high priest stood up and directed his questions to Jesus, “Are you not answering? What are these [men] testifying against you?” Jesus remained silent, making no reply whatsoever. Caiaphas then put him under oath by the living God (“the Blessed One” [Mark 14:61]), demanding that Jesus reply whether he was the Christ, the Son of God. (Matthew 26:62, 63; Mark 14:60) Jesus’ response (“You have said [it]”) appears to be repeated according to its intended meaning (“I am”) in Mark 14:62. He applied the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 7:13 to himself, saying, “From now on, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power [the Powerful One] and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62) Thereby Jesus indicated that they would not see him again as a human but that he would return from heaven as the exalted one on whom the Almighty’s favor rested (as represented by his being seated at his right hand, the most honorable position).

In an outward display of horror, Caiaphas ripped his garments and said, “He has blasphemed! What need do we still have of witnesses? See! You have now heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” The members of the high court who accepted this basis for rendering a verdict decided that Jesus was deserving of death. (Matthew 26:65, 66; Mark 14:63, 64)

While testimony was being presented against him, Jesus was at a location above the courtyard. After about an hour had passed after Peter had denied Jesus a second time, he was again accused of being his disciple. (Luke 22:59) From the position where Jesus was standing, he, upon turning his head, could see Peter. (Luke 22:61)

Those who had heard Peter speaking in the courtyard recognized his Galilean accent. Therefore, certain ones there confronted him, saying, “Surely you are also one of them [Jesus’ disciples], for even your speech [accent] makes it evident.” (Matthew 26:73) One of them said to the others, “Surely this [man] also was with him, for he is also a Galilean.” (Luke 22:59) According to Mark 14:70, certain ones said to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are also a Galilean.” A relative of the high priest’s slave whose ear Peter had cut off, spoke up, “Did I not see you in the garden with him [Jesus]?” (John 18:26) Peter called down evil upon himself, declaring with an oath that he did not “know the man.” While he was still speaking, denying that he knew anything about things being said, a cock crowed the second time. Jesus turned to look at Peter. Their eyes met, and Peter recalled Jesus’ words that he would disown him three times before the crowing of a cock. Emotionally overcome by the recognition of his having failed his beloved Lord, he left the courtyard and gave way to bitter weeping. (Matthew 26:74, 75; Mark 14:71, 72; Luke 22:60-62; John 18:27)

After the members of the high court had decided that Jesus was deserving of death, he was hit, spit upon, and subjected to other abuse. Having blindfolded him, certain ones slapped his face or hit it with their fists and then mockingly said, “Prophesy to us, you Christ [Messiah]! Who is the one who struck you?” In many other ways they continued to blaspheme him. (Matthew 26:67, 68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-65)

Early the next morning, the entire Jewish high court (the Sanhedrin composed of the chief priests, elders of the people, and scribes) met to establish Jesus’ guilt legally and to determine how to have the sentence against him carried out. (Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66) Luke 22:67-71 briefly summarizes what then occurred. Jesus was asked whether he was the Messiah (the Christ). He replied, “Even if I told you, you would definitely not believe. And if I were to question you, you would definitely not answer.” This response suggests that they would not give an answer to any question that would point to his being the Messiah. (Luke 22:67, 68) The certainty of their refusal to believe and to answer him is emphasized in the Greek text by the use of two words (ou mé, meaning “not, not”).

Jesus again alluded to the words of Daniel 7:13, saying, “From now on, however, the Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God.” Asked if he was the Son of God, Jesus said, “You are saying that I am.” This reply implied that they would not need to raise the question if they knew for a certainty that he could not possibly be this one. At the same time, Jesus, with respect to his identity, confirmed the truth inherent in the question. The members of the high court then decided that they had no need of any witnesses, as he had condemned himself by claiming to be the Son of God. (Luke 22:69-71)

Notes:

In Mark 14:51, 52, the Greek term for what the young man was wearing is sindón and designates linen of good quality. This could refer either to a linen cloth or a light linen garment. Numerous translations read, “linen cloth,” suggesting nothing more than a loin cloth.

In John 18:17, Peter’s first denial is mentioned before Annas questioned Jesus, and the other two denials are represented as occurring later. The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to be complementary and provide different details. Based on all the recorded narrations, it seems that the female servant at the gate was not satisfied with Peter’s initial response and began to talk to others. Altogether, he was confronted by various ones at three different times, and on each of these occasions he responded with denials.

Mark 14:58 presents a more detailed version of the statement about the temple. “I will break down this temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.” Both Mark 14:58 and Matthew 26:61 convey the substance of the testimony. Moreover, the men would have spoken individually and not in the Greek language preserved in the text. Therefore, differences in the narration should rightly be expected.

Ancient Jewish regulations prohibited conducting judicial proceedings during the night and on the Sabbath or on festival days. It appears that the members of the Jewish high court chose to set the usual regulations aside on the basis of the principle that extraordinary circumstances required extraordinary measures.

The high priest Caiaphas had earlier stated that it was better for one man to die than for the whole nation to be destroyed. (John 11:50) Because the majority of the members of the Sanhedrin regarded Jesus as a serious threat, they doubtless felt justified in acting according to what they thought the extraordinary situation demanded.

The kind of reasoning they could have followed might be similar to what is expressed in the Tosefta (Shabbat, 15:17) about action that is undertaken on the Sabbath to prevent the possible loss of life. Reference is made to Exodus 22:2, which passage states that a householder who killed a thief who had broken into his home at night would not be bloodguilty. After indicating that the safety of the householder would have been a matter of doubt (it being not absolutely certain that the thief would have killed the householder), the Tosefta continues, “Now if they kill one man to save the life of another which is subject only to doubt as to its safety, is it not logical that they should override the prohibitions of the Sabbath to save a life which is in doubt as to its safety?” (Neusner’s English translation) According to the reasoning of Caiaphas, the safety of the whole nation was at stake, providing a basis for overriding the usual legal requirements.

Before Pilate and Herod (Matthew 27:2-30; Mark 15:1-19; Luke 23:1-23; John 18:28-19:16)

After the Sanhedrin had determined that Jesus was deserving of death, the chief priests, other members of the court, and subordinates (probably Levite temple guards) led Jesus as a bound criminal to Pilate, the governor. Roman officials started their work day early in the morning. Emperor Vespasian (69 to 79 CE), for example, began his day before dawn. So it would not have been unusual for Jesus to have been brought to Pilate at an early hour. (Matthew 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:28; 19:6; for more information about Pilate, see the Notes section.)

The chief priests and the other Jews did not enter the praetorium, where Pilate had his official residence while in Jerusalem. They were concerned about not contracting ceremonial defilement, which would have prevented them from eating the Passover. (John 18:28; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Ironically, although they had been willing to override legal requirements in order to condemn Jesus to death, they scrupled about external purity.

The praetorium may have been the palace Herod the Great had built. According to Josephus, Gessius Florus (War, II, xiv, 8), who served as governor or procurator at a later time, did use the palace when he was in Jerusalem.

Probably in response to a message conveyed to him, Pilate came out to speak to the Jews, asking them what charge they were making against Jesus. (John 18:29) They implied that there was no reason for Pilate to inquire about an accusation, for they would not be turning over to him a man other than a criminal. (John 18:30) When Pilate told them to judge Jesus according to their own law, they responded that it was illegal for them to execute anyone. By seeking to have Pilate issue the death sentence, they served to fulfill Jesus’ words regarding the kind of death he would die, that is, as one elevated and crucified in an upright position. (John 18:31, 32; compare Jesus’ earlier words [John 3:14, 15; 12:32, 33].)

It appears that, at this point, they set forth charges that were designed to incite Pilate, as the representative of Rome, to take action. They claimed that Jesus had inflamed the nation, forbidden the payment of taxes to Caesar, and proclaimed himself to be the Messianic king or ruler. In this way, they portrayed him as a dangerous seditionist who posed a serious threat to Roman authority. (Luke 23:2)

Pilate had Jesus come into the praetorium for questioning, likely having Roman soldiers leading him. He asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (John 18:33)

Jesus countered with the question, “Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others told you about me?” Pilate’s response suggests that he had no firsthand knowledge. He was not a Jew, and it was members of the Jewish nation and the chief priests who had delivered Jesus into his hands. Pilate asked, “What did you do?” (John 18:34, 35)

In his reply, Jesus revealed that he posed no threat to the authority of the Romans, explaining that his kingdom was “no part of this world.” It was not a rule that originated with or depended upon any human authority. If this had been the case, Jesus continued, “My subordinates would have fought.” Their reason for engaging in armed conflict would have been to prevent his falling into the hands of the Jews who opposed him. “But,” as Jesus added, “my kingdom is not from here,” indicating that it had no link to any human action or source. Pilate asked, “Are you a king?” Jesus’ reply, “You are saying that I am a king,” may imply that Pilate’s question acknowledged the possibility that he was a king. The fact that Jesus did not deny it could have served as an affirmative answer to the question. (John 18:36, 37; see the Notes section for comments regarding Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, and Luke 23:3.)

Nevertheless, he made it clear that his purpose was not to establish an earthly kingdom. He had been born and come into the world “to testify to the truth,” and persons who were “of the truth,” taking their stand for it, would listen to him. (John 18:37) Pilate would not have understood what he meant. Jesus had made known the truth about his Father and how to become a part of the realm where he would be ruling by his Father’s appointment. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus was the embodiment of the truth and in a position to reveal his Father in a manner than no one else could.

The context does not indicate how Pilate’s question (“What is truth?”) is to be understood. (John 18:38) Perhaps he intended it as a dismissive response, reflecting no further interest and no desire to be identified as a person who listened to the truth Jesus could have made known to him.

Pilate went out to the Jews who were waiting for his decision regarding Jesus and told them that he had found nothing against him. (John 18:38) The chief priests and Jewish elders objected, insisting that the teaching Jesus had begun in Galilee and carried on in Jerusalem had stirred up the people throughout Judea. Despite their continuing to level many charges against him, he remained silent. Pilate asked Jesus whether he did not hear the accusations being made against him. The fact that he said nothing in response filled Pilate with wonderment. After Jesus’ accusers mentioned Galilee, Pilate confirmed that Jesus was a Galilean and under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. At the time, Herod was in Jerusalem for the Passover. Probably in an effort to avoid having to render the judgment Jesus’ accusers were seeking, Pilate sent him to Herod. (Matthew 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5; Luke 23:4-7)

Earlier, Herod had imprisoned John the Baptist and then, in fulfillment of an oath-bound promise to the daughter of Herodias, had him executed. When news about Jesus’ miracles reached Herod, he concluded that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead and was performing powerful deeds. (Matthew 14:1-10) Therefore, upon having Jesus sent to him, Herod was delighted. He had wanted to see him for some time and hoped to observe him perform some impressive sign. Herod questioned Jesus extensively, and the chief priests and scribes, who apparently were among those who had taken him to Herod, made strong accusations. Jesus, however, remained silent. (Luke 23:8-10)

Probably at Herod’s instigation, his guard mocked Jesus, dressing him in a splendid robe as if he were a king. Apparently disappointed at not having witnessed some spectacular sign and probably displeased with Jesus’ silence, Herod sent him back to Pilate. This development ended the hostility that had existed between Pilate and Herod, because Herod likely regarded being consulted regarding Jesus as an acknowledgment of his authority over Galilee. The enmity between them may have arisen when Pilate earlier had killed certain Galileans (Herod’s subjects) while they were sacrificing at the temple in Jerusalem. (Luke 13:1; 23:11, 12)

After Jesus had been sent back to him, Pilate addressed the chief priests and the other prominent Jews who were with them. He told them that, although they had charged Jesus with inciting the people to revolt, neither he nor Herod had found any evidence to support accusations that he was deserving of death. Seemingly, in an effort to satisfy their desire for Jesus to be punished, Pilate said that he would chastise him (probably by submitting him to a flogging) and then release him. (Luke 23:13-16)

His effort to placate Jesus’ accusers was unjust. Pilate had not found him guilty of any crime and neither had Herod. Still, he continued his political maneuvering, likely with the intent of avoiding an uproar. Based on his examination of Jesus, Pilate discerned that the chief priests had handed him over out of envy and not because of any crime. He may have seen that the prominent Jews resented the influence he had among the people and, for this reason, considered him a threat to their position and authority. (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10)

At the time, a notorious seditionist and bandit named Barabbas was being held in confinement and apparently was to be executed. Barabbas was guilty of murder. (Matthew 27:15, 16; Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19) Probably believing that if they had a choice between the release of Barabbas and Jesus, the Jews would ask for Jesus to be released. Based on a custom that had developed at the time of the Passover, Pilate presented this choice to those who had meanwhile arrived to petition for the release of a prisoner. (See the Notes section regarding Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6-8; Luke 23:17, and John 18:39.) The chief priests succeeded in inciting the petitioners against Jesus and to request the release of Barabbas. (Matthew 27:17, 20, 21; Mark 15:6-11; Luke 23:18; John 18:39, 40; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 27:16, 17.) In the case of the petitioners, they may well have been inclined toward wanting an end to Roman rule. If so, their sympathies would have been with Barabbas who had acted violently in keeping with his fanatical opposition to Roman authority.

Desiring to release Jesus, Pilate addressed the crowd a second time, calling out to them, “So what shall I do with Jesus, the one called Christ [king of the Jews (Mark 15:12)]?” They shouted, “Crucify, crucify him.” (Matthew 27:22; Mark 15:13; Luke 23:20, 21)

For a third time, Pilate called out to them, “Why, what evil did he commit? No guilt [meriting] death did I find in him. So I will chastise him [probably by flogging] and release him.” They refused to yield, demanding with loud shouting that Jesus be crucified. (Matthew 27:23; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:22, 23)

All of Pilate’s efforts failed to gain the crowd’s consent to release Jesus. Those who had brought him and the others who had come to request the release of a prisoner became more adamant in their cry for crucifixion and were on the verge of rioting. Instead of upholding justice, Pilate, for political reasons, gave in to their demands. With an outward gesture, he tried to absolve himself of guilt when handing down an unjust verdict. He washed his hands in the presence of the crowd and said, “I am innocent of this [man’s] blood. You must see [to it].” They responded with the words, “His blood come upon us and upon our children.” Thereafter he released Barabbas and handed Jesus over to Roman soldiers to be flogged. (Matthew 27:24-26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24, 25)

This flogging was an extreme form of torture. The whip consisted of a handle with several leather cords to which pieces of bone or metal were attached. A severe flogging could result in death, as the bone or metal ripped into the flesh and caused serious bleeding.

Besides flogging Jesus, Roman soldiers also mocked him. They stripped off his garments and clothed him with a “scarlet” or “purple” cloak (purple being the color of garments commonly worn by royalty and other officials). On his head, they placed a crown made from thorns. In imitation of his having a royal scepter, they had him hold a reed in his right hand. With another reed, soldiers may have taken turns hitting him over the head, likely causing the thorns to penetrate his forehead. Besides slapping him in the face and spitting at it, the soldiers kneeled before him, addressing him as “king of the Jews.” (Matthew 27:27-30; Mark 15:16-19; John 19:1-3; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 27:28; Mark 15:17; Luke 23:11, and John 19:2.)

It appears that the Jews who wanted Jesus executed chose to remain outside the praetorium until they were certain that he would not be released. After the soldiers had ended the flogging and mockery, Pilate again came out of the praetorium to address the Jews, telling them that he would bring Jesus out to them so that they would know that he found no guilt in him. It seems likely that soldiers then brought Jesus outside. He still wore the reddish garment and the crown of thorns. Pilate then said, “See! The man.” (John 19:4, 5)

The context does not reveal how these words should be understood. In view of the abuse to which Jesus had been submitted, his appearance must have been such as would have evoked sympathy in persons who had retained their humanity. So the expression “the man” could have meant the pitiable fellow or a mere man who posed no threat. There is also a possibility that Pilate was impressed by the control Jesus had exercised in not responding to false charges and by the dignity which he had maintained while being abused and mocked. If these aspects prompted Pilate’s words, the expression “the man” would signify a man in the noblest sense.

Unmoved by any feelings of sympathy, the chief priests and subordinates (probably temple guards) shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” Having found no guilt in Jesus, Pilate responded, “Take him and crucify him yourselves.” In their reply, those who wanted Jesus crucified now revealed that their previous accusations were false. They now said that, according to their law, he should be put to death because he claimed to be the Son of God. (John 19:6, 7)

On hearing the words “Son of God,” Pilate gave way to superstitious fear. (John 19:8) A contributory factor may have been his wife’s dream. While he was sitting on the judgment seat deliberating, she had sent a message to him, telling him to have nothing to do with the innocent man. This was on account of having suffered much in a dream because of him. (Matthew 27:19)

After entering the praetorium with Jesus, Pilate asked him, “From where are you?” When he did not answer, Pilate continued, “Are you not speaking to me? Do you not know that I have the power to release you and the power to crucify you?” “You would have no power over me,” said Jesus, “unless it had been given to you from above. Therefore, the one who delivered me over to you has greater sin.” (John 19:9-11)

If it had not been his Father’s will for Jesus to surrender his life, Pilate would have been powerless to do anything to him. What was about to take place would occur according to God’s will, and so, by divine permission, Pilate would be exercising the power to hand Jesus over to be crucified. This would not free him from guilt, for he would be acting unjustly toward one whom he knew to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, Pilate’s sin would not be as great as that of the one who had been responsible for handing Jesus over to him. The context does not identify this one. Jesus may have meant the betrayer Judas, the high priest Caiaphas, or the chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin as a corporate body.

After the interchange with Jesus, Pilate still wanted to release him and again addressed the Jews who were waiting outside the praetorium. They then forced him into a position where he had to consider the preservation of his own office and even his own life. “If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.” Thus they insisted that releasing Jesus would be an act of disloyalty to Caesar — an offense meriting severe punishment. (John 19:12; see the Notes section regarding how seriously Tiberius took any slight to his imperial dignity.)

Pilate brought Jesus outside. He sat down on the judgment seat located at the place known as the “Stone Pavement” or, “in Hebrew, Gabbatha.” It was about the sixth hour. (See the Notes section regarding the “sixth hour” mentioned in John 19:14.) Possibly based on the reckoning the chief priests used in that particular year, it was the day designated for the preparation of the Passover (Nisan 14). In response to Pilate’s words (“See! Your king!”), the Jews who were there shouted, “Away! Away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate called out. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests replied. It was then that Pilate turned Jesus over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified. (John 19:13-16) They clothed Jesus with his own garments and led him away. (Matthew 27:31; Mark 15:20)

After word reached Judas that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and, taking with him the 30 silver pieces, went to the chief priests and elders who were then in the temple precincts. When he acknowledged that he had sinned by betraying “righteous blood,” they responded dismissively. “What is that to us? You must see [to it].” Thus they revealed that Judas had only been their convenient tool. What he had done was his concern, not theirs. (Matthew 27:3, 4)

Judas then threw down the silver pieces somewhere in the temple precincts, left, and hanged himself. As for the chief priests, they scrupled about what they should do with the money. Because blood money was involved, they considered themselves legally bound not to put the silver pieces into the temple treasury. After conferring, they decided to use the money to buy a potter’s field (a property having little value) for use as a place to bury foreigners. (Matthew 27:5-7)

This particular burial place came to be known as “Field of Blood.” The reason for the name appears to have been its association with blood money and the suicide of Judas. (Matthew 27:8; see the Notes section regarding Acts 1:18, 19.)

The developments in connection with Judas paralleled expressions recorded in the prophets. Verses 9 and 10 of Matthew 27 conflate words from the prophets Jeremiah and Zechariah, attributing the whole to Jeremiah (possibly because he was the earlier prophet). “Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty silver pieces, the price for the one whom the sons of Israel had priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord had commanded me.’”

Jeremiah had been directed to buy a field from Hanamel, and he did, on one occasion, go to a potter’s house to observe him at work. (Jeremiah 18:1-4; 32:6-9) Specific mention of 30 silver pieces is made in Zechariah 11:12, 13, where the prophet’s wages are stipulated as being that amount.

Notes

In John 18:28, the nature of the defilement is not revealed. It could not have been a defilement that would have ended at sundown after the legal requirements for purification had been followed.

The night on which Jesus observed the Passover with his disciples was followed by the Sabbath at sundown of the next day. There is a possibility that, in years when this was the case, the Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, reckoned Nisan 14 as Nisan 13. This could explain why those who brought Jesus to Pilate (or at least a significant number among them) had not as yet eaten the Passover meal. A definitive conclusion, however, is not possible on the basis of the available information in ancient sources.

Based on John 18:33-37, Matthew (27:11) Mark (15:2), and Luke (23:3) present a condensed version of the interchange between Pilate and Jesus. Therefore, Jesus’ answer, “You are saying [it],” may be regarded as being the response to Pilate’s asking him the second time about being a king.

The account in Mark 15:6-8 adds the detail that Jewish petitioners came to ask for the release of a prisoner, whereas Matthew 27:15 only refers to the governor’s custom (at the time of the festival) to release the prisoner whom the crowd wanted. John 18:39 represents Pilate as saying, “You have a custom that I should release someone to you at the Passover.” The difference between Matthew 27:15 and John 18:39 is a one of perspective. It was customary for the Jews to have a prisoner released to them at the time of the festival, and Pilate’s custom was to grant the release. The oldest extant manuscripts of Luke 23 do not include verse 17, where the reference is to Pilate’s having to release someone to the Jews at the time of the festival.

In Matthew 27:16, 17, a number of manuscripts refer to Barabbas as “Jesus Barabbas.”

A partially preserved inscription found at Caesarea in 1961 refers to Pilate as “prefect of Judea.” The first-century Roman historian Tacitus (Annals, XV, 44), however, referred to Pilate as procurator. This may be because “procurator” was the title by which later Roman governors of Judea were known.

It was in the year 26 CE that Pilate assumed his official duties as governor of Judea. It was in the same year that Tiberius transferred his residence to the island of Capri. Until his execution in 31 CE, Sejanus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, functioned as de facto ruler. The ancient historian Dio Cassius (Book LVIII, v, 1; translated by Earnest Cary) wrote regarding him, “Sejanus was so great a person by reason both of his excessive haughtiness and of his vast power, that, to put it briefly, he himself seemed to be the emperor and Tiberius a kind of island potentate.” Therefore, although an appointee of Tiberius, Pilate may have owed his elevation to Sejanus.

If so, the execution of Sejanus would have made Pilate’s position more vulnerable whenever any accusation might be made against him. Without any support from Sejanus, Pilate’s situation would have been precarious. While Sejanus exercised power, anyone close to him could practically be assured of the emperor’s friendship. (Tacitus, Annals, VI, 8)

Tiberius acted on very little evidence when seeking to have the death penalty imposed for laesa majestas (injured majesty). An excerpt attributed to Dio Cassius (though the exact source is not positively known) reads, “Tiberius put to death a man of consular rank, accusing him of having carried in his bosom a coin bearing the emperor’s likeness when he retired to a latrine.” The only thing Tiberius said to him was, “With my coin in your bosom you turned aside into foul and noisome places and relieved your bowels.” (This extract is found at the end of Book LVIII of Dio’s Roman History, translated by Earnest Cary.)

Pilate must have known how seriously Tiberius took any report suggesting that his majesty had been slighted. Therefore, for word to reach Tiberius that he was no “friend of Caesar” would have put him in a precarious situation.

Although the Scriptures refer to a crowd as crying out for Jesus to be crucified, the number of men involved would have been a small minority of those who were then in Jerusalem. The only ones the chief priests needed to persuade to call for the release of Barabbas were men who had come to petition Pilate for the release of a Jewish prisoner. As men with this kind of personal interest in the cause of imprisoned Jews whom the Romans regarded as criminals, they would have been more readily inclined to believe the chief priests that Jesus posed a threat to the nation and would in no way further its welfare.

The Roman soldiers, when making sport of Jesus, probably used a worn-out item of dress that mockingly resembled a purple garment. (Mark 15:17; John 19:2) They themselves wore red cloaks. An old, faded one could have served their purpose. This would fit the words of Matthew 27:28, where the reference is to a scarlet or red cloak. The Greek term for “cloak” chlamys can, in fact, designate the kind of cloaks Roman soldiers wore. In the case of the mockery staged at Herod’s instigation, Jesus wore a “bright” or splendid garment. This would have been an elegant robe Herod made available. (Luke 23:11)

In John 19:14, the word hos (about) qualifies the “sixth hour,” identifying it as an approximate time before noon. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 1:4) The context does not make it possible to determine just how long before noon Pilate said to the Jews outside the praetorium, “See! Your king.” Based on specifics included in the other accounts (including the mention of a darkness lasting from the sixth hour until the ninth hour after Jesus had been crucified), the late morning hour could have been between an hour or two before noon. (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44)

In conjunction with the “preparation of the Passover,” all leaven was burned at the start of the sixth hour. This may be why the sixth hour is mentioned in John 19:14, with a possible implied link to Jesus as the sinless king who would die for the people as the “Lamb of God.” (John 1:29)

According to Acts 1:19, the residents of Jerusalem came to know about the field and its association with the death of Judas Iscariot. In their language, they called it Hakeldamách (Akeldama), meaning “Field of Blood.” In Acts 1:18, the 30 silver pieces are referred to as “wages of unrighteousness,” for Judas’ betrayal was an evil act. What he had done in betraying Jesus and then throwing the silver pieces down in the temple precincts provided the occasion for the purchase of the field. This may be why the Acts account attributes the buying of the field to him. Regarding his death, Acts 1:18 indicates that he burst open in the his midsection and that his intestines spilled out. Possibly he hanged himself from a tree limb and either the rope or the limb broke, causing him to fall on jagged rocks below.

Although having been an intimate associate of Jesus, Judas could not in any way justify what he had done but was forced to acknowledge that he had made himself guilty of betraying “righteous blood.” (Matthew 27:4)

Crucifixion (Matthew 27:31-56; Mark 15:20-41; Luke 23:26-49; John 19:17-37)

After having been sentenced, Jesus was led away to the location where Roman soldiers would crucify him. Initially, he carried the beam (staurós). (John 19:16, 17) Eventually, however, his strength seems to have given out totally. Likely the extreme abuse and torture to which he had been submitted, coupled with much blood loss, had left him in a very weak state. At the time he could no longer carry the beam, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus) happened to be coming from the direction of a field outside the city. Seemingly, upon noticing him, the Roman soldiers impressed him into service, forcing him to carry the beam behind Jesus. (Matthew 27:31, 32; Mark 15:20, 21; Luke 23:26; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

As Jesus walked to the place where he would die, many people followed, including women. Overcome with emotion, the women beat themselves on their breasts and wailed for him. Turning around, Jesus spoke to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me. Instead, weep for yourselves and your children, for, see! days are coming when they will say, ‘Fortunate [are] the barren women and the wombs that did not bear and the breasts that did not nurse!’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall over us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For, if they do this when the wood is green, what will occur when it is dry?” (Luke 23:27-31)

Jesus’ words anticipated the horrific suffering that would befall everyone in Jerusalem during the time of the Roman siege. So intense would be the distress from famine and war that people would wish that they could be so completely removed and concealed from the calamity as if mountains and hills were to cover them.

The proverbial reference to the green wood (or a living tree through which the sap continued to circulate) may be understood to apply to the Jewish nation. Within it, many godly persons grieved on account of the injustices they witnessed, and numerous influential men reflected a moderate disposition. Yet, despite the good existing in the nation, a grave injustice had been committed. The situation would prove to be far worse, however, when the nation, particularly as represented by Jerusalem (its center for worship) would come to be like dry wood or a dead tree. At that time, the absence of the wholesome influence of a devout remnant and of influential members of the nation who resisted the kind of fanaticism displayed by those who had requested the release of a murderous seditionist (Barabbas, an enemy of Rome), and who had shouted for Jesus to be crucified, would inevitably lead to civil strife and conflict with Rome, and the people would suffer.

Besides Jesus, two other condemned men were taken to the place where they would be crucified. (Luke 23:32) The location was called “Golgotha,” meaning “Skull Place.” (Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22) There Jesus was offered wine to drink. According to Matthew 27:34, this wine was mixed with “gall” (cholé, a very bitter or unpleasant-tasting substance), and Mark 15:23 indicates that the wine contained myrrh. Possibly the gall was myrrh, or the wine was mixed with both gall and myrrh. As a drugged wine, the drink would have had a stupefying effect, serving to somewhat dull the pain inflicted during the crucifixion. Upon tasting the wine, Jesus refused to drink it, likely because of wanting to maintain full control of his senses as the sinless “Lamb of God.” The Scriptures do not mention who offered the drink to Jesus. It may have been one of the compassionate Jewish women, for the Romans did permit them to give drugged wine to the condemned.

After the Roman soldiers stripped Jesus of his clothing, they nailed him to the beam and, as he had foretold, lifted him up. Two bandits were also crucified, one on his right and the other one on his left. (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33; John 19:18; see the Notes section regarding crucifixion and Mark 15:25.) According to many manuscript readings of Mark 15:28 (but not the oldest extant ones), this development fulfilled the words of scripture (Isaiah 53:12), “And with [among the, LXX] lawless ones he was counted.”

In Luke 23:34, many manuscripts include Jesus’ prayer, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” The oldest extant manuscript (P75 of the late second century or the early third century), fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, and other manuscripts do not include these words. If not original, the prayer would still reflect the loving and forgiving spirit of God’s Son, for the disciple Stephen expressed himself to this effect before his death from stoning. (Acts 7:60)

The charge against Jesus (identifying his crime as being that of “King of the Jews”) had been posted above his head. (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19; see the Notes section for additional comments.) Pilate had written it in three languages (Latin [the official language of Rome], Greek [the commonly used language in the Greco-Roman world], and Hebrew [the language of the native Jews]). The writing was large enough to be readable from a distance. Many Jews did read the words, for the location was near Jerusalem. After Pilate had written the charge, the chief priests objected, saying, “Do not write ‘the King of the Jews,’ but that “he said, I am King of the Jews.” Pilate, though, had made a legal decision, which he refused to alter. “What I have written,” he said, “I have written.” (John 19:19-22)

After the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they divided his robe (himátion, an outer garment) into four parts, with each soldier taking a part. This reveals that four soldiers were in charge of the crucifixion. They did not want to divide the tunic (chitón, a garment worn next to the skin), for it was a seamless garment, having been woven in one piece. For this reason, they decided to cast lots to determine which of them would get it. Their action corresponded to the words of Psalm 22:18(19) (21:19, LXX), “They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothes they cast lots.” Because this was indeed what the soldiers did, the words of the psalmist were fulfilled, finding their fullest significance in what happened in the case of God’s Son. (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23, 24) Thereafter the soldiers seated themselves and kept watch. (Matthew 27:36)

At the crucifixion site, chief priests, prominent Jews, and passersby began to blaspheme Jesus. Among them were those who mockingly wagged their heads and said, “You who would break down the temple and in three days rebuild [it], save yourself. If you are [the] Son of God, come down from the staurós.” The chief priests, scribes, and certain elders of the nation participated in scoffing at him, saying, “Others he saved; himself he cannot save. He is King of Israel. Let him now descend from the staurós, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God. If [God] wants him, let him now rescue him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’” (Matthew 27:39-43; Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:35; compare Psalm 22:7[8], 8[9], 17(18) and see the Notes section for additional comments.)

It is noteworthy that, even in mockery, the chief priests and other prominent Jews acknowledged that Jesus had done good works. He had “saved” others or brought relief to them. Thus, unwittingly, they condemned themselves as persons who hated him without cause.

The Roman soldiers also shared in making fun of Jesus. They approached, offered him vinegar (sour wine), and said, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself.” (Luke 23:36, 37)

Initially, both of the malefactors appear to have been emotionally caught up in siding with those who hurled abuses at Jesus. (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32) One of them then had a change of heart when he heard the other one say, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us.” He responded to his fellow malefactor, “Do you not fear God, since you are now experiencing the same judgment? And we rightly so, for we deserve the retribution we are receiving for our acts, but he did nothing wrong.” Directing his words to Jesus, he asked him to remember him upon coming into his kingdom. On that dark day, the very day when he endured physical suffering and abusive mockery and outwardly possessed nothing suggestive of royal splendor, Jesus assured the repentant wrongdoer that he would be with him in paradise. Whereas the chief priests and other prominent Jews scoffed, the evildoer perceived in Jesus the purity and dignity of Israel’s foretold king and he responded with genuine faith. He believed, and died with the comforting assurance that he would be favorably remembered by his king. (Luke 23:39-43; see the Notes section regarding Luke 23:43.) What the repentant wrongdoer understood being in paradise with Jesus would mean for him is not revealed in the account. In view of his request to be remembered, it would appear that the fulfillment of the promise would relate to entrance into the paradisaical realm where Jesus is king by his Father’s appointment.

Not all who were standing at the site of Golgotha participated in the hateful mockery. They looked on with intense grief. The disciple whom Jesus deeply loved, the apostle John, was there and so was Mary. Her pain would have been indescribable. As Simeon had foretold years earlier, her experience proved to be comparable to being pierced with a sword. (Luke 2:35) Other women with Mary included Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife of Clopas (the mother of James the less [or younger] and Joses [Joseph]), and Salome (the mother of James and John, the wife of Zebedee, and the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary). Additionally, present were many other women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee and had attended to his needs. (Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 23:49; John 19:25)

With her nephew John at her side, Mary approached close enough to Jesus to be able to hear him speak. When he saw his mother and John, the disciple whom he loved and implicitly trusted, he lovingly arranged to have him care for her. Directing his words to Mary, Jesus said, “Woman, see! Your son.” His words to John were, “See! Your mother.” From that “hour” or time onward, John assumed the role of a son to Mary and apparently had her live where he did. (John 19:26, 27)

About the sixth hour (or after the noon hour), an extraordinary darkness settled over the land and lasted until the ninth hour (or three o’clock in the afternoon). About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out loudly, Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani, meaning “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” With this outcry of the psalmist (Psalm 22:1[2]), Jesus revealed his complete innocence and the deep sense of pain from having been forsaken, for his Father had not intervened to spare him from experiencing an agonizing end to his life. The “why” implied that he had not committed any wrong that would have been deserving of the state in which he found himself. (Matthew 27:45, 46; Mark 15:33, 34; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Bystanders misunderstood Jesus’ words. In view of his intense pain and his extremely stressed bodily condition, he may not have been able to speak clearly. Moreover, his Galilean accent may have been a contributory factor. The bystanders concluded that he called for Elijah to come. (Matthew 27:47; Mark 15:35)

According to John 19:28, Jesus also cried out, “I thirst.” The reason for his saying this is prefaced with an explanation. He knew that everything had been accomplished and so said what he did to fulfill “the scripture.” His words, “I thirst,” led to the fulfillment of Psalm 69:21(22), “For my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” (Psalm 68:22, LXX)

One of those nearby, probably a Roman soldier, acted quickly. He ran to a vessel filled with vinegar (sour wine). After filling a sponge with the vinegar, he placed it on a reed, intending to provide Jesus with a little relief by offering him a drink. Others tried to delay him from doing this, saying, “Let [him] be. Let us see whether Elijah is coming to save him.” (Matthew 27:48, 49; Mark 15:36; John 19:29; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Besides saying “it is finished” after receiving the vinegar, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” These words paralleled those of the psalmist (Psalm 31:5[6]; 30:6, LXX) and indicated that Jesus was entrusting his life breath to his Father, looking to him to restore him to life. Jesus then bowed his head, and yielded up his life breath. (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:30)

At that time, the thick curtain separating the Holy from the Most Holy of the temple ripped in two from top to bottom. A significant earthquake split rocks and opened up tombs. The shaking of the ground, coupled with the extraordinary darkness that had begun about three hours earlier, caused the Roman soldiers to be fearful. The centurion, the soldier with the highest rank of the four, was moved to glorify God, acknowledging that Jesus must have been a righteous man, the Son of God. (Matthew 27:51-54; Mark 15:38, 39; Luke 23:47; see the Notes section for comments on Matthew 27:52, 53.)

Other observers beat their breasts in grief and left the scene. At a distance stood acquaintances of Jesus and women who had followed him from Galilee. Among the women were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less (the younger) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome (the mother of Zebedee’s sons). Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not mentioned as being among them. This suggests that John, though himself later returning, had kindly conducted her away from the scene so that she would not be pained to an extent that would have been difficult for her to bear. (Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 23:48, 49)

Not wanting to have the men remain crucified until after the start of the Sabbath at sundown, the prominent Jews requested Pilate to hasten their death. They asked him to direct that their legs be broken and that their dead bodies to be taken away. John 19:31 refers to that particular Sabbath as being “great,” possibly because the Sabbath, according to their reckoning that year, coincided with the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Bread (Nisan 15).

When the soldiers received the order to break the legs of the crucified men, Jesus was already dead. They only broke the legs of the two malefactors, but not those of Jesus. One of the soldiers did pierce his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out. (John 19:32-34)

John was there to witness these developments. The account includes his solemn declaration, “He who saw [this] has testified, and his testimony is true. And he knows (or there is one who knows [God]) that he is telling the truth, so that you, too, may believe.” (John 19:35) The basis for believing is the fulfillment of the scriptures regarding him. (John 19:36, 37) “Not a bone of his will be broken.” (Psalm 34:20[21]) “They will look at whom they pierced.” (Zechariah 12:10; see the comments regarding Zechariah 12:10 in the Notes section.)

Notes:

Simon was from Cyrene, the ancient capital of Cyrenaica, in what is now part of present-day Libya in northern Africa. He may have traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover and then stayed at a location just outside the city. This could explain why he happened to be coming from the field or the country. The details provided regarding him and his family suggest that he was known to the community of believers and that he and his two sons, Rufus and Alexander, came to be disciples. Although specific identification is lacking, the Rufus whom the apostle Paul mentioned in his letter to the Romans may have been the son of Simon. If so, the apostle referred to the believing wife of Simon and the mother of Rufus as “his mother and mine.” (Romans 16:13)

The biblical accounts do not include the hideous details about the crucifixion. They to not even provide a limited description of the implement on which Jesus died nor of the manner in which he was nailed to it. The writers’ reticence is more in keeping with their main purpose, setting forth the reason for Jesus’ suffering and death.

In itself, the Greek word staurós, commonly translated “cross,” can refer to a stake or pole, and the staurós which Jesus and later Simon carried was a beam. A long stake with a transverse beam would have been too heavy for one man to carry or drag. The Latin term crux, from which the English word “cross” is derived, can designate a tree or a wooden instrument on which victims were either hanged or impaled.

In the allegorical Epistle of Barnabas (thought to date from the early second century and so from a time when the Romans continued to practice crucifixion), the staurós is linked to the letter tau (T). Moreover, very limited archaeological evidence does indicate that the Romans did make use of upright poles with a transverse beam.

Ancient abbreviated forms of the noun staurós and the verb stauróo (a number of preserved occurrences in P66 [second century] and P75 [though not consistently used in this late second-century or early third-century manuscript]) combine the letters tau (T) and rho (R) in a manner that is visually suggestive of a cross. This tau-rho ligature also appears in pre-Christian and non-Christian texts as an abbreviation for a number of terms, including the word trópos (meaning “way,” “manner,” or “habit”). Possibly Christian copyists adopted this ligature when abbreviating staurós because of associating the implement on which Jesus died with the letter tau (T). The existence of other abbreviated forms for the noun staurós and the verb stauróo in ancient biblical manuscripts which do not use the tau-rho ligature would seem to support the conjecture that early copyists chose this ligature for its visual effect.

The Greek word rendered “crucify” (stauróo) can denote hanging, binding, or nailing a victim on or to a stake, a tree, or an implement with a transverse beam. Doubtless the availability of wood and the number of individuals who were executed determined the shape of the implement used for crucifixion. In a Latin work attributed to Vulcatius Gallicanus, Emperor Avidius Cassius had criminals tied from the top to the bottom of a 180-foot high wooden stake. The manner in which these persons were attached to this stake is referred to as crucifixion (in crucem sustulit, according to the Latin text). Roman soldiers do not appear to have followed any specific method when carrying out crucifixions. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (War, V, xi, 1), the soldiers, out of wrath and hatred for the Jews, nailed those they caught, one in one way, and another in another way.

It is commonly believed that upright stakes were already at Golgotha or that the beams that had been carried to the site were attached to three adjacent trees (or possibly even the same tree) there. The minority view (expressed, for example, in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) is that Jesus was nailed in an upright position to the pole that Simon had carried and that it was not used as a transverse beam.

According to Mark 15:25, it was at the “third hour” (about nine o’clock in the morning) when Roman soldiers crucified Jesus. Possibly their flogging him is here regarded as the start of the crucifixion process, and the soldiers may have started beating him at that time. This, though, would mean that the time reference does not follow the chronological order of the narrative. The reading “sixth hour” (about noon) is found in a number of later manuscripts, but this is commonly viewed as a scribal correction.

In the accounts, the wording of the charge varies (“This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” [Matthew 27:37], “The King of the Jews” [Mark 15:26], “The King of the Jews this one [is] [Luke 23:38], and “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” [John 19:19]). If the words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are regarded as abbreviated versions that convey the substance of the charge, the fullest text may be the one found in John 19:19. Another possibility is that the inscription was not identical in the three languages, and so the writers could have chosen a form of one of the three versions. At any rate, all the accounts are in agreement in identifying Jesus as “the King of the Jews.”

The words of mockery (Matthew 27:39-43; Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:35) reflect the substance of the expressions that were made. Understandably, therefore, they are not identical in the accounts. Matthew 27:39-43 contains the longest version.

In Luke 23:43, translators have commonly inserted a comma before the word “today” (sémeron). This, however, does not necessarily convey the correct meaning. In the Septuagint, there are numerous cases where the Greek term for “today” (sémeron) is unmistakably linked to the words “I command you” (ego entéllomai soi [or the plural “you” (hymín)] sémeron) or “I tell you” (anangéllo soi sémeron). (Deuteronomy 4:2; 6:2, 6, 8:1, 11; 10:13; 11:8, 13, 27, 28; 12:11, 14, 32; 13:1, 19, 15:5; 19:9; 27:1, 4, 10; 28:1, 13, 14, 15; 30:2, 8, 11, 16, 18)

This also appears to be the preferable way in which to understand Jesus’ words, “Amen, I tell you today, You will be with me in paradise.” The repentant malefactor asked to be remembered at the future time when Jesus would come to be in his kingdom. He then received the assurance on that very day that he would be remembered and, in fact, would come to be with Jesus in paradise. This meaning would seemingly agree with fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, which appears to include a rare punctuation mark after sémeron. It cannot be established with absolute certainty, however, that the dot served to punctuate the text.

In the French ecumenical translation of the Bible (TOB), commas separate the word “today” from the promise, “You will be with me in paradise” (je te le dis, aujourd’hui, tu seras avec mois dans le paradis). The placement of a comma before the adverb “today” (aujourd’hui) creates an ambiguity, requiring the reader to decide whether the adverb modifies either “say” or “will be.” A number of English translations punctuate the verse so as to include “today” in the introductory phrase, making the meaning explicit. J. B. Rotherham’s translation reads, “And he said unto him — Verily, I say unto thee this day: With me, shalt thou be in Paradise.” George Lamsa’s translation, based on the Peshitta, expresses the same thought with the punctuation, “Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

The expression for “my God” (Eli) in Matthew 27:46 is transliterated Eloi in numerous manuscripts of Mark 15:34, and there are also manuscript variations in the transliteration of other terms that follow this expression. These differences do not have any bearing on the meaning. Similarly, the Greek renderings of the transliterated terms in Matthew and Mark, though consisting of different words, convey the same significance.

Whereas Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 indicate that the sponge was put on a reed, John 19:29 says it was placed on “hyssop.” There is a measure of uncertainty about the precise plant to which the Greek term hyssopos refers. Possibly, in this case, it designates a plant that would have grown to sufficient height to supply a firm reed. In John 19:29, the rendering “javelin” has the support of one late extant manuscript. This rendering, however, would not agree with the reference to a reed in Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36, making it an unacceptable option that has no ancient manuscript support.

The accounts (Matthew 27:48; Mark 15:36) do not say that it was a Roman soldier who gave Jesus a drink. It does not appear likely that a mere bystander would have undertaken to do so, for the vessel containing vinegar would have been at the location for the soldiers who carried out the crucifixions and who thereafter remained on guard duty. Possibly the one who extended the small gesture of kindness was the centurion who, based on the developments associated with Jesus’ death, later acknowledged that he must have been a righteous man, God’s Son. (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47)

The limited particulars about the raising up of “many bodies of the saints” makes it difficult to determine exactly what occurred. With its being restricted to saints, holy ones, or God’s people who were sleeping in death, the raising up appears to be equated with a resurrection. This is the generally accepted meaning that is explicitly expressed in the renderings of numerous translations. “Many of God’s people who had died were raised from the dead.” (NCV) “Many of God’s people were raised to life.” (CEV) “A number of bodies of holy men who were asleep in death rose again.” (J. B. Phillips) “The bodies of many holy people rose from the dead.” (NJB) “The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.” (NIV) For the resurrected ones to have been able to come out of the tombs required that these be opened, which is what the earthquake accomplished. (Matthew 27:51-53) The reference to “many” (not “all”) and “bodies of the saints” (not just “saints”) may indicate that this resurrection involved godly ones who had died recently and whose bodies (not just bones) were in the tombs. Only persons familiar with the area and having living relatives, friends, or acquaintances would have known where and to whom to go in order to be recognized.

According to Matthew 27:53, those who had been raised did not enter the city until after Jesus was resurrected from the dead and were then seen by many. Therefore, the raising of the sleeping holy ones may not have been simultaneous with the earthquake and the opening of the tombs but could have taken place later. The brief reference to this event may serve to highlight that Jesus’ death opened up life for the dead.

His miraculous works were more numerous and performed on a far greater scale than those of Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. An occurrence associated with Elisha provides a small-scale parallel with the event linked to Jesus’ death and resurrection. While in the process of burying a man, certain ones saw a band of Moabite marauders and so hastily tossed the corpse into the burial place of the prophet Elisha. Upon touching Elisha’s bones, the dead man came to life. (2 Kings 13:20, 21) Against the backdrop of this recorded miracle, it should not seem unusual that a more noteworthy resurrection is mentioned as having taken place after Jesus’ death.

In the case of those who had not as yet eaten the Passover, the time that Jesus died as the “Lamb of God” would have been when Passover lambs or goats would have been slaughtered in the temple courtyard. The extraordinary darkness, the earthquake, and the ripping of the temple curtain would have been particularly disturbing signs for all who were there.

The extant Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10 reads, “They shall look to me whom they have pierced.” If this represents the original text, it could mean that the Almighty regards the piercing of the one for whom there should be mourning as having been done to him.

Burial and Resurrection (Matthew 27:57-28:20; Mark 15:42-16:20; Luke 23:50-24:53; John 19:38-21:25)

According to Matthew 27:57 and Mark 15:42, it was “evening” (opsía) when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. This would have been late in the afternoon, for it was still the day before the Sabbath, which began at sundown. (Mark 15:42) Joseph, a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin, had kept his belief in Jesus secret. Although a good and just man who looked forward to the kingdom of God, Joseph appears to have been fearful about openly identifying himself as a believer. He did not, however, give his consent to the Sanhedrin’s decision to condemn Jesus. Fully aware of the grave injustice that had been committed, Joseph overcame his fear and boldly went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. (Matthew 27:58; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50-52; John 19:38; see the Notes section for comments regarding Arimathea.)

The report about the death came as a surprise to Pilate, and he inquired of the centurion in charge of the crucifixion whether Jesus had indeed died. After making certain that Jesus was dead, Pilate granted Joseph permission to take the body for burial. (Mark 15:44, 45)

It appears that Joseph had discussed his plan with another member of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus (likewise a secret disciple). Both men, doubtless with the aid of servants, removed the body and prepared it for burial. Nicodemus had arranged to bring a mixture of myrrh and aloes (possibly the fragrant substance derived from the aloe tree [Aquilaria agallocha]), weighing about a hundred pounds. According to customary Jewish practice at that time, Jesus’ body was wrapped in linen bandages along with the fragrant mixture. In Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in a garden near Golgotha, the men placed the body and then rolled a large stone over the tomb entrance. (Matthew 27:59, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:39-41) An expanded reading of Luke 23:53 in fifth-century Codex Bezae indicates that it would have been difficult for 20 men to roll the stone. The time for preparing Jesus’ body for burial had been very limited, for it was the “day of Preparation” when activities needed to be completed before the Sabbath began at sundown and work restrictions would begin to apply. (Luke 23:54)

Mary Magdalene and Mary, the wife of Clopas and the mother of Joses (Joseph) and James the less (or the younger) observed what the men did and followed them to the tomb. (Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55, 56; compare Mark 15:40; John 19:25.) After Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus left, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary remained seated opposite the tomb. (Matthew 27:61) In view of the hurried manner in which the men had to prepare Jesus’ body for burial, the two women may have talked about what they might still be able to do. Upon returning to the place where they were staying, they quickly prepared spices and ointments. In faithful obedience to the law, they then observed the Sabbath. (Luke 23:56)

On that Sabbath day (the one following the “day of Preparation”), the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate, requesting that he station a guard at the tomb until the third day. Referring to Jesus as an “impostor” or “deceiver,” they recalled that he, while still alive, had talked about rising again in three days. For this reason, they wanted a guard at the tomb so that the disciples would not be able to steal the body and then proclaim to the people that he had been raised from the dead. In their view, this deception about a claimed resurrection would be worse than the initial deception they attributed to Jesus. Pilate’s response may be understood to mean that they were to use their own guard or that he was making a guard available to them. After leaving, they sealed the stone that was over the tomb entrance and stationed the guard. (Matthew 27:62-66; see the Notes section for additional comments about the guard.)

Early in the morning of the first day of the week (the day after the Sabbath), Mary Magdalene, the other Mary (the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the less [or the younger] and Joses [Joseph]), and Salome (the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John), with the spices they had prepared before the Sabbath, headed for the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body. While on the way, they talked among themselves about who would assist them to roll the stone away from the tomb entrance. Wanting to be at the location as early as possible, the women had left the place or places where they were staying while it was still dark. (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1, 10, and John 20:1.)

Before the women arrived at the tomb, a powerful earthquake had occurred. An angel, with an appearance comparable to the brightness of lightning and clothed in pure white (the whiteness of snow), had descended from heaven and rolled away the stone. Terrified, those guarding the tomb trembled and came to be like dead men, unable to move. Seemingly, after recovering from the frightening experience, they left. Some of the guard went to the chief priests to report what had happened. For a time, the angel sat on the stone he had rolled away from the tomb entrance. (Matthew 28:2-4, 11)

When the women approached the tomb, they saw that the stone had already been rolled away. Possibly, at this point, Mary Magdalene ran back to Jerusalem to let Peter and John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) know what she had seen. The empty tomb suggested to her that the Lord had been taken away. Including herself with the other women, she said, “We do not know where they have laid him.” (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1, 2) Thereafter Peter and John ran as quickly as they could to the site. (John 20:3) As for Mary Magdalene, she, too, made her way back to the tomb.

Perhaps immediately after Mary Magdalene started to run back to Jerusalem, the other Mary and Salome entered the tomb. They were startled to see a young man (an angel), dressed in a white robe and seated on the right side. (Mark 16:5) He reassured them, telling them not to be alarmed or frightened and informing them that he knew they were looking for Jesus who had been crucified. The angel continued, “He is not here, for he has been raised up, just as he said. Come, see the place where he lay [the Lord lay, according to other manuscripts; they laid him (Mark 16:6)].” (Matthew 28:5, 6; note the similar wording of Mark 16:6, suggesting that both Matthew 28:5, 6, and Mark 16:6 relate to the same incident.]) Additionally, the angel directed the women to tell Peter and the other disciples that Jesus had been raised from the dead and that he would be going ahead of them to Galilee, where they would see him. (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:7; see the Notes section regarding Matthew 28:7 and Mark 16:7.)

It seems likely that the women from Galilee would have been staying at various places in Jerusalem and so a number of them may well have arrived at the tomb later. Like Mary (the wife of Clopas) and Salome, the other women would have been perplexed upon seeing the stone rolled away from the entrance of the tomb. Perhaps when all the women were outside, two angels appeared. The angels, wearing brilliant garments, looked like men. Frightened, the women bowed their heads to the ground. They then heard the words, “Why are you looking among the dead for the one who lives?” The women were then reminded that, while still in Galilee, Jesus had told them that he would be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified, and be raised on the third day. (Luke 24:2-7; see the Notes section for comments regarding Luke 24:6.) Upon hearing this, the women recalled what Jesus had said. (Luke 24:8)

They quickly left the tomb. Their great joy stemming from having learned about Jesus’ resurrection was coupled with “fear” and “trembling.” This “fear” and “trembling” probably relates to the overwhelming awe they experienced from having seen and heard angels who declared that Jesus had been raised from the dead. The women hurried (as in flight) back to Jerusalem to relate the news to the apostles and other disciples. Along the way, they said nothing to anyone, for they were in the grip of awe and amazement. (Matthew 28:8; Mark 16:8; Luke 24:9)

Post-Resurrection Appearances

Then Jesus appeared to them. After he greeted them, they took hold of his feet and prostrated themselves before him. (Matthew 28:9; see the Notes section for additional comments.) He allayed their apprehension with the words, “Do not be afraid,” adding that they should tell his brothers (the disciples) that they should go to Galilee, where he would see them. (Matthew 28:10)

Meanwhile some of the guards that had been stationed at the tomb went to the chief priests, telling them what had taken place. After consulting with certain elders, they decided to bribe the soldiers with a significant amount of money so that they would tell others that Jesus’ disciples had stolen his body while they were sleeping. The chief priests assured the guards that they would see to it that there would be nothing for them to worry about in the event Pilate heard about this. The guards took the money and did as the chief priests had instructed, resulting in this version about the empty tomb being spread among the unbelieving Jews. (Matthew 28:11-15)

After the women had departed from the tomb, Peter and John came running toward it. Probably because of being the younger man and able to move faster, John arrived first, bent down to look into the tomb, and saw the linen with which Jesus’ body had been wrapped. Upon reaching the tomb, Peter immediately entered and saw the linen wrappings. He noticed that the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head was rolled up and lying by itself. John, who had reached the tomb first, entered afterward. Based on his seeing the empty tomb, the wrappings, and the rolled-up cloth, “he believed.” This suggests that what he saw in the tomb convinced him that no one could have taken the body away and left the wrappings and the cloth behind, indicating that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (John 20:3-8; see the Notes section for comments on Luke 24:12.)

In view of John’s believing, the words of John 20:9 appear to be a comment about the disciples as a group. They had not as yet come to understand the scripture, which revealed that Jesus had to rise from the dead. According to John 20:10, they individually went to their respective places.

After Peter and John had left, Mary Magdalene came back to the tomb and began to weep. While tears were flowing from her eyes, she bent down to look into the tomb. Inside were two angels, one was sitting where Jesus’ head had been and the other one where his feet had lain. Asked why she was weeping, Mary replied, “They have removed my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (John 20:11-13)

Possibly becoming aware that someone was behind her, she turned around and saw Jesus but did not recognize him. He asked her why she was weeping and for whom she was looking. Thinking he was the gardener, she wanted him, if he had taken the body, to tell her where he had placed it. In her distraught state, she added, “I will take him away.” (John 20:14, 15) It is inconceivable that she would have been strong enough to carry the body, revealing that her words were prompted by intense emotion.

Seemingly, Mary could not tear herself away from the place where the body had been. Probably, because Jesus did not immediately reply, she again looked in the direction of the tomb. Upon then hearing Jesus call her “Mary,” doubtless in the familiar tone she had often heard, she recognized him, turned around, and said, Rabbouni, meaning “Teacher.” (John 20:16)

The account does not say whether Mary then took hold of Jesus but relates his words to her, “Do not touch [or cling to] me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

Many have understood the present tense of the Greek verbs to mean that Jesus was then about to ascend to his Father and did not want Mary to delay him from doing so. Mary’s action would then be comparable to what Jacob did when trying to secure a blessing for himself by trying to hold on to the angel who wanted to ascend. (Genesis 32:26) If the present tense is meant to be taken literally, this would mean that the post-resurrection appearances were like those of angels and that the ascension from the Mount of Olives revealed that the disciples should not expect to see him again until his return in glory. (Acts 1:9-11)

If, on the other hand, the present tense simply refers to the future ascension from the Mount of Olives that was certain to take place, Jesus’ words to Mary may mean that the time for close personal association had ended. His having been raised from the dead did not mean a return to the kind of interaction with him that had existed previously.

Mary Magdalene headed back to Jerusalem and then told the disciples there that she had seen the Lord and what he had said to her. (John 20:18) According to Luke 24:10, the apostles heard about the resurrection of Jesus from Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. In view of the more detailed account in John chapter 20 about Mary Magdalene, the words in Luke 24:10 appear to be a summary statement, with no distinction being made about when the various reports about the resurrection reached the apostles. Although the women told them what they had seen and heard, the apostles did not believe them. Whether the apostles dismissed the women’s testimony as empty talk because of a prejudicial view about the reliability of the word of women is not revealed in the account. (Luke 24:11) That such prejudice appears to have existed among Jewish men is evident from the words of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, “Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” (Antiquities, IV, viii, 15)

Later that day, Cleopas and another disciple were traveling to Emmaus, a village located about seven miles from Jerusalem. While they were talking about what had happened to Jesus, he approached them and started to walk with them. They, however, did not recognize him. (Luke 24:13-16) According to the longer text of Mark chapter 16 found in fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Bezae, and other manuscripts, Jesus appeared to them in a “different form.” (Mark 16:12; see the Notes section for comments regarding Mark 16:9-20.) When he asked them about what they were discussing, they stood still, their faces reflecting sadness. (Luke 24:17; numerous later manuscripts represent Jesus as asking them about what they were discussing while they walked and were sad.)

Cleopas replied, “Are you living as a lone stranger in Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?” Jesus responded, “What things?” They explained, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who proved to be a prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. We, though, had hoped that he would be the one to deliver Israel. But besides all this, it is the third day from the time these things happened. Furthermore, some women from among us have astounded us, for they went early to the tomb and did not find his body. They came [to the disciples], saying they had seen a vision of angels who said he is alive. And some of those with us [Peter and John, according to John chapter 20] went to the tomb and found it just as the women said [namely, empty], but they did not see him.” (Luke 24:19-24)

Jesus reproved them for their failure to use discernment (being senseless or obtuse) and their slowness to comprehend (slowness in heart) respecting the things the prophets spoke. He asked them, “Was it not needful for the Christ to suffer these things and [afterward] to enter into his glory?” Starting with Moses and then referring to all the prophets, he explained to them things set forth in all the scriptures about himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

As they neared the village of Emmaus, Jesus seemed to indicate that he intended to travel on farther, opening an opportunity for the two disciples to initiate inviting him to remain with them. They were insistent that he stay with them, as it was already late in the day. He then accompanied them into the home. While he reclined with them at the table, he took a loaf, said a blessing, broke it, and then handed a piece of bread to each one. Observing what they appear to have seen Jesus do on other occasions, they recognized him, and he then disappeared. (Luke 24:28-31)

Cleopas and his companion remarked to one another about the effect Jesus’ words had on them, “Were not our hearts [in us, according to numerous manuscripts] burning when he spoke to us on the way, as he was explaining the scriptures to us?” This suggests that, in their hearts, or deep within themselves, they perceived a warm feeling of rekindled hope and comfort. They then decided to return to Jerusalem, letting the apostles know about their experience. When Cleopas and his companion arrived in Jerusalem, they found the apostles and others at the same place and sharing the news that Peter had actually seen the risen Lord. The two disciples then related what had happened on the way to Emmaus and how they came to recognize Jesus when he broke the loaf. (Luke 24:32-35; regarding Luke 24:33, see the Notes section.)

It was late on that day, the first day of the week when Jesus rose from the dead. Being fearful on account of the unbelieving Jews, the disciples had chosen to be assembled behind locked doors. Suddenly they saw Jesus standing in their midst. His first words to them were, “Peace [be] to you.” Jesus’ death had plunged them into a state of fear and uncertainty, robbing them of peace, an inner sense of calmness and well-being. Despite his reassuring words, the disciples were frightened. The manner in which he had suddenly appeared in their midst caused them to imagine that they were seeing a spirit, a phantom, an apparition, or a ghost. (Luke 24:36, 37; John 20:19; see the Notes section regarding Luke 24:36.) They reacted as on an earlier occasion when they saw Jesus walking toward them on water while they were in a boat. (Mark 6:49)

In response to their reaction, he asked why they were troubled and why doubts had arisen in their hearts. Jesus made it clear to them that he was indeed in their midst. They were not seeing an impalpable apparition. “See my hands and my feet,” he continued. “I am he. Touch me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have.” (Luke 24:38-40) According to John 20:20, he showed them his hands and his side, and the reading of Luke 24:40 in the oldest extant manuscripts and in many others indicates that he showed them his hands and his feet. (See the Notes section regarding Luke 24:40.)

Although the disciples were filled with joy, they still appear to have found it hard to believe that Jesus was indeed alive and remained in a state of wonderment or amazement. To provide them with additional proof that they were not seeing a spirit or a phantom, he asked them whether they had something to eat. Upon being handed a piece of broiled fish, he took it and ate it as they looked on. (Luke 24:41-43)

Jesus reminded them regarding what he had said to them while he had been with them in the past, that everything written about him in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms had to be fulfilled. He explained to them the scriptures, aiding them to have a mental grasp of their significance, and then related what their commission as apostles would be, saying, “It is written, that the Christ [is] to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and [that] repentance for forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, starting from Jerusalem. And, see! I am sending upon you the promise of my Father [that is, the holy spirit]. You, however, stay in the city until you come to be clothed with power from the height.” Jesus’ words to them indicated that they would not begin proclaiming the message about him outside Jerusalem until they had been empowered by holy spirit to do so. (Luke 24:44-49)

On this occasion, according to John 20:21, Jesus again expressed his desire for his disciples to have peace. Just as the Father had sent him, he was then sending them forth, the implied purpose being for them to make known the good news about him and his resurrection. Possibly to assure the disciples that they would be certain soon to receive the holy spirit to assist them in carrying out their commission, he blew upon them and said, “Receive holy spirit.” (John 20:21, 22)

As the disciples would be carrying out their commission as persons whom Jesus had sent forth, the community of believers would grow and certain ones in their midst would fail to conduct themselves according to his example and teaching. This would require the disciples to render judgments about such erring associates. Regarding those who committed serious sins, Jesus said to the disciples, “If you forgive [their] sins, they are forgiven them. If you retain [their sins, not forgiving them], they are retained [against them].” (John 20:23) In the case of individuals who unrepentantly persisted in a life of sin, the retaining of their sins would signify their no longer being part of the community of believers. (Compare 1 Corinthians 5:1-7; 6:9, 10.)

Thomas (called Didymus or the “Twin”) was not with the other apostles when Jesus appeared to them. Later, they told him, “We have seen the Lord.” Thomas, though, did not believe them, saying, “Unless I see the impression of the nails in his hands and place my finger in the impression of the nails and put my hand in his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:24, 25; in the Greek text two words for “not” appear, indicating that Thomas would positively not believe unless he had concrete evidence.)

After “eight days” (counting the day on which the apostles saw Jesus as one of the eight), or a week later, Thomas and the others were together behind locked doors. Jesus, as on the previous occasion, appeared in their midst, saying to them, “Peace [be] to you.” Turning his attention to Thomas, he said, “Place your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and put it in my side, and cease being unbelieving but become believing.” Upon hearing an echo of the words he had used in his response to the other disciples when they told him that they had seen Jesus, Thomas was overcome with emotion. He exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:26-28; see the Notes section or additional comments regarding John 20:28.)

Whether Thomas actually felt Jesus’ hands and his side is not revealed in the account. The words directed to him appear to have been enough to convince him. Jesus continued, “Do you believe because you have seen me? Fortunate are those who have not seen and [nevertheless] believe.” (John 20:29)

For the many millions who have put their faith in Jesus throughout the centuries, the kind of proof that Thomas wanted has not been granted. Yet, they believed and their lives were enriched. As Jesus said, all such believers are “fortunate,” “blessed,” or “happy,” enjoying the enviable state of well-being that comes from knowing the Son of God and his Father and being sharers in all the blessings associated therewith.

Not long thereafter the apostles and other disciples traveled back to Galilee, confident that they would meet Jesus there. Aside from seeing him again at the mountain he had designated (Matthew 28:16), the disciples did not know when or if they might see him on other occasions.

When back at his home in Galilee, Peter remarked to some of the other apostles about his intent to go fishing. They decided to go with him, pursuing their customary occupation on the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias). With Peter, six others got into the boat. They were Thomas (Didymus [the “Twin”]), Nathanael from Cana, the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and two others. Likely Peter’s brother Andrew was one of the two unnamed apostles, and the other one may have been Nathanael’s close companion Philip. (Compare John 1:43-45.) During the entire night spent in fishing, they caught nothing. (John 21:1-3)

Early in the morning, Jesus appeared on the shore, but the apostles did not recognize him. He called out to them, “Boys [literally, children], do you have anything to eat?” “No,” came back the reply. Jesus directed them to cast their net on the right side of the boat to make a catch. When they did so, the net filled with so many fish that they were unable to haul it up. At that, John (the disciple for whom Jesus had great affection) said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” Hearing this, Peter, who had been naked (probably to be prepared to jump from the boat if it became necessary to attend to a net in the water), put on his garment, plunged into the lake, and swam a distance of about 200 cubits or approximately 300 feet. The other disciples followed in the boat, dragging the net filled with fish. (John 21:4-8)

Jesus had made preparations for them to eat. Already fish and bread were lying on a charcoal fire, and Jesus asked for some fish from the catch to be brought to him. Peter boarded the boat and hauled the net to the shore. Although it contained 153 large fish, the net did not tear. When the food was ready to eat, Jesus invited the disciples to have breakfast and handed them bread and fish. (John 21:9-13)

They could not bring themselves to ask him, “Who are you?” (John 21:12) This was because they recognized him to be Jesus. It would seem, therefore, that the recognition was not based on his physical features but on the revelation of his miraculous knowledge. Just as the clothing he wore would not have been identical to the garments the Roman soldiers then possessed, his resurrection body was different. Like the angels, he could appear and then vanish from sight. All the recorded instances of his post-resurrection appearances proved to be comparatively brief. Their main purpose, during the course of 40 days, served to convince the disciples that he was indeed alive. If he could have been readily recognized at all times, his presenting them with “many proofs” would not have been necessary. (Acts 1:3) People do not need “many proofs” to recognize a close friend who may have been away for a short time but whom they, on the basis of unsubstantiated reports, had presumed to be dead.

Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance at the Sea of Galilee was the third of the ones where most of the apostles saw him. (John 21:14) The first time all the apostles, with the exception of Thomas, were present. (John 20:24) On the second occasion, all the apostles saw him. (John 20:26)

After the apostles had finished eating breakfast, Jesus directed his words to Peter, saying, “Simon [son of] John [Jonah, according to the reading of other manuscripts], do you love [agapáo] me more than these?” Confident that Jesus knew the answer, Peter responded, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [philéo] you.” (John 21:15; see the Notes section for additional comments regarding John 21:15-17.)

In the question that Jesus is represented as asking, the Greek pronoun for “these” can be either masculine (referring to the other disciples) or neuter (everything related to fish and fishing). A number of translations render the question with explicit application to the disciples. “Do you love me more than these others?” (Phillips, REB) “Do you love me more than the others do?” (CEV) This would appear to be the preferable understanding. It would be more in line with Peter’s eagerness in getting to the shore as quickly as possible and his previous affirmation during the observance of the Passover that he would not be stumbled even though all the others might be and that he would be willing to die with Jesus. (Mark 14:29-31)

Indicating how Peter could express his love for him, Jesus said, “Feed my lambs [arníon].” (John 21:15) As an apostle, one whom Jesus had personally instructed, Peter was in position to care for the spiritual interests of fellow disciples. These disciples were the sheep who belonged to Jesus and for whom he had surrendered his life.

Again Jesus asked him, “Simon [son of] John [Jonah, according to other manuscripts], do you love [agapáo] me?” As he had expressed himself the first time, Peter reaffirmed his love, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [philéo] you.” Jesus then repeated the admonition, “Tend my sheep [próbaton or probátion (little sheep) in other manuscripts].” (John 21:16)

When Jesus, for a third time, asked Peter, “Simon [son] of John [Jonah, according to other manuscripts], do you love [philéo] me?” he felt hurt. Hearing the question for the third time may have led to his recalling with sadness that he had disowned Jesus three times. Nevertheless, Peter did not waver in expressing his love for him. “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love [philéo] you.” Jesus then repeated, “Feed my sheep [próbaton or probátion (little sheep) in other manuscripts].” (John 21:17) This assignment to serve as a caring shepherd for the sheep reflected Jesus’ confidence in Peter and may well have served to lift from him any lingering burdening effect his previous three denials may have had.

At this point, Jesus looked to the end of Peter’s faithful service. In his younger years, Peter had been a man of action. Girding himself to undertake his activity and walking where he chose to go. Upon getting old, he would stretch out his hands and someone else would gird him and take him to a place where he would not want to go. Jesus thus indicated that Peter, in his declining years, would be forcibly taken to the place of execution. Dying as a martyr on account of remaining faithful to God, he would “glorify” or bring honor to him. (John 21:18, 19) According to Eusebius (c. 263 to c. 339 CE), Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero.

Jesus concluded his words to Peter with the admonition, “Follow me.” It appears that the interchange between Jesus and Peter took place a short distance from where the other disciples were and while the two of them were walking. Seemingly, Peter became aware that another disciple was following them, and he turned around. It was John, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who had asked him during the Passover meal concerning who the betrayer would be. Seeing John, Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, but what about him?” Jesus directed his attention away from John. If it were to be Jesus’ will for John to be alive at his return, this should have no bearing on Peter’s course. As Jesus said to him, “What [is] that to you? Follow me.” (John 21:19-22)

Jesus’ words about John gave rise to the view among the brothers or in the community of believers that he would not die but would still be living when Jesus returned. This misunderstanding is corrected in the account by reiterating what Jesus actually said. He did not say to Peter that John would not die. Jesus expressed the thought about John conditionally, “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, what [is] that to you?” (John 21:23)

John 20:24 reveals the source of the entire account. It is one of the apostles, the one about whom Peter asked. The internal evidence identifies this one as John (one of Zebedee’s sons [John 21:2]), the “disciple who testifies about these things and who wrote these things.” The change to the first person plural verb (“we know”)in the next sentence of verse 24 may be an indication that he did not write this particular affirmation. “We know that his testimony is true.”

Whereas Jesus loved all of the apostles (John 13:1), his relationship to John appears to have been remarkably close. Therefore, the expression the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is an appropriate identifier. (John 21:20) The close relationship seems to have come into existence because of John’s exceptional attentiveness and responsiveness to Jesus’ teaching. An outstanding example of John’s attentiveness and responsiveness was his believing that Jesus had been raised from the dead when he saw the empty tomb and the linen wrappings inside. (John 20:8)

According to 1 Corinthians 15:6, upward of 500 brothers saw Jesus at one time, suggesting that this must have been at a prearranged place. Reasonably, so many would have been together in response to Jesus’ words about seeing them in Galilee at a certain mountain, which mountain is not identified in the account. (Matthew 28:10, 16) The eleven apostles had already seen Jesus in Judea and been convinced that he had indeed been raised from the dead. Based on linking Jesus’ appearance at the mountain in Galilee to the reference in 1 Corinthians 15:6, upward of 500 disciples saw him and prostrated proskynéo themselves before him as their Lord. Among them were some who doubted. (Matthew 28:17)

In view of the difficulty that the apostles had in believing the testimony of the women regarding Jesus’ resurrection, it is understandable that there were some who saw him the first time and found it hard to believe that he had really been raised from the dead. Whether their doubts, like those of Thomas, ceased is not stated in the account, but they likely were persuaded to believe on the basis of what they saw and heard.

Jesus said to the disciples, “To me, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given. Go then [now, according to fifth century Codex Bezae]; make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to heed everything I have commanded you. And, see! I am with you all the days until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

As their Lord in possession of all authority in heaven and on earth, Jesus commissioned his disciples to proclaim the message about him and to baptize all who became believers, teaching them to obey everything that he had commanded. As persons who had learned about the Father, his Son, and the holy spirit, the new believers would be baptized in full recognition of the role of each. (Regarding the expression “in the name of,” see the Notes section on Matthew 28:19.)

Jesus would continue to be with the disciples, looking out for their spiritual well-being. That would prove to be the case until the “end of the age,” or the time when he would return in glory and the present age would end and a new era under his beneficent rule would begin.

The final time the disciples saw Jesus was after their return to Jerusalem. On that occasion, he instructed them to stay in the city until they received the holy spirit, and they asked him whether he would be restoring the kingdom to Israel at that time. Jesus did not answer the question directly, but made it clear that it was not for them to know the times and seasons that were his Father’s exclusive domain. They would be empowered by the holy spirit to be his witnesses in Jerusalem, in all of Judea, Samaria, and in more distant regions elsewhere. After he had led them to the Mount of Olives as far as Bethany, he raised his hands and blessed them. It was then that they prostrated (proskynéo) themselves before him, acknowledging him as their Lord. (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:4-8)

With a cloud, he vanished from their sight. As the disciples looked skyward, two men (angels) in white garments appeared to them, telling them that Jesus would return in the way in which they had beheld him departing into heaven. Thus, on the basis of the testimony of two angels, they were assured that the Son of God would return in glory. (Acts 1:9-11) As his departure had been with a cloud, his return is associated with clouds. (Compare Matthew 24:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Revelation 1:7.)

Filled with joy, they descended from the Mount of Olives and returned to Jerusalem. There, in the temple precincts, they continued to bless God, doubtless because of having had their faith and hope strengthened by the many proofs that undeniably confirmed Jesus’ resurrection. (Luke 24:52, 53)

According to the long conclusion of Mark (16:19, 20), the Lord Jesus, after he was taken up to heaven, sat down at the right hand of God. The disciples thereafter went forth, declaring the glad tidings, while the Lord Jesus Christ continued to work with them, confirming the message they proclaimed with signs or miracles.

The editorial comments found in John chapters 20 (verses 30 and 31) and 21 (verse 25) could also have been written regarding the three other accounts. Jesus performed many more signs or miracles that the disciples witnessed but which were not mentioned. The narrations included sufficient essentials to provide a solid foundation for believing that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life in his name.” Using hyperbole to stress the large amount of information that could have been committed to writing, John concluded, “There are also many other things Jesus did, which, if ever they were recorded, I imagine the world could not contain the scrolls [that would be] written.” (John 21:25)

Although the preserved records are comparatively brief, millions, throughout the centuries, have come to believe that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. On the basis of the written accounts about his exemplary life, deeds, and teaching, they have come to live rich and rewarding lives. Although later believers, unlike the apostles and many other first-century disciples, have never seen Jesus, they love him. Through him, they have come to know his Father, resulting in their enjoyment of the real life, a life of an enduring relationship with both the Father and the Son. Accordingly, because of their faith, they have come to have life “in [Christ’s] name” or on the basis of who he is, the only one through whom a relationship with his Father is possible.

At the same time, just as the personal presence of Jesus in the first century created division among the Jewish people, with some responding to him in faith and others becoming violently opposed, the preserved records about him have had the same effect. There are those who try to discredit them with the same passion as those who fanatically cried out for Jesus to be crucified. Others have a distorted view of God’s Son and, based on what they have been taught, do not allow themselves to be led to the Father through him. They are much like the Jews in the first century who failed to recognize him for who he was, the one who could fully reveal his Father to them. They did not think of Jesus as God’s unique Son but concluded that he was Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets raised from the dead, or possibly even John the Baptist restored to life. Few were those who, like Peter, declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:13-16) Today, too, many tend to express themselves more in line with derived views about Jesus acquired from their particular religious environment, and not with a personal conviction that reflects the language of the preserved accounts regarding him.

Notes:

If correctly identified, Arimathea lay near the northern border of Judea, about 16 miles east of Joppa and over 20 miles northwest of Jerusalem. Although originally from Arimathea, Joseph, as a member of the Sanhedrin, must have had a residence in Jerusalem, as suggested by his owning an unused tomb just outside the city. (Matthew 27:60)

The words of Pilate, “You have a guard,” can be understood as meaning, “You have your own guard.” (Matthew 27:65) The other possible significance is, “The guard is yours.” Both meanings are found in translations or their footnotes. “You have a guard of soldiers.” (NRSV) “Take a guard.” (NRSV, footnote) “You may have your guard.” (NJB) “Use your own guard.” (NJB, footnote) “All right, take some of your soldiers and guard the tomb as well as you know how.” (CEV) “You may have a guard.” (REB)

The apocryphal account known as the “Gospel According to Peter” explicitly identifies the guard as consisting of Roman soldiers. It says that Pilate provided a centurion named Peironius (Petronius) and other soldiers to guard the tomb.

John 20:1 does not mention that other women accompanied Mary Magdalene. This is understandable, for the account specifically focuses on her testimony regarding Christ’s resurrection.

Only Mark 16:1 mentions Salome as being with Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (the ones also referred to in Matthew 28:1). Verses 1 and 10 of Luke 24 indicate that there were more than three women. In verse 10, Joanna is named. It is likely that one of the other women would have been Susanna. (Compare Luke 8:1-3.) The differences in the inclusion and omission of names reveal that the writers of the highly condensed accounts did not intend to provide all the details. The specifics they did include primarily served to establish the reality of Jesus’ resurrection.

The absence of details in the accounts does not make it possible to determine precisely what may have occurred at a particular time and who may or may not have been present. Included, however, are the essentials (the empty tomb, angelic testimony, and the post-resurrection appearances) for establishing that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead.

The words, “He is not here, for he has been raised,” are basically the same in Matthew 28:6, Mark 16:6, and in many manuscripts of Luke 24:6. In the Westcott and Hort text, the words in Luke are marked by double brackets. In the opinion of Westcott and Hort, the reading of fifth-century Codex Bezae, which omits the words, reflects the original text of Luke, with the inclusion of the additional statement being considered as an interpolation.

Westcott and Hort, however, did not have the benefit of manuscript evidence that came to light in more recent years. The oldest extant manuscript (P75 of the late second or early third century) does not omit the words. So there is little reason for rejecting the longer reading found in the largest number of manuscripts, including fourth-century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The shorter text of fifth-century Codex Bezae, on the other hand, has very little manuscript support.

According to Matthew 28:7, the angel is represented as saying, “I have told you.” In Mark 16:7, Jesus is referred to as having said that he would be going ahead of the disciples to Galilee. This difference is immaterial, as both statements are true.

In Matthew 28:9, a form of the Greek word proskynéo appears. Although often translated “worship,” the Greek term is descriptive of the act of falling to one’s knees and bowing with one’s forehead touching the ground. The context determines whether the prostration is a gesture of respect or an act of veneration or worship.

In fifth-century Codex Bezae reading of Luke 24:3, the words, “of the Lord Jesus,” are omitted after “body.”

Fifth-century Codex Bezae does not include the words of Luke 24:12, but they are found in all the oldest extant Greek manuscripts and many others. The reference to Peter’s running to the tomb and bending down to see the wrappings is an abbreviated version of the narration found in John 20:3-7. That Peter was not the only one to go to the site after the report about the empty tomb is revealed in the words of Luke 24:24, which relate that the two disciples who were on the way to Emmaus mentioned that “some of those with us” had gone there.

In Luke 24:13, fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus reads “one hundred sixty stadia.” This would be a distance of about 22 Roman miles and, therefore, too far for the disciples to have been able to travel back to Jerusalem and still to arrive there in the same evening. The superior manuscript support is for the reading “sixty stadia” or about seven Roman miles, which distance would reasonably harmonize with the narrative.

Luke 24:33 makes reference to the “eleven,” the designation applying to the apostles. According to John 20:24, Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to them and is referred to as “one of the twelve.” At the time, there were only eleven apostles, though the original number (with the inclusion of Judas Iscariot) was twelve. So it appears that “the twelve” came to denote all the apostles, whereas the reference to “eleven” indicated that one was missing (in this case, Thomas).

In Luke 24:36, the inclusion of the words, “and he said to them, ‘Peace [be] to you,’” has strong manuscript support, including that of the oldest extant manuscripts. Fifth-century Codex Bezae, however, omits the words. Other manuscripts contain an expanded reading, “And he said to them, ‘Peace [be] to you. I am [It is I]; do not be afraid.’”

Fifth-century Codex Bezae omits verse 40 in Luke chapter 24. This verse is found in all the oldest extant manuscripts and many others. So there is little reason not to regard the words as part of the text.

Jesus’ words directing the disciples to stay in Jerusalem related to their being in the city to receive the holy spirit and thus being empowered to carry out the commission he had given to them. (Luke 24:49) It did not preclude their going back to Galilee for a short time. In fact, they had to do so. Jesus, personally and through angels, instructed the women who had gone to the tomb to inform the disciples that he would meet them in Galilee. (Matthew 28:7, 10; Mark 16:7) Probably not long after the incident involving Thomas, the disciples traveled back to their homes there.

The words of Thomas (“My Lord and my God” [John 20:28]) somewhat parallel how Manoah expressed himself when he and his wife saw the angel who had appeared to them ascend in a flame. Overwhelmed by the emotional impact, Manoah said to his wife, “We will certainly die, for we have seen God.” (Judges 13:20-22)

For the Israelites in the first century and earlier, the term for “god” did not have the restrictive meaning that it has come to have among speakers of modern languages, particularly among professing Christians. In ancient Israel, judges, kings, or rulers could be called “gods.” (Psalm 82:1, 6, 7) In a first-century BCE nonbiblical fragment (11Q13), extensive reference is made to Melchizedek as a heavenly deliverer and judge. The “gods of justice,” “sons of God,” or the angels are portrayed as assisting him to bring about the destruction of Belial (Satan). Other first-century BCE manuscript fragments (4Q400, 4Q402, 4Q403, 4Q404, 4Q405) refer to angels as “gods” and portray them as praising the “God of gods.”

In view of the way Israelites used the term for “god,” one needs to exercise care not to read into Thomas’ words theological concepts that would have been foreign to his Jewish background and mode of expression. Although the Hebrew and Greek terms for “god” had a wider application than is common in English and other languages, Jesus’ Jewish disciples would not have been confused about the identity of the one to whom he referred as his Father and the only true God. (John 17:3)

In John 21:15-17, Jesus is twice represented as using a form of the Greek term agapáo (love) and once philéo (love). Peter, in his response, is represented as saying philéo. Of the two terms, agapáo is often broader in scope, with philéo being a love that is frequently more closely associated with close friendship and affection. As in the case of the English word “love,” the context determines the nature of the kind of love or affection the verbs agapáo and philéo may be understood to convey. It appears preferable not to attempt to draw too sharp a distinction between the two terms, seeking instead to ascertain the significance from the context.

The expression “in the name of” can signify “in recognition of” or “by reason of being.” In the case of one acting in the name of someone else, it points to an existing relationship. Believers, upon being baptized, do enter a new family relationship. They, upon being immersed in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy spirit, come to have God as their Father, his Son as their Lord, and the holy spirit as their helper. In this relationship, they enjoy a newness of life effected through the operation of the holy spirit within them. (Matthew 28:19)

A number of late manuscripts follow Mark 16:8 with a short conclusion, which refers to the women as telling those with Peter about what they had been commanded. Additionally, this short conclusion indicates that Jesus sent out the disciples so that, through them, the “holy and incorruptible preaching” about eternal salvation would be carried out from east to west.

Fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Bezae and other later manuscripts contain a longer conclusion, which has been numbered verses 9 to 20. Mention is made of his post-resurrection appearances. Mary Magdalene told those who were mourning and weeping that she had seen Jesus, but they did not believe her. (Compare John 20:18.) While two disciples were walking on a road, he appeared to them in “another form,” and they reported this to the other disciples. (Compare Luke 24:13-35.) According to Mark 16:13, their words were not believed, and no mention is made of Jesus’ previous appearance to Peter. If the long conclusion preserves a dependable tradition, perhaps this is to be understood that some (not all) among the disciples did not believe them. While the disciples were reclining at the table, Jesus appeared and reproached them for not believing those who had seen him after his being raised from the dead. Whereas Luke 24:36 does not speak of the disciples as reclining at the time, the fact that they were able to hand him a piece of broiled fish does indicate that they had been eating. (Luke 24:42)

On that occasion, Jesus is portrayed as commissioning the disciples to go into the world and to preach the evangel (the good news about him) to all creation. Those who would believe and get baptized would be saved, coming to possess the real life, but those who refused to believe would be condemned. Believers would be empowered to perform signs or miracles. In the name of Jesus, they would expel demons and be able to speak in tongues other than their native language. (Compare Matthew 10:8; Acts 2:5-11.) The reference to being able to pick up serpents and not being hurt from drinking anything poisonous could signify that no enemy power would be able to harm them. Regardless of the efforts enemies would put forth, they would be unable to stop the proclamation of the glad tidings. (Compare Luke 10:19.) By laying their hands on the sick, the disciples would be able to cure them. (Compare Matthew 10:8.)

Another addition to Mark chapter 16 appears in a manuscript thought to date either from the fourth or the fifth century. The disciples are represented as telling Jesus that the “age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan,” who prevents the truth and power of God from squelching the “unclean things of the spirits.” Therefore, they asked Jesus to reveal his righteousness, which may be understood to mean his taking action against Satan. Jesus’ reply indicated that “the limit of the years for Satan’s power” had been fulfilled, but that other frightful things would be drawing near. With reference to himself, Jesus is represented as saying that he died for those who sinned, that they might return to the truth, cease sinning, and inherit, in heaven, “the spiritual and imperishable glory of righteousness,” probably meaning the absolute righteousness of the sinless state.

Gospel of John

What has come to be known as the “Fourth Gospel” contains extensive information that is not found in the accounts attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The writer of the “Fourth Gospel” acknowledged that much more could have been written about Jesusʼ “signs” or miracles and activity. (John 20:30; 21:25) He also revealed the purpose regarding what had been written. It was that those reading the account or hearing it read to them would “believe that Jesus is the Christ [or promised Messiah] the Son of God.” Then, on the basis of coming to believe in Jesus Christ, they would have life “in his name” or in him as the person whose name identified him as the Christ, the Son of God. Their real life would be as persons who truly recognized him and whom he accepted as belonging to him. (John 20:31)

From very early times, the “Fourth Gospel” has been considered to have had the apostle John as its source. Eusebius (c. 263 to c. 339 CE), in his Ecclesiastical History, provided information about what was commonly believed regarding the accounts that became part of the recognized Scriptures. He quoted Origen (185? to 254? CE) as accepting the tradition that there were only four authentic evangels, the first being written by the former tax collector Matthew, the second by Mark (as Peter instructed him), the third by Luke, and the last one by John. Fragmentary papyrus manuscripts (P66 [thought to date from the second century] and P75 [believed to date from late in the second century or early in the third century]) contain the following superscription for the account traditionally attributed to the apostle John, “evangel according to John” (euaggelion kata ioannen [P66]; euaggelion kata ioanen [P75]).

Note:

Much of the material for the commentary on John is drawn from the section Jesus Christ, Godʼs Unique Son, which see about how the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John may fit into a chronological framework.

John 1:1-51

In the Septuagint, the opening two words of Genesis are the same as in John 1:1 (en arché [“in (the) beginning”]). The first chapter of Genesis portrays creative works as progressively coming into existence in response to what God says. This direct link of God’s speaking to the coming into existence of the creation appears to be preserved in the designation “the Word.” The reference to the Son as “the Word” suggests that God communicated through him and by means of him brought into existence the realities of his expressed will and purpose. (1:1)

“In the beginning the Word was.” Before the countless ages that had passed since the universe came into existence the Word already “was” with the Father. The prophecy of Micah about Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem similarly pointed to his prehuman existence as reaching back to the infinite past. The Septuagint text of Micah 5:2 reads, hai éxodoi autoú ap’ archés ex hemerón aiónos (his goings forth [are] from [the] beginning, from [the] days of eternity.) (1:1)

“The Word was with God [literally, the God].” In this case, the Greek preposition prós (“with”) may be regarded as indicating a close mutual relationship. “God” (theós) appears in the emphatic position as the opening term of the next statement. As the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15), being “in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and his very “imprint” (Hebrews 1:3), the Word is identified as theós, the only single Greek term that can adequately describe his nature. In the Greek text, the Word’s being distinct from the Father is evident from the absence of the definite article. The structure of the Greek text about the use of theós as applying to the “Word” in a descriptive sense could be illustrated by the following sentence in English: In the beginning was the child, and the child was with the male, and male was the child. (1:1)

From the infinite past, the Word enjoyed a close mutual relationship with God. Evidently this meant much more than his merely being in the presence of God, as is revealed by the reality that the Word “was” with God in the beginning or prior to the start of creation. (1:2)

Everything came into existence through the Word. Apart from him, not a single creation came to be. The second part of the Greek text could be punctuated and rendered in two different ways. (1) “Apart from him not one thing came to be that has come to be.” (2) “What has come to be [1:3] in him was life [1:4].” (1:3)

Depending on which alternative is chosen in punctuating and rendering the Greek text, life was either in the Word or life came to be “in” or through the Word. Accordingly, the text could be understood to mean that (1) the Word possessed life-giving power or that (2) he imparted life to the creation. In the case of humans, this “life” was more than mere existence; it was “light,” or a life inseparably associated with an inner light that made moral decisions possible. The possession of this light may also include the capacity for love, kindness, reasoning, understanding, and wisdom. (1:4)

So powerful is the inner light, with all the faculties associated therewith, that it continues to shine in a morally corrupt world of darkness. Although surrounded by darkness, this light has not been extinguished. It might appear as though the darkness in the world of mankind that is in a state of alienation from God and acts contrary to his will and ways completely surrounds the light and is about to swallow it up. Regardless of how great the moral darkness comes to be, however, the light continues to shine brightly among those who are guided by it or are rightly motivated by a good conscience. (1:5)

Steeped in idolatry, worshiping the creation instead of the Creator, the world in the first century CE was in darkness, the darkness of moral degradation and superstition. Having lived and labored in many of the major cities then existing, the Roman citizen Paul possessed firsthand knowledge about the greatness of that darkness and described humans who chose to suppress the voice of conscience. “They were filled with all [manner] of unrighteousness, depravity, covetousness, viciousness, envy, murder, discord, treachery, [being] ill-tempered, detractors, defamers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, devoid of natural affection, merciless.” (Romans 1:29-31)

In the world of darkness that existed in the first century CE, God raised up a man as his prophet to prepare for the arrival of the “light” in the person of his unique Son. This man was John, the son of the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. (1:6)

John testified concerning the light. The purpose of his testimony was to lead others to respond in faith to the one who would make his appearance as the “true light.” (1:7, 9)

As for John, he was not the light. His significant role was to present testimony “about the light.” (1:8)

The “true light” (the unique Son of God) was then about to come into the world, imparting “light” to all men or people everywhere. As the “true light, the Son of God would provide enlightenment about his Father and reveal how humans could come to enjoy an enduring relationship with him as his approved children. (1:9)

The world of mankind into which the “light” in the person of the Son of God came was not new to him. This is because it was through him that the human family came into existence. Therefore, humans should have recognized him as one with whom they had a relationship, but they did not. (1:10)

He came to his own people or the Jewish people, the only people who professed belief in his Father. The majority, however, did not accept him. (1:11)

In the case of persons who believed “in his name” or who accepted him in faith as the one he truly was (the Son of God), he granted the authority or the right to become Godʼs children or approved members in his beloved family. (1:12)

The newness of life or the new birth that identified them as Godʼs children could not be attributed to “blood” (a particular line of descent), “flesh” (natural procreation), or the “will of man” (adoption). They were born “from God.” On the basis of their faith in his Son, God acted to make them his children. (1:13)

Prior to his birth as the son of Mary, “the Word” was spirit, not flesh, and enjoyed life in an entirely different realm, the heavenly one. After his becoming flesh and tenting or making his home among humans, his early disciples (and those who joined them later) came to see in the Son of God a divine glory or splendor. His was the glory of an only-begotten of a father. He was the unique one, full of kindness and truth. As the one full of “kindness,” favor, or grace, God’s Son manifested a gracious disposition of unparalleled love. He himself was the living truth, the one through whom all the promises of God find their fulfillment and the one who, through his attitude, words, and deeds, provided to humans the most complete disclosure possible regarding his Father. (1:14)

He alone, as John the Baptist had testified, already “was” prior to his arrival on the earthly scene. Although the Son of God appeared on the scene after John the Baptist began preparing people for his arrival, he already was before John or predated John’s existence. (1:15)

From the fullness of the Son of God (from his limitless supply), his disciples received kindness upon kindness, or favor upon favor. This favor or kindness was unearned and unmerited. Their receiving “favor upon [anti; literally, “instead of”] favor” could be understood to mean that their receiving unmerited kindness was followed by receiving even greater unmerited kindness. The disciples continued to be the objects of Jesus’ care and compassionate concern as he taught them, came to their aid and defense, and, finally, in expression of his boundless love, gave his life for them. (1:16)

Whereas the law had been given through Moses, through Jesus Christ came the favor and truth or the full expression of godly kindness and the complete revelation of divine truth. The law, although dependable as a guide, did not disclose fully the greatness of the divine favor and truth that the Son of God could reveal. (1:17)

Unlike humans who have never seen God, Jesus had both seen him and enjoyed an intimacy with him that reached into the infinite past. That intimacy is revealed in the expressions used concerning him. He is the “only-begotten.” The Greek term monogenés (often rendered “only-begotten”) points to the uniqueness of the relationship of the Son to the Father. There is no other son like him. The emphasis is not to be placed on the second part of the compound (begotten), but the expression is to be regarded as a unit. This is evident from the way the term is used in the Septuagint as a rendering for the Hebrew term yahíd (only, only one, alone). Jephthah’s daughter was his only child. (Judges 11:34) The psalmist pleaded that YHWH might rescue his “only-begotten one” (LXX, Brenton), meaning the only life he possessed or his precious life. (Psalm 21:21 [22:20(21)]; 34:17 [35:17]) (1:18)

“God” (theós), if this is the original reading of John 1:18 (later manuscripts read, “only-begotten Son,” signifying unique Son), describes him as being exactly like his Father. The closeness to the Father is further shown by his being portrayed in his bosom or his bosom position. This is the kind of intimacy a person would enjoy when reclining in front of another person on the same couch while eating a meal. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus could reveal him to others in a way that no one else could. (1:18)

John’s preaching raised concerns among the Pharisees in Jerusalem. Probably because John was the son of a priest and therefore himself a priest in the Aaronic line of the tribe of Levi, the Pharisees sent a delegation of priests and Levites to question him. Arriving at Bethany on the east side of the Jordan, where John was then baptizing, they asked him, “Who are you?” This question implied that they wanted to know on whose authority he was acting and what basis he had for his activity. (1:19, 24, 28)

In response, John told them that he was not the Christ. His acknowledgment left no doubt regarding this. (1:20)

The questioners then asked him whether he was Elijah or “the prophet.” His emphatic response made it clear that he was neither Elijah nor “the prophet.” Although John did the work of the foretold Elijah, he was not the Elijah who had lived centuries earlier and whom the questioners expected to return literally. Seemingly, they also believed that “the prophet” greater than Moses would appear before the coming of the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:18, 19) That “prophet,” however, proved to be the one for whom John was preparing the way. (1:21)

Wanting a specific answer from John, an answer they could relate to those who had sent them, they again raised the question, “Who are you?” They followed this up with another question, “What do you say about yourself?” (1:22)

Referring to the words of Isaiah (40:3), John identified himself, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare the way of the Lord.” These prophetic words focused on the message, not the messenger. John was just a “voice,” the agent who gave voice to the message. (1:23)

The delegation whom the Pharisees had sent then asked why he was baptizing if he was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet. Seemingly, in their view, John was not authorized to do baptizing without being able to identify himself definitively as being the Christ, Elijah, or the prophet whom Moses had foretold. Possibly their belief may have been based on certain prophecies in Ezekiel and Zechariah. The prophecy of Ezekiel indicated that God would cleanse the Israelites by sprinkling clean water upon them and then would put his spirit within them. (Ezekiel 36:25-27) Zechariah’s prophecy (13:1) pointed to the time when God would open a fountain to purify from sin and uncleanness. Such prophecies may have given rise to the expectation of the coming of one who would act as the agent to carry out God’s work of cleansing by means of water, and the Jews may have concluded that this one would be an extraordinary personage — the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet like Moses. (1:24, 25)

In his reply, John turned attention away from himself and stressed the greatness of the one to come and before whom he was preparing the way. He said, “I baptize in water. In your midst, one is standing [or, is one who has taken his stand (according to another reading of the Greek text)] whom you do not know. [As for] the one coming after me, I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal” or to do the most menial task for him. (1:26, 27)

The narrated questioning of John the Baptist and of his responses occurred at Bethany. It is at this location on the east side of the Jordan that John did baptizing. The site itself has not been identified. Origen (185? to 254? CE) did not find Bethany in the general area and, therefore, preferred the reading Bethabara. (1:28)

The next day, after the interchange with the questioners from Jerusalem, John saw Jesus (after his return from the wilderness subsequent to his having been subjected to Satan’s testing [Matthew 4:1-11]) approaching and then said to those within hearing distance, “See, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” This identification suggested that Jesus, like the lambs offered daily at the temple, would die sacrificially for the sins of humans (or the “world” of humankind). (1:29)

Stressing the greatness of Jesus, John called attention to what he had said earlier. “This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who has come to be ahead of me, because he was before me.’” John thus revealed that Jesus would surpass him and, in relation to time, had priority. He already “was” before John’s birth. (1:30)

John acknowledged that he did not know Jesus in the manner that he then could identify him but did baptizing so that he would be revealed to Israel. Before John started his activity of calling the people to repentance and baptizing, God had revealed to him that the one upon whom he would see the spirit descending and remaining would be the one who would baptize with holy spirit. As he did see the spirit coming down like a dove from heaven and remaining on Jesus, John testified, “This is the Son of God.” (1:31-34)

The next day Jesus again went to the area where John was baptizing. At the time, John was standing with two of his disciples. Seeing Jesus walking, he said to them, “See, the Lamb of God!” This prompted the two disciples to leave and head toward Jesus. (1:35-37)

Aware that he was being followed, Jesus turned and asked John’s two disciples, “What are you seeking?” This question served as an invitation for them to express their wishes respecting him. They addressed him as “Rabbi” (“Teacher”) and asked, “Where are you staying?” Their question implied that they wanted to spend time with him. Jesus invited them to come with him and to see for themselves. They then remained with him that day. It was about the tenth hour when they arrived where Jesus was staying. According to Jewish reckoning, roughly only two hours remained before the start of a new day. With the day (the daylight hours) starting at 6 a.m., the tenth hour would have been about 4:00 p.m. (1:38, 39)

One of the disciples was Andrew, the brother of Simon (to whom Jesus would later give the name Peter). The other disciple likely was John the brother of James. This is suggested by the fact that John is never named in a single verse of the account to which he is linked as the writer. (John 1:40)

Upon leaving Jesus’ company, Andrew located his brother Simon and excitedly told him, “We have found the Messiah” (Christ or the Anointed). With his brother, Andrew then headed back to the place where Jesus was staying. Upon seeing Simon, Jesus said to him, “You are Simon, son of John [Jonah]. You will be called Cephas” (Peter). The name “Cephas” or “Peter” means “rock,” and this name reflected Jesus’ confidence in Simon as one who would prove to be rocklike or solid in his faith and provide strengthening aid to fellow believers. (1:41, 42; Mark 3:16; compare Luke 22:32.)

The next day Jesus wanted to leave Judea to go to Galilee. He personally approached Philip, doubtless also one of John’s disciples, inviting him to be a follower. Philip must have known Peter and Andrew. Before taking up residence in Capernaum, Peter and Andrew, like Philip, lived in Bethsaida, a town on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. (1:43, 44; compare Luke 4:31-39.)

Philip then located Nathanael, telling him, “The one of whom Moses wrote in the Law and the Prophets [wrote] we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” The link to Nazareth appeared puzzling to Nathanael, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” His question may suggest that Nazareth did not have a good reputation. On the other hand, Nathanael may have meant that he found it difficult to believe that the promised Messiah, the great good to which Philip had referred, would come from this city in Galilee (and not Bethlehem in Judea). Could it really be that the Messiah, of all places, would have Nazareth as his home? Philip did not try to persuade Nathanael with words but invited him to come and find out for himself. (1:45, 46)

Nathanael is not named in the accounts attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Based on the mention of Philip and Bartholomew together in listings of the apostles, Nathanael and Bartholomew appear to be the same person. (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14) Similarly, Matthew is also called Levi. (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-29)

As Philip and Nathanael approached, Jesus’ first words to Nathanael were, “See, a true Israelite in whom nothing is false.” Surprised by this observation from one whom he had never met, Nathanael responded, “How do you know me?” Revealing that he had knowledge about Nathanael beyond the ordinary, Jesus told him that he had seen him under the fig tree before Philip called him. Based on Jesus’ reference to the fig tree, Nathanael recognized that Jesus’ knowledge about him was of a miraculous nature, removing any doubt from his mind about Jesus’ true identity. An event or circumstance associated with that fig tree revealed the kind of person Nathanael was, and he immediately grasped the significance of Jesus’ words. With conviction, he replied, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” Having believed on the basis of being told that he had been seen under the fig tree, Nathanael heard Jesus say that he would see things greater than this. In fact, he and the other disciples would see heaven opened and “the angels of God ascending and descending to the Son of Man.” Through him, the very heavens would be opened up to them. (1:47-51)

The reference to the ascending and descending of angels from the Son of Man somewhat parallels what Jacob saw in his dream at Bethel. In that case, angels descended and ascended by means of a ladder-like or stair-like arrangement that reached from the land to the sky, and the Almighty was positioned at the top. Jacob then heard God’s promise that through his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed. (Genesis 28:12-14) As the apostle Paul wrote when referring to the promise first made to Abraham, that seed proved to be Christ. (Galatians 3:16) Jesus’ statement therefore may also have served to confirm Nathanael’s expression of faith, “You are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.” (1:49-51)

Not until after Jesus’ death do angels figure prominently in the biblical accounts, being seen at various times. (Matthew 28:2-7; Mark 16:5-7; Luke 24:1-7; John 20:11, 12; Acts 1:10, 11) Manuscript evidence concerning the appearance of an angel in the garden of Gethsemane to strengthen Jesus is inconclusive. The omission of this incident in early extant manuscripts suggests that it may not have been mentioned in Luke’s original account. (Luke 22:43) So it would appear that Jesus’ words about the ascending and descending of angels relate more to the disciples being able to see the free approach he had to his Father and that angels were always available to minister to him. (1:51; compare Matthew 26:53.)

John 2:1-25

Possibly on the third day after Nathanael’s first meeting Jesus, a wedding took place in Cana of Galilee (identified with a site about 8 miles [c. 13 kilometers] northeast of Nazareth). Among those present were Jesus’ mother Mary, Jesus, and his disciples. (2:1, 2)

By invitation, Jesus and his disciples were present for the event. Likely there were six disciples at this time, Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew, Philip and Nathanael (Bartholomew), and John and his brother James. While the record is silent about when James became a disciple, it would seem reasonable that John (probably the unnamed disciple mentioned in the first chapter of John) would have shared the news about Jesus with his brother. Their mother appears to have been Salome, usually identified as the wife of Zebedee. She may also have been Mary’s sister. (2:2; compare Matthew 27:56 with Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 with Matthew 27:55 and Mark 15:40, 41.)

During the wedding festivities, the supply of wine ran out. Mary became concerned about this embarrassing development. Her personal interest in preserving the joyous spirit of the occasion appears to be more typical of a relative or a close family friend than of an invited guest. She approached Jesus, informing him that there was no more wine. Possibly based on what her son had done at other times, she apparently believed that he would be able to come up with a solution for the problem she had brought to his attention. (2:3)

Jesus’ initial reply to her indicated that their relationship had changed. As the Christ, God’s unique Son, he would be the one to initiate action in his own time. A literal English translation of his words is harsher in tone than is the Greek, where the term for “woman” gyné can also denote “lady” or “wife.” For this reason, a number of translations represent Jesus as addressing Mary as “dear woman.” His response in question form was, “What to me and to you?” The idiomatic expression implied that in this specific matter the two of them had nothing in common. Jesus then added, “My hour has not yet come” (possibly meaning the time for him to intervene to handle the problem regarding the wine or the time for him to reveal his identity as the promised Messiah). (2:4)

Mary evidently understood that Jesus would no longer be taking motherly direction from her but did not doubt that he would act. This is suggested by her words to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” (2:5)

For ceremonial washing purposes, six large stone jars were available. Each of these could hold two or three measures (perhaps bath measures or roughly between 12 and 18 gallons [between 44 and 66 liters]). (2:6)

Jesus directed the servants to fill the containers with water. They then filled them to the top. (2:7)

In response to Jesus’s words, the servants drew out a sample of the liquid. As Jesus had instructed them, they took the drawn-out liquid to the master of the festivities. (2:8)

The servants did not tell the master of the festivities from where they had obtained the liquid. Upon tasting it, he perceived it to be choice wine and thereafter summoned the bridegroom to tell him that he had not followed the customary procedure. Unlike others, the bridegroom had set out the inferior wine first and reserved the best wine until the guests had partaken to a degree where their sense of taste had ceased to be keen. (2:9, 10)

His transforming water into wine in Cana of Galilee proved to be Jesus’ first “sign.” The term “sign” (semeíon) designates an occurrence that is viewed as having a special significance. In the context of John 2:11, the Greek word refers to a miracle or a miraculous sign. All the “signs” Jesus performed served to identify him as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. At the same time, the individual “signs” revealed aspects about him or his activity. This particular sign indicated that his ministry would differ markedly from that of John the Baptist, who lived an austere life and never drank wine. (Matthew 11:18; Luke 1:15) John proclaimed a serious message, calling upon the people to repent, and his bearing and actions harmonized with a spirit of godly sorrow. The arrival of the Messiah, however, opened up a period of joy and hope, extending to responsive ones the opportunity to become sharers with him in his royal realm and all the blessings associated therewith. By means of this sign, Jesus also manifested “his glory” or magnificence, revealing his divinely granted power, his role as a benefactor, and the kind of joy he alone would be able to impart to his disciples. Whereas the disciples had earlier made expressions of belief in him as being the Messiah and God’s Son, the noteworthy sign, as a manifestation of his glory, served to deepen their faith. As the biblical record states, “His disciples believed in him.” (2:11)

After the wedding, Jesus, his mother, his brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum (a city on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee about 676 feet [206 meters] below sea leve). From what is thought to have been the site of ancient Cana, they would have traveled about 25 miles (40 kilometers) by road. The group did not remain long in Capernaum. Originally Peter and Andrew had lived in nearby Bethsaida. (1:44) At this time, however, they were residing in Capernaum, and the city may also have been the home of James and John. (2:12; compare Mark 1:16-21; Luke 4:31-38.)

As the Passover was near, Jesus, his brothers, his disciples, and Mary left Capernaum for Jerusalem, where they would observe the Passover. With the prime focus being on Jesus and his activity in Jerusalem, the account only specifically mentions Jesus as going up to Jerusalem. (2:13)

There, in the “temple” (hierón) or, more specifically, in the Court of the Gentiles, which was part of the extensive temple complex, Jesus saw merchants selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. Worshipers would buy animals for sacrifice and exchange coins that were unacceptable for the payment of the temple tax, contributions for the support of the temple, and possibly also for the purchase of sacrificial animals. (2:14)

For the merchants and money changers, this proved to be a profitable enterprise. The Mishnah, compiled around 200 CE and consisting of a collection of ancient Jewish traditions, says (Shekalim 1:3) that money changers set up in the temple area on the 25th of Adar (February/March). This Jewish work also reveals extreme price gouging in connection with the sale of sacrificial animals. On one occasion, a pair of doves was being sold for 25 times more than the usual price. (Keritot 1:7)

Filled with indignation about the defilement of a sacred location with commercial activity, Jesus made a whip of ropes and drove the sheep and cattle out of the temple area, forcing the sellers to leave with their animals. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables, and told the sellers of doves to leave with their birds, rebuking them for having turned his Father’s house into a place of business. Upon witnessing Jesus’ taking such firm action, the disciples recalled the words of the psalmist, “The zeal for your house will consume me.” (2:15-17; see Psalm 69:9[10], 68:10, LXX)

Based on the words recorded in Malachi 3:1-7, the Jews may have expected the promised Messiah to take decisive action in connection with the sanctity of the temple. His foretold role included purifying the Levites for offering acceptable sacrifices. It therefore appears that certain Jews challenged Jesus to show them a sign, a sign establishing Messianic authority to stop commercial activity in the temple complex. (2:18)

In response to their challenging question about what sign he would be showing them, Jesus replied, “Pull down this temple [naós, usually applying to the main sanctuary building], and in three days I will raise it.” Jesus’ response was basically the same as his reply on other occasions when challengingly asked for a sign. This sign, which came to be widely known, was that he would rise in three days. (Matthew 12:38-40; 16:4; 26:60, 61; Luke 11:29) Jesus could refer to raising “the temple of his body” in three days, as his Father had granted him the authority or right to surrender his “soul” or life and to receive it again. (2:19; 10:17, 18)

In disbelief, they said, “This temple [naós] was built in 46 years, and you are going to raise it in three days?” From the historical information contained in the writings of Josephus, it is not possible to determine just what the Jews in the temple area meant when saying to Jesus that the temple was built in 46 years. Work on the entire temple complex was not completed until some six years before the Romans destroyed it in 70 CE. As for the start of the rebuilding undertaken at the direction of Herod the Great, Josephus says in War (I, xxi, 1) that it was the 15th year of Herod’s reign, whereas in Antiquities (XV, xi, 1) he states that it was the 18th year. If the reference to the 15th year is not in error, possibly it was then that preparatory work began, with actual construction on the site not commencing until the 18th year. (2:20)

Neither the Jewish questioners nor his disciples understood that Jesus was speaking figuratively about “the temple [naós] of his body.” Not until Jesus was raised from the dead did his disciples understand what he meant. It was then that they believed the “Scripture” foretelling Jesus’ resurrection and the “word” he spoke in the temple area relating to his rising from the dead. (2:21, 22)

While in Jerusalem for the Passover and the seven-day festival that followed, Jesus did perform miraculous signs. Witnessing these signs, many came to believe in “his name” or in him. Jesus, however, recognized that those who initially responded favorably did not have a solid faith. He did not trust himself to them, for he knew them all or he knew who they really were at heart and understood human weaknesses fully. He did not need anyone else’s testimony about “man,” for “he knew what was in man.” Jesus discerned how easily humans could be swayed or wrongly influenced despite having clear evidence respecting the rightness of a particular course. (2:23-25)

John 3:1-35

One night during Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem, Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews (probably meaning a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme council or the highest religious authority), came to see him. Likely Nicodemus was aware of negative sentiments about Jesus among influential Jews and may have chosen to be cautious to avoid potential problems. A night visit would also have been more suitable for an uninterrupted private interchange. He addressed Jesus as “Rabbi” and acknowledged him as a teacher having come from God, for the miraculous signs he had performed proved that God was with him. The first-person plural verb oídamen (“we know”) may indicate that he was aware of others who recognized Jesus as having come as a teacher from God. On the other hand, this could simply be the editorial first-person plural verb. (3:1, 2)

In response, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The expression “amen, amen” signifies “truly, truly,” and serves to introduce an important truth in a solemn manner. For one to see the “kingdom of God” (or to be part of the royal realm where the Most High is recognized as Sovereign and all the members thereof share in the blessings and privileges he grants) requires a tremendous change. The Greek term ánothen means either “above” or “again.” Earlier in John’s account, the new birth is attributed to God (1:13), and this suggests that “born from above” (instead of “born again”) is the preferable significance. (3:3)

Nicodemus did not understand what Jesus meant. He replied, “How can a man who is old be born? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born.” (3:4)

Clarifying what the new birth involves, Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, Unless a person is born from water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Whoever is born from flesh is flesh, and whoever is born from spirit is spirit. Do not be surprised that I said to you, You must be born from above [ánothen]. The wind [pneúma, meaning “wind” or “spirit”] blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know from where it comes and where it is going. Thus [it] is [with] everyone who is born from the spirit.” (3:5-8)

Without being made new by the kind of cleansing represented by the water and receiving God’s spirit, a person would not be able to “see” (3:3) or “enter” (3:5) the kingdom of God. He would not be recognized as one of God’s people and so could not possibly be in his royal realm. Born of flesh, all humans are flesh, and are burdened by the flawed condition they have inherited. This is why all are sinners, repeatedly disappointing themselves and others in attitude, word, and deed. All need help from outside the human sphere. That aid must come from “above” or the realm of the spirit. A newness of life can only be brought about by an operation of God’s spirit, and the outward manifestation thereof would be a marked change in conduct, motivated by a desire to do God’s will. As Jesus pointed out to Nicodemus, just how God’s spirit operates within an individual cannot be perceived. One can hear the wind and observe its effects, but one cannot see its source or where it is going. Nevertheless, just as the wind is real and its effects are real, the invisible working of God’s spirit within individuals is real. (3:5-8)

Still not grasping the significance of Jesus’ words, Nicodemus said, “How can these things take place?” Based on his knowledge of the Scriptures, he should have understood what Jesus meant. This is evident from Jesus’ response, “You are a teacher of Israel, and you do not know these things?” (3:9, 10)

As a recognized teacher among fellow Jews, Nicodemus knew what the holy writings contained. The prophets Isaiah, Joel, and Ezekiel, for example, spoke about a future outpouring of God’s spirit. Isaiah referred to mourning resulting from divine chastisement as ending upon God’s spirit being poured out from on high upon the people. (Isaiah 32:12-15) Joel’s prophetic words (2:28, 29) indicated that the spirit would be poured out on sons and daughters, men and women, young and old. Ezekiel (36:25-28, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]) specifically mentioned cleansing as preceding the outpouring of God’s spirit: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes. And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules. Then you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will be your God.”

Repeatedly, the prophets urged the people to repent and change their ways in order to be recipients of God’s mercy and blessing. (Isaiah 1:15-20; Ezekiel 18:31; Joel 2:12-14; Malachi 3:7) Therefore, from what he knew the prophets had proclaimed, Nicodemus should have understood that repentance preceded a cleansing as by water and only then would God pour out his spirit upon those whom he recognized as clean before him. This was also the message John the Baptist proclaimed, and his immersing Israelites in the Jordan followed an acknowledgment of their sins. Moreover, he announced the future outpouring of God’s spirit, saying of the one to come, “He will baptize you with holy spirit.” (Matthew 3:2, 5, 6, 11; Luke 3:10-16)

The Son of God, having come from the spirit realm, fully understood the functioning of holy spirit. He knew what none of earth’s inhabitants knew and had seen what they had never seen. His authoritative testimony, however, did not gain general acceptance. The transformation about which Jesus spoke to Nicodemus related to the earthly realm, for it involved a change in the human condition. If this earthly aspect was not believed, how could it possibly be that Jesus’ words about heavenly things only known to him would be believed? No man had ascended to heaven, precluding any possibility of possessing testimony regarding heavenly things. Jesus, though, had descended from heaven. When referring to himself as the “Son of Man,” Jesus evidently identified himself as the promised Messiah portrayed in the book of Daniel (7:13, 14). Having come from heaven, he alone could teach what no one else could. Additionally, only he could reveal how an eternal relationship with his Father would be possible. (3:11-13)

An event during Israel’s wandering in the wilderness revealed an aspect of how restoration to divine favor would come about. When many Israelites died from being bitten by poisonous serpents, Moses was divinely instructed to make a serpent and place it on a pole. Anyone bitten by a serpent, upon looking at the bronze serpent Moses had made, would live. There was nothing in that metal serpent that could remove the lethal venom from those who had been bitten. Their response to God’s arrangement made it possible for them to continue living. (Numbers 21:5-9) Similarly, response in faith to Jesus’ being lifted up on the implement on which he would die would lead to eternal life. Just as the Israelites acknowledged their sin and had to recognize the danger in which they found themselves because of having been bitten, humans must acknowledge their sinful state, recognize the death-dealing effects of sin, and avail themselves of God’s provision through Christ to be liberated. It is an arrangement that reveals the hideous nature of sin (considering what Jesus endured for sinners) and God’s great love by having his Son die for the world of mankind, reaching the inmost selves of those who believe and appreciatively acknowledge that God and Christ did this for them so that they might live in eternal fellowship with them. (3:14-16)

In expression of his boundless love, God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, depriving humans of all hope, but to save the world of mankind, opening up to all the opportunity for eternal life or an abiding relationship with him. The individual responding in faith would not have a condemnatory judgment expressed against him. A failure to put faith in the “name” or in the person of the unique Son of God when the testimony concerning him is presented would, however, lead to adverse judgment. (3:17, 18)

The only-begotten or unique Son of God is the “light” that came into the world, dispelling the darkness of ignorance and evil. Whenever people love the darkness more than the light, preferring a life contrary to God’s upright ways, they are not drawn to his Son. Having chosen to engage in wicked works, harming themselves and others by their lawless actions, they hate the light embodied in him. They do not want their works to be exposed by the light that radiates from God’s Son. (3:19, 20)

The person who “does [or lives] the truth,” striving to harmonize his life with what is true and right, is drawn to the light. Instead of fearing exposure, such a person makes a confident approach, letting the light reveal his works as having been done “in God.” The expression “in God” suggests that the individual recognized the need for divine aid and lived a life that acknowledged the Most High and focused on pleasing him. (3:21)

The words of John 3:16-21 or 14-21 are not necessarily part of the discussion with Nicodemus, but may be the comments of the writer of this account. Translations vary in the placement of the quotation marks, either ending the quotation with verse 13, verse 15, or verse 21. Today’s English Version, for example, ends the quotation with verse 13 to indicate that verses 14-21 were not part of the conversation.

Jesus and his disciples next went into the region of Judea. There he spent some time with them, and they did baptizing, evidently at his direction or with his approval. (3:22; 4:1, 2)

As there was abundant water in Aenon near Salim, John did baptizing at that location (which has not been identified with any known site), and people continued coming to him to be immersed. At the time, John had not as yet been imprisoned. (3:23, 24)

In the mind of the Jews (singular “Jew” in other Greek manuscripts) who disputed with John’s disciples about purification, baptism would have been associated with cleansing, especially in view of the call to repentance. The nature of the argument, however, is not specified in the account. In view of what his disciples later said to John, it would appear that the dispute centered on what seemed to be competing baptisms. John had ceased to be the only one doing baptizing. The disciples of John called to his attention that the one concerning whom he had testified was baptizing and that “all” were going to him. They attributed to Jesus what his disciples were doing and appear to have been disturbed by the decreasing number of people coming to John. (3:25, 26)

Responding to their concern, John told them that a man cannot receive anything unless it has been given him from above, heaven, or by God. As he reminded them, they knew full well that he had said, “I am not the Christ,” and that he had been sent to prepare the way before him. Likening himself to the bridegroom’s friend, John continued, “The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The bridegroom’s friend stands and hears him, rejoicing greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore, this, my joy, has been made complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.” (3:27-30)

The Son of God had come from above and so was above all. Although a prophet, John had not come from the realm above. He was from the earth and was limited to conveying information that related to the earthly sphere. Although God’s unique Son had come from heaven and is above all and could testify about things that no one from the earth had seen or heard, people generally did not accept his testimony. (3:31, 32)

The person accepting this testimony placed his seal upon it, certifying that God is true or that he had kept his word to send the one who was promised to come. With the fullness of God’s spirit operating upon him (unlike the prophets to whom the spirit had been given by measure), Jesus spoke his Father’s words. As the one whom he dearly loved, the Father had given everything into the hands of his Son — everything relating to the eternal future of the world of mankind. To have faith in the Son would result in coming into possession of eternal life or a life distinguished by an abiding relationship with the Father. Those who reject the Son will not see life or experience an enduring life as persons whom the Father approves and loves. As persons against whom a record of sin remains, they continue to be the objects of God’s wrath or disapproval. (3:33-36)

Verses 31-36 may not be a part of John the Baptist’s testimony. The revelatory nature of the comments about God’s Son would seem to indicate that this is a summation of the gospel writer. Translators vary respecting the placement of the closing quotation marks, either including verses 31 through 36 or ending the quotation of John the Baptist’s words with verse 30.

John 4:1-54

Whereas Jesus’ disciples and not he himself did baptizing, the news reached the Pharisees that he was making and baptizing more disciples than John. Learning about this development, Jesus left Judea and returned to Galilee. According to Matthew 4:12 and Mark 1:14, Jesus’ departure coincided with John’s arrest and imprisonment for having exposed the wrongness of Herod Antipas’s incestuous relationship with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. (Mark 6:17, 18) This suggests that the apparent jealousy of the Pharisees and John’s imprisonment created an environment hostile to Jesus. As his time for laying down his life had not yet come, he may have left for Galilee, where the potential personal dangers would not have been as great. (4:1-3)

On their way to Galilee, Jesus and his disciples traveled the more direct route through Samaria. Arriving at a well the patriarch Jacob had dug centuries earlier and which was in a field that came to be the legal possession of Joseph, Jesus, tired from the journey, seated himself there while his disciples went into the nearby city of Sychar to buy food. It was about the sixth hour or noon (according to Jewish reckoning). (4:4-6, 8)

In view of her reputation, a certain Samaritan woman may have chosen to walk to the well to draw water during the heat of the day when others usually would not be there. When she arrived, Jesus asked her to give him a drink. Surprised that a Jew would ask a Samaritan for a drink (as Jews did not associate with Samaritans), she said, “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” Endeavoring to shift her focus to what he could provide for her, Jesus replied, “If you had known the gift of God and the one who said to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The Samaritan woman, however, did not understand what Jesus meant but continued to focus on literal water, telling him that he had no means for drawing water from the deep well. “Where, then,” she asked, “can you get this living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob who gave us the well and who himself and his sons and his flocks drank from it?” (4:7-12)

Drawing a distinction between the water from the well and the “water” he could provide, Jesus said, “Everyone drinking from this water will get thirsty again. The one, however, drinking from the water I shall give him will never thirst, but the water I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” To partake of the living water, the individual must turn in faith or unqualified trust to Jesus as the promised Messiah or Christ and as the unique Son of God. Thereafter what Jesus, as the source of the living water, imparts becomes within the person a well of never-failing water that bubbles up, granting eternal life to the individual. This life is a newness of life as a person having an enduring approved relationship with the Father and his beloved Son. With her mind still fixed on water, the woman did not comprehend Jesus’ words. “Sir, give me this water,” she said, “that I may not thirst and may not have to come here to draw [water].” (4:13-15)

If the Scriptural account basically contains the entire conversation, Jesus did not explain how his words related to him and how, through him, all that was essential for eternal life could be obtained. He used another approach to direct her attention beyond her mundane concerns, asking her to call her husband. Acknowledging the correctness of her response about not having a husband, Jesus continued, “You have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband.” His reply made her realize that he was no ordinary man. He was a prophet. This prompted her to bring up a matter that had seemingly lain dormant in her mind. “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain [Gerizim], but you [Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship.” Her implied question was, Which view is correct? (4:16-20)

Jesus then revealed that the time was at hand when geographical locations would cease to have any bearing on worship. “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You [Samaritans] worship what you do not know. We [Jews] worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is [here], when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for also such ones the Father seeks to worship him. God [is] spirit, and those worshiping him must worship in spirit and truth.” (4:21-24)

With Jesus’ arrival as the promised Messiah, the “hour” or time had come for a change in the arrangement for worship. No longer would worship be associated with a specific location like Mount Gerizim or the temple in Jerusalem. Because the Samaritans were only acquainted with the Pentateuch and did not have the complete revelation about God available in the writings of the Hebrew prophets, they were worshiping one whom they did not fully know. The Jews, on the other hand, were in possession of all the “holy writings.” From among them, the Messiah was promised to come. Therefore, as Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews.” (4:21, 22)

Worship “in spirit” is not dependent on a particular location or any other external factors. Regardless of the time or circumstances, true worshipers are in possession of a worshipful attitude. Theirs is worship of a spiritual kind. The approach to the Father is with profound reverence and humility. Worship “in truth” harmonizes with the complete revelation the Father has provided respecting himself. The full disclosure became available through his Son, who is the “truth.” Jesus flawlessly mirrored his Father. Therefore, seeing the Son was just like seeing God. The Father is seeking those whose worship is not governed by externals. He is “spirit” and therefore not to be linked in any way to the realm of the physical. Worship that is acceptable to him must be “in spirit and truth,” reflecting who he is (based on the complete revelation he has provided). Being “in truth,” such worship would also be genuine and not a mere expression of the lips or a ritualistic routine. (4:23, 24; compare 1 John 3:18.)

At this point, the woman acknowledged that she knew Messiah was coming and that he would make everything known. In keeping with her expectation about the Messiah, Jesus identified himself openly to her in a way that he did not among his own people. “I am [the Messiah], the one speaking to you.” (4:25, 26)

In the then-existing culture, men did not freely converse with women in the manner that Jesus did. So, when the disciples returned from having purchased food, they wondered why he was speaking with a woman, but no one could bring himself to ask what she wanted or why Jesus was speaking to her. (4:27)

Indicating that she planned to return, the woman left her water jar and headed back to the city. As Jesus had revealed that he knew intimate details about her life, she invited men of the city to see the man who had told her “all” that she had done and expressed the thought that he could be the Messiah. Based on her words, the men departed from the city to meet Jesus. (4:28-30)

During the intervening time, the disciples asked Jesus to eat. He, though, told them, “I have food to eat of which you have no knowledge.” This perplexed the disciples, causing them to wonder whether someone else had brought him something to eat. Clarifying his statement, Jesus continued, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, ‘Yet [éti, missing in a number of ancient manuscripts] four months it is, and [then] comes the harvest’? Look! I say to you, raise your eyes and behold the fields, that they are white, [ready] for [the] harvest. Already the reaper is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. For in this, the saying is true, ‘One is the sower, and another the reaper.’ I sent you to harvest [that] on which you had not labored. Others labored, and you have entered into their labor,” benefiting from the preparatory work others had performed. (4:31-38)

For Jesus, doing his Father’s will brought refreshment comparable to partaking of nourishment. The reference to “four months” until the harvest may have been a proverbial saying, indicating that from sowing until harvesting was a period of four months. As a proverbial saying, the reference would provide no clue as to the time of the year Jesus and his disciples were in Samaria. (4:32, 34, 35)

Jesus’ words, however, did not focus on a literal harvest of grain. The fields ripe for harvesting denoted the people who would be ready to respond to the message about him that his disciples would proclaim. This could mean that the Greek word héde for “already” could refer to the fields that were then ripe for harvesting. The inclusion of kaí (“and”) in fifth century Codex Alexandrinus and a number of other manuscripts after héde does support this significance. If, however, héde is understood to start the sentence that is completed in verse 36, this would mean that the reaper was already receiving wages. These wages would be the results the disciples had when laboring with Jesus in the harvest. The Samaritans who were making their way to see Jesus illustrated the bountiful harvest of people that lay ahead. Those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God would come into possession of eternal life (a life distinguished by an enduring relationship with him and his Father). As “fruit” of the harvest, people would be gathered for eternal life. (4:35)

The time would come when both those who shared in the preparatory work and those who participated in the harvest could rejoice together. The Hebrew prophets had labored while subjected to abuse and bitter opposition, and their words survived in written form, giving rise to hope respecting the coming of the Messiah. The last of the prophets who had faithfully labored until his arrest and imprisonment was John the Baptist. Even the testimony of the Samaritan woman about her conversation with Jesus served as preparatory sowing. Jesus’ disciples would benefit from all the sowing that had been done in the past, finding joy in gathering “fruit for eternal life.” (4:35-38)

In view of what the woman had told them, many Samaritans came to believe in Jesus. Her basic message about him was, “He told me everything I did.” The Samaritans asked Jesus to stay with them, and he accepted their invitation, remaining with them for two days. Based on their personal experience with Jesus, many more came to believe. They then told the woman that their conviction was not based on just what she had said, adding, “We know that he is truly the Savior of the world.” (4:39-42)

The faith many Samaritans showed is remarkable. They did not see Jesus perform a single miraculous sign but believed in him because of what they first heard he said to the woman and, later, what they heard from him personally. (4:41, 42)

Whether Jesus’ disciples remained with him two extra days in Samaria is not specifically stated in the biblical account. At some point during the course of their travel northward, however, they began to head to their own homes.

After the two days in Samaria, Jesus departed for Galilee. Whereas the Samaritans had invited him to stay, he could testify that in his own country (or among his own people) a prophet has no honor. (4:43, 44)

At the seven-day festival following the Passover, the Galileans present for the observance had witnessed Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem, including his miraculous signs and his cleansing the temple of commercial activity. Based on what they had seen, they welcomed him. (4:45)

Arriving in Cana, where he had earlier turned water into wine, he met a royal official from Capernaum, where Peter and Andrew and seemingly also James and John resided. This official’s son was seriously ill. Upon learning that Jesus had come from Judea, this man set out to meet him, requesting that he come to Capernaum to heal his boy who was then close to death. (4:46, 47)

Jesus responded, “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe.” According to the Greek text, the verbs are second-person plural verbs, not the singular (“you see” and “you believe”). This suggests that Jesus’ words were designed to test the genuineness of the royal official’s faith. Was the man like the many others who personally wanted to see signs and wonders before they would put faith in Jesus? (4:48)

This official’s next words reflected the desperate plea of a father for his son and the belief that Jesus alone could cure him. “Sir [or, Lord], come down before my boy dies.” Instead of accompanying the father back to Capernaum, Jesus told him to return, assuring him, “Your son lives.” He believed what Jesus told him and departed. The measure of faith he had then manifested was strengthened during the trip back to Capernaum. While he was on his way, his slaves met him, telling him that his son was alive and well. In response to his inquiry about when his son’s health improved, the slaves said, “Yesterday, in the seventh hour [about 1:00 p.m., according to Jewish reckoning], the fever left him.” This was the very time Jesus had said to him, “Your son lives.” Therefore, he “believed” (evidently in Jesus and with greater conviction than he had upon first heading back to Capernaum) and so did his entire household. (4:49-53)

This was the “second sign” Jesus performed in Galilee, and the first one since his return from Judea. How many miracles Jesus did earlier in Judea is not disclosed in the biblical accounts. Like the other miracles, the “second sign” served to identify Jesus as the Son of God. It demonstrated the greatness of the divine power operating through him, as he did not have to be present personally for the cure to occur. (4:54)

John 5:1-47

The various manuscript readings do not make it possible to determine for which festival Jesus went to Jerusalem. While the oldest extant manuscripts omit the definite article before “festival” (heorté), many later manuscripts include it. Based on the definite article, many have thought that this would have been the most prominent of the three annual festivals — the Passover (followed by the seven-day Festival of Unleavened Bread). A ninth-century manuscript does, in fact, read ázymos, identifying the occasion as being the Festival of Unleavened Bread. A fourteenth-century manuscript, however, refers to it as “the Festival of Tabernacles” (he skenopegía). The measure of uncertainty about which festival was involved also makes it difficult to establish the time of the year in which the narrated events occurred. (5:1)

While in Jerusalem, Jesus, on a Sabbath day, passed by the pool of Bethzatha (Bethesda or Bethsaida [according to other manuscript readings]), which was situated near the Sheep Gate, the northeastern entrance into the temple area. (The Greek text does not include the word “gate.” Based on the context, translators have included the term to indicate that the reference is to the Sheep Gate.) In the five porticoes that had been constructed for the pool, many afflicted persons were lying, including the blind, the lame, and the crippled. Among them was a man who had suffered from his ailment for 38 years. Aware of this man’s pitiable state for many years, Jesus said to him, “Do you want to get well?” The man explained that he had no one to put him into the pool when the water would get stirred up. While he would then try to make it into the pool, someone else would precede him. Jesus told him, “Rise, pick up your mat, and walk.” Immediately cured from his affliction, the man got up, took hold of his mat, and started to walk. (5:2-9)

According to the oldest extant manuscripts, the words of verse 4 are omitted, providing no explanation as to why the waters in the pool were stirred up. (5:7) Later manuscripts, however, say that an angel stirred up the waters and that the first person then stepping into the pool would be cured of whatever ailment he may have had.

Seeing the cured man carrying his mat, fellow Jews told him that it was unlawful for him to do this on the Sabbath. He replied that the man who had made him well had told him to pick up his mat and walk. Instead of rejoicing about the marvelous cure, the objectors continued to focus on what they perceived to be a violation of the law, saying, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up [your mat] and walk’?” The cured man could not answer this question, for Jesus had not identified himself and, because of the crowd there, had walked away. (5:10-13)

Later, Jesus found the cured man in the temple complex. Whether he chose to look for the man or just happened to meet him again is not disclosed in the biblical account. Jesus did use the opportunity to admonish him not to sin any more and thus to avoid having something even worse than the 38 years of suffering befall him. This could suggest that the man had in earlier years lived a sinful life that brought on his affliction. Now that he was again well he should have been concerned about not repeating past wrongs and sinning with full knowledge of the serious consequences. (5:14)

The biblical record does not state why the cured man felt impelled to reveal Jesus’ identity to the Jews who had accused him of breaking the law by carrying his mat on the Sabbath. It seems most unlikely that he thought that this would bring trouble to his benefactor. As he appears to have made a point of the fact that Jesus had restored him to sound health, the man may have felt that this would cause them to draw a positive conclusion about his healer and cease making an issue about his carrying the mat on the Sabbath. (5:15)

Those who regarded what had taken place in connection with the cured man as a violation of the law, however, made Jesus the object of their hostility. Establishing his right to do good deeds on the Sabbath, Jesus said to his opponents, “My Father has been working until now, and I continue working.” The Jews would have believed that God completed his creative activity but continued to work, extending his blessing and expressing his judgment. Based on their holy writings, they would have known that God’s works included healing and making alive. (Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7) In imitation of his Father, Jesus continued to work, doing good deeds on the Sabbath. (5:16, 17)

Recognizing that he was referring to God as his Father in an intimate way, those hearing Jesus’ words became enraged, intent on killing him. In their minds, he had violated the Sabbath and called God his own Father in a very personal manner that was foreign to them, prompting them to conclude that he was blasphemously making himself “equal to” or like God. (5:18)

Jesus’ reply starts with the words, “Amen, amen, I say to you.” Here, as in verses 24 and 25, the introductory words constitute a solemn declaration and strong assurance regarding the truthfulness of the statements that follow. Jesus revealed that the hostile ones were wrong in their thinking that he was making himself equal to God, for he never acted independently of his Father. He solemnly affirmed the certainty of his words with “amen, amen” and stressed that he did not act on his own authority respecting a single deed but only did what he saw his Father doing. Whatever the Father did, the Son did likewise. Calling attention to the close relationship with his Father, Jesus continued: “The Father loves the Son and shows him everything he himself does, and works greater than these he will show him, so that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and restores life, so also the Son restores life to whomever he wishes. For the Father judges no one but has granted all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Amen, amen, I say to you, that whoever hears my word and believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and is not condemned but has passed from death to life.” (5:19-24)

As the intimate and dearly beloved of his Father, the unique Son possessed complete knowledge of his Father’s activity. In this context, the deeds of the Father specifically relate to humankind. The Father would do works even more astonishing than one like the restoration of good health to the man who had been afflicted for 38 years. The more impressive works would amaze those beholding them. As Jesus’ words revealed, those astonishing works involved more than temporary cures from affliction. The Father would make it possible for his Son to raise the dead and give them life. (5:19-21)

As the one to whom the Father had granted judgment authority, the Son would be in position to judge those whom he restored to life. Being the possessor of life-giving power like his Father and judge by his Father’s appointment, Jesus would be deserving of honor. All, in fact, should honor him as they would rightly honor the Father. A refusal to honor the Son would signify a refusal to honor the Father, as the Father had sent him. (5:22, 23)

In his capacity as judge, the Son would not express condemnatory judgment against those who believe in him, acknowledging him as God’s beloved Son and living a life that gives evidence of their belief or faith. Those who “hear” his word, accepting it in faith and acting on it, and who believe the Father and that he had sent his Son come into possession of eternal life. It is a life of an enduring approved relationship with the Father and his Son. Possessors of this eternal life, a newness of life as divinely approved persons, do not face condemnatory judgment. From a state of being dead in sins and therefore without a divinely approved standing, they have entered into the realm of life. (5:24)

In past generations, this opportunity had not been opened up, as Jesus continued, “Amen, amen, I say to you that the hour is coming and is now, when the dead will hear the voice of God’s Son and those hearing [it] will live.” Those who heard or paid attention to Jesus’ words and embraced them in faith ceased to be dead in trespasses and sins and began to enjoy a newness of life. With the arrival of God’s Son on earth, the “hour” or time for this marvelous development had arrived. (5:25)

The Father, who had “life in himself” or life-giving power, also granted the Son to have the same life-giving power. Jesus explained that he had been granted authority to render judgment because of being the “Son of Man.” By speaking of himself as the “Son of Man,” he identified himself with the one like a “son of man” (mentioned in Daniel 7:13, 14) to whom the Most High would grant kingship. (5:26, 27)

Jesus’ statement, “Do not be amazed at this,” could apply either to his words about being the “Son of Man” with divinely granted authority to judge or to his next comment about his restoring life to the dead and thereupon judging them. He continued speaking about himself in the third person, “The hour is coming when all in the tombs will hear his voice and come out.” Those who revealed themselves to be doers of good during their lifetime would then experience the “resurrection of life,” from then onward enjoying life eternally as persons having an approved relationship with the Father and his Son. Practicers of vile deeds, those who had set themselves in opposition to God’s ways, would face a “resurrection of judgment,” a condemnatory judgment commensurate with the life they had lived. (5:28, 29)

These words of Jesus parallel Daniel 12:2 (Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]), “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence.” Similarly, the apostle Paul wrote about judgment, (2 Corinthians 5:10 (NAB), “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.” (5:28, 29)

Christ’s judgment would conform to the highest standard of justice. He continued, “I can do nothing of myself; as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, for I seek [to do] not my own will but the will of the one who sent me.” In judging, Jesus would not handle matters as if he were a law to himself. His Father is the source of the ultimate standard of justice, and it is to him that Jesus would always listen, assuring absolute impartiality. At all times, he would seek to do his Father’s will, never deviating therefrom to do his own will and failing to uphold what the demands of flawless justice require. (5:30)

Jesus acknowledged that, if he merely testified respecting himself, his testimony could not be accepted as true, for it would be lacking the needed confirmation from at least one other witness. (Compare Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; 1 Timothy 5:19.) There was, however, another witness who bore testimony concerning him, and Jesus knew the testimony of this other witness to be true. The dependable witness was not a man. (5:31, 32)

Prominent Jews from Jerusalem had sent a delegation of priests and Levites to John to question him about his activity. On that occasion, John provided testimony that focused on the Messiah, the one for whom he was preparing the way. (1:19-27) Jesus, though, was not “accepting” the testimony from any man as if he depended upon it. He had testimony from a much higher source than man, making testimony from a human source unessential for confirmation of his identity. Jesus did not, however, reject John’s testimony. With the objective of leading his listeners to salvation or liberation from enslavement to sin, he called attention to John’s truthful witness. (5:33, 34)

Jesus wanted his listeners to reflect on John’s words and to act on them, leading to their acceptance of him as the promised Messiah. John proved to be a shining lamp, providing enlightenment about what was essential for being ready for Messiah’s appearance. For a short time (an “hour”), the people rejoiced in the light from this lamp, with many coming to John, listening to what he proclaimed, and being baptized by him in acknowledgment of their sinful state. Eventually, however, increasing numbers looked upon him negatively, slanderously referring to him as being demon possessed. (5:35; see Matthew 3:1-6; 11:16-18)

The miraculous works his Father had empowered Jesus to do served as testimony far greater than what John could give. These works undeniably established that he had come from God. (3:2; 9:24-38.) As Jesus said, “The works that I am doing testify about me that the Father has sent me.” By means of the works he had given Jesus to do, his Father testified that he was his beloved Son. (5:36; compare Hebrews 2:2-4.)

When telling those to whom he was then speaking that they had never heard God’s voice nor seen his form, Jesus did not refer to their not having such an experience in the literal sense. The holy writings, which they claimed to believe, contained God’s words and presented a clear vision respecting him. (Compare Exodus 20:18-22; 24:9-11; Judges 13:21-23; Job 38:1; 42:5; Isaiah 6:1-5; Ezekiel 1:26-28.) Their response to Jesus, the unique Son of God who flawlessly reflected the image of his Father, proved that they had not heard God’s voice as conveyed through the holy writings nor did they see God in the way he had revealed himself in these writings. God’s revelatory word did not abide in them. It was no part of their inner self, and so they lacked the essential light for recognizing the Son. This was the reason for their refusal to believe him as the one whom the Father had sent. (5:37, 38)

They did search the scriptures, thinking that through them they would have eternal life or a life as God’s favored people. Despite their searching, though, they failed to see the vital truth respecting the activity of the coming Messiah and allowed themselves to be blinded by what they wanted him to be. (Compare Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Isaiah 53:1-12.) The kind of life they were seeking could only be obtained by coming to Christ, acknowledging him as God’s unique Son who could liberate them from enslavement to sin. But, as Jesus said, “You do not wish to come to me so that you might have life.” (5:39, 40)

Jesus felt no need to have men bestow glory or honor upon him, seeking to please them in efforts to gain their favor or approval. He was fully aware that those to whom he spoke did not have the love of God in themselves. Their refusal to love him showed that they did not love the Father who had sent him. He had come in his Father’s name, faithfully representing him in word and deed. Yet those who heard Jesus’ words refused to accept him. If, on the other hand, someone came to them in his own name, acting and speaking on his own authority, they would accept him, evidently because they would be of kindred spirit and would be hearing what they wanted to hear. (5:41-43)

They had the wrong view of glory, wanting the praises of men, which required an appeal to those aims and desires that pandered to the flawed human condition. They did not seek the glory or praise that had its source in the only God, not wanting to submit themselves fully to his will and ways. (5:44)

Although Jesus reproved their unbelief, he could say that they had another one who accused them for their faithlessness. That one was Moses, the very one in whom they had set their hope. If they had truly believed Moses and the Messianic prophecies recorded in the sacred writings they attributed to him, they would have believed Jesus. How, though, could they believe Jesus’ words if they did not really believe the writings of Moses, writings which they claimed to believe as being of God? (5:45-47)

John 6:1-71

Jesus departed to the east side of the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias). Based on the accounts of Matthew and Mark, this departure by boat with his apostles occurred after he likely had made prior arrangements to first meet them in Capernaum after they had completed the mission on which he had sent them. (6:1)

Capernaum would have been the logical place for Jesus and the apostles to meet. Peter and Andrew had their home there, and most of the other apostles appear to have lived in the general vicinity. The availability of a boat also points to Capernaum as the probable location. An indication that Jesus and his apostles left from there by boat is their coming to the plain of Gennesaret (south of Capernaum) upon their return to the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. (Matthew 14:34; Mark 6:53)

The time for the return of the apostles from their mission was also appropriate. With the Passover being near, Jesus and his apostles needed to make the journey to Jerusalem. Like Peter, most, if not all, of the other apostles would have been married and likely had children. Families customarily made the trip together, and there is no reason to conclude that the apostles would not have done so. (Compare Mark 1:29, 30; Luke 2:41, 42; John 2:12, 13; 7:3, 8-10; 1 Corinthians 9:5)

Upon their return from the mission on which Jesus had sent the apostles, they related to him what they had done and taught. Possibly at this time, they first heard about the death of John. This would have greatly saddened them and appears to have been part of the reason for Jesus’ recommendation to depart for an isolated area to get some rest. Once it had become known that they had returned to the area, Jesus and his apostles had little privacy. They were unable even to eat a meal without interruption, because of the many people who were coming and going. (Matthew 14:12, 13; Mark 6:30, 31)

The number of people probably was greater than at other times, as the Passover was near. (6:4) Many families in Galilee would have started to travel to the major routes leading to Jerusalem and been staying in towns and villages along the way. This would have contributed to increased talk about Jesus activity, and more people would have witnessed his curing of the sick. (6:2)

Jesus’ departure with his apostles did not go unnoticed. Those who saw them leave by boat quickly spread the news. A large crowd of men, women, and children from different towns then hurried to the other side of the Sea of Galilee to meet them. The walking distance may have been less than 5 miles (c. 8 kilometers), as the isolated area was near Bethsaida. (Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:32, 33; Luke 9:10) A distance of a little over 3 miles (c. 5 kilometers) separates what are believed to have been the locations of ancient Capernaum and Bethsaida. From the shore, the people would have been able to see the progress of the boat in the northern part of the Sea of Galilee. (6:1, 2)

When Jesus and his apostles went ashore on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, a large crowd was already waiting for them. Although their presence interfered with his plan for the apostles to get some rest in an isolated area, Jesus was moved with compassion for the people. He considered them to be like helpless sheep without the concern and guidance of a caring shepherd. He then began to teach them about the kingdom of God and healed the sick among them. (Matthew 14:14; Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11)

The biblical accounts do not contain specifics about what Jesus taught on this occasion and whether he spoke to the multitude or taught groups of people as they came to him and raised questions. According to John 6:3, Jesus and his disciples ascended a mountainside and there seated themselves in a grassy area. (6:10) Just as he and his disciples found a suitable location, the thousands who had come to the area would have done likewise. Men would have started talking with other men, and women with other women. Children would have engaged in play. Likely, at various times, groups of people would have approached Jesus and then left as others came. His teaching must have prompted many conversations.

Although considerable time passed, the crowd continued to remain in the isolated location. This prompted the disciples to suggest that Jesus dismiss the people so that they could buy food for themselves in the nearby villages. (Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:35, 36; Luke 9:12)

Perhaps at this point, Jesus saw a large crowd coming to where he and his disciples had seated themselves. Knowing what he purposed to do, he tested Philip with the question, “Where are we going to buy bread for them to eat?” The question directed to Philip seems to have served to test his faith in Jesus’ ability to provide for the people. Although perceiving that the available resources were insufficient, Philip did not appear to make the connection that Jesus would be able to provide enough for everyone, just as centuries earlier the prophet Elisha had fed 100 men to satisfaction with a limited amount of bread. (2 Kings 4:42-44) Being from Bethsaida (probably the closest town), Philip would have known where bread could be purchased. (1:44) His response reveals that he knew about how much money the disciples had in their common fund and thought that the amount would be insufficient. He replied that 200 denarii (a denarius being a day’s wage) would not buy enough bread to provide even a small amount for everyone. Commenting on how little food he knew to be available, Peter’s brother Andrew remarked, “Here is a boy with five barley loaves and two fishes. But what do these [amount to] among so many?” In response to Jesus’ telling them to provide food for the multitude, the apostles questioned whether they should leave to purchase what they could for 200 denarii. (6:5-9; also see Matthew 14:16; Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13.)

In verse 9, the Greek term for “boy” is paidárion. Being a diminutive form of pais, paidárion (“boy”) is often translated “little boy.” This, however, is not necessarily the significance of the designation. In the Septuagint, the term is applied to 17-year-old Joseph (Genesis 37:30) and to his younger brother Benjamin when he was already a young man. (Genesis 43:8)

Andrew’s knowledge about the youth may be an indication that he was the son of one of the disciples. With their focus being on Jesus, the biblical accounts reveal very little about the apostles and their families. That family members accompanied them on various occasions is likely. Their not being mentioned does not preclude this possibility, especially since only Matthew’s account mentions women and children in connection with this incident. If the youth was the son of one of the apostles, he may have been entrusted with their food supply. The fish probably were dried and salted. According to Matthew 14:17 and Luke 9:13, the apostles referred to the five loaves and the two fishes as being all they had to give to the people, with no mention being made of the youth. This would seem to lend support to the conclusion that the youngster was a son of one of the apostles. Moreover, John’s account portrays him as already being with Jesus and the apostles when the crowd approached. (6:5, 9)

The abundant grass in the location made it convenient for the people to recline in order to eat. Jesus told the apostles to have the people do so in groups of a hundred and of fifty. He then took the five loaves and the two fishes, which had been brought to him, looked up to heaven, and said a blessing. After breaking the loaves, Jesus gave the bread to the disciples for distribution to the people. He did the same with the two fishes. The miraculous provision of bread and fish was sufficient for about 5,000 men, besides women and children. To prevent any waste, Jesus instructed the apostles to gather the leftovers in baskets. They filled twelve baskets, which seems to indicate that each of the apostles had taken a travel basket along. The Greek term for one of these baskets is kóphinos and appears to have been the designation for a basket smaller than the sphyrís. (6:10-13; see also Matthew 14:17-21; Mark 6:38-44; Luke 9:14-17.)

When the people saw the signs Jesus performed, especially the providing of food for the multitude, they concluded that he must surely be the prophet who was destined to come into the world. This prompted them to want to forcibly make Jesus their king. Becoming aware of their intent, he took steps to be alone, recognizing that their objective was contrary to his Father’s purpose and did not reflect genuine faith in him as the promised Messiah. When evening came, the disciples headed to the Sea of Galilee and boarded the boat and headed for Capernaum. According to the other gospel accounts, Jesus directed his disciples to board the boat, then dismissed the crowd, and headed up the mountainside. In Matthew 14:22 and Mark 6:45, Jesus’ directing his disciples to board the boat is expressed with a form of the Greek word anankázo, meaning “force,” “compel,” or “strongly urge.” This suggests that there may have been reluctance on their part to leave. Jesus may have insisted on their leaving because of knowing how easily they could have been drawn into supporting the aim to make him king. (6:14-17)

Mark 6:45 includes Jesus instructions for “his disciples to go on ahead to the other side, toward Bethsaida.” This may be understood to mean that the disciples were to go north toward Bethsaida and then navigate along the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee to the western shore. Alone on the height, he had the needed privacy to pray to his Father. (6:14, 15; see also Matthew 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45, 46.)

According to John 6:17, Jesus had not yet come to the disciples even though it had already become dark. This could mean that he had prearranged to meet them before they would start crossing the Sea of Galilee for Capernaum. Perhaps the reference in Mark 6:45 to Bethsaida provides a possible clue about the place where Jesus planned to rejoin them. If this was the case, the disciples would have waited for a long time. When, however, it appeared that he was not coming, they decided to head for Capernaum according to the instructions he had given them.

Late at night Jesus finished praying and looked down on the Sea of Galilee. A considerable distance from the shore, he saw the boat in which the disciples were. With a strong, unfavorable wind creating a rough sea, the boat made little progress. (Matthew 14:23, 24; Mark 6:46-48) Jesus descended from the mountainside and began to walk on the water. (6:18, 19)

During the fourth night watch (between three and six in the morning), the boat was about 3 or 3.5 miles (about 5 or nearly 6 kilometers; literally, about 25 or 30 stadia, with a stadium being about 607 feet [c. 185 meters]) from the shore, and the disciples were struggling to row it against the wind. Fright seized them when they saw someone walking on the water in their direction and about to pass them by. Thinking that they were beholding a phantom, they cried out in fear. Then they heard Jesus’ reassuring words, “[It is] I. Fear not.” (6:19, 20; see also Matthew 14:25-27 and Mark 6:48-50.)

Mark 6:52 indicates that the disciples had not comprehended the significance of the miracle involving the loaves. Their “heart” or mental perception remained dull. It appears that the apostles saw each miracle as a separate event and did not draw conclusions about other areas in which Jesus would be able to manifest divine power. Although they had witnessed the miraculous feeding of thousands with just five loaves and two fishes, it did not occur to them that the sea could not prevent Jesus from joining them. Therefore, for them to see Jesus walking on water should not have been something completely unimaginable. (6:19)

After Jesus entered the boat, the storm ended. Amazed and deeply moved by what they had witnessed, the disciples fell to their knees, prostrated themselves before Jesus, and said, “Truly you are the Son of God.” From then onward, they no longer struggled with the oars while making little progress. (Matthew 14:24, 32-34; Mark 6:48, 51) In no time (literally, “immediately”), they reached the western shore. Because of viewing the term “immediately” in a very literal sense, numerous commentators have concluded that this was yet another miracle. It is more likely, however, that the term describes the progress of the trip in relation to the situation before Jesus joined the apostles. (6:21)

The people who had stayed for the night on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee looked for Jesus in the morning. Although there was a small boat at the location, the people knew that the disciples had left in a larger boat and that Jesus had not left with them. Unable to find Jesus or any of his disciples, they decided to head back to Capernaum. To make the trip, the people boarded some boats that had come from Tiberias (a city on the western shore of the sea). Upon later finding Jesus, they asked, “Rabbi, when did you arrive here?” (6:22-25)

He did not answer their question but pointed to the real reason for their effort to find him. Introducing his words with the repetition of a solemn “amen” (“truly”), Jesus said, “You are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” His words revealed that the miracle did not engender genuine faith in them. Their earlier attempt to make him king was based on a carnal view and not spiritual perception. Therefore, Jesus urged them to work for the food that endures for eternal life, ceasing to make their prime concern the food that perishes upon being consumed and that cannot sustain life indefinitely. Speaking of himself as the “Son of Man,” he revealed that he could give them the essential food for eternal life (the real life of a permanent relationship with him and his Father). There should have been no question about Jesus’ ability to do so, for his Father had “sealed” him. The miracles the Father had empowered him to perform by means of his spirit, like an authenticating seal, undeniably established his identity as the unique Son of God. (John 6:26, 27)

In response to the people’s question about what they needed to do to carry out the “works of God,” Jesus told them to believe or have faith in the one whom God had sent. Although they had personally benefited from the miraculous provision of food, they were not satisfied with this sign, which should have led them to put faith in Jesus. They did not see in him the Messiah they wanted, for he had not cooperated with them in their attempt to forcibly make him their king. This appears to have been a factor in their seeking a heavenly sign that would have been more in line with their messianic expectations. The people challenged Jesus. “What sign are you performing, so that we might see [it] and believe you? What are you doing? In the wilderness, our ancestors ate the manna, as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (6:28-31)

“Amen, amen” (“Truly, truly”), Jesus replied, “Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” The “bread of God,” as Jesus explained, “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” The people, however, did not understand that Jesus himself was the bread that had come down from heaven and that through him members of the world of mankind would be granted life (the eternal life of an enduring relationship with his Father and with him). Concluding that the bread to which he had referred was comparable to manna, they replied, “Lord, always give us this bread.” (6:32-34)

Possibly at this point or either earlier or later, Jesus finished speaking to the people. He later resumed his discussion about “bread” while in the synagogue at Capernaum. (6:59)

Knowing that the people had not identified him as being the “bread of God,” Jesus expressed the point in a more direct manner, saying, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never hunger, and the one who believes in me will never thirst.” Whereas food and drink are needed to sustain physical life, the real life or the eternal life depends upon coming to Jesus and putting faith in him as the Son of God. From him and him alone does the spiritual life derive the essential sustenance, never leaving the believer in a hungry or thirsty state. (6:35)

Those who heard Jesus words had seen him and witnessed deeds revealing extraordinary divine power. Yet, as he said, they did not believe. The visible evidence did not move them to put faith or unqualified trust in him. They were not among those whom the Father had given to his Son. (6:36, 37)

What distinguished those who had been given to Jesus was their coming to him in faith. They recognized him as God’s Son and their Lord, and he acknowledged them as belonging to him. To his Father, they were precious and beloved, for he had given them to his Son. Jesus likewise valued and loved them and so would never reject them or drive them away. He would treat them in harmony with his Father’s will, for he had come from heaven to do, not his own will, but the will of his Father, who had sent him. (6:37, 38)

God’s will respecting those whom he had given to his Son was that none of them would be lost but would enjoy a permanent relationship with him. This would necessitate their being raised from the dead “on the last day.” All of them would be persons who put faith in the Son. As Jesus said, “For this is the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life.” This life is more than never-ending existence. The expression “eternal life” primarily relates to its quality or nature rather than to its duration. According to John 17:3, eternal life is “knowing” the true God and the one whom he sent. This “knowing” means having a relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. It is a family relationship, with those having faith in Jesus being recognized by the heavenly Father as his approved children. Once that relationship comes into being, children of God have “eternal life,” but its full enjoyment is yet future. Death does not sever the permanent family relationship and, therefore, does not mean the loss of the real life that came into the possession of believers. For all children of God who have died, resurrection is a certainty and will mean their continuing to enjoy the real life in the glorified state of their sinless resurrection bodies. The heavenly Father is eternal, and the life of all with whom he has a relationship is therefore also eternal. (6:39, 40)

Jesus referred to the resurrection as taking place on the “last day.” This is the climactic point in history, which the Scriptures associate with Jesus’ return in glory to render judgment upon the world of mankind. At that time, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the dead in Christ will rise, to start enjoying the real life in the sinless state. It is likely that Jesus’ hearers associated the resurrection on the “last day” with the promise to Daniel (12:12, Tanakh [JPS, 1985 edition]), “You shall rest, and arise to your destiny at the end of the days.” (6:40)

Jesus’ words left no question in the minds of the hearers about the identity of the “bread from heaven,” and they objected. As far as they were concerned, he had no basis for claiming that he was the bread that had come down from heaven. They knew him to be the son of Joseph, and they knew his mother. In their view, he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary and so could not possibly be the “bread from heaven.” Becoming aware of their faultfinding talk among themselves, Jesus told them to quit murmuring and then added, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And all will be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard from the Father and learned [from him] comes to me.” (John 6:41-45)

Through the life and activity of Jesus, the Father revealed himself. All who longed to have his favor were drawn to the Father’s self-disclosure and came to Jesus, recognizing him as the one whom the Father had sent. In the writings of the Hebrew prophets the proof could be found that the Father would draw individuals through his teaching. In Isaiah 54:13, it is written, “And all your sons [will be] taught by God.” (LXX, but “YHWH” in the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah and the Masoretic Text) The prophetic word and the miracles the Father had empowered his Son to perform served as teaching, revealing Jesus’ true identity as being more than a member of the family of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, all who heard this teaching with understanding and learned it, making it their own, came to Jesus. (6:44, 45)

Calling attention to the fact that the Father’s teaching had been made available through him, Jesus added that he alone, as the one from God, had seen the Father. “Amen, amen” (“Truly, truly”), Jesus continued in a solemn manner, “I say to you, Whoever believes has eternal life.” The response in faith resulted in an approved relationship with the Father and his Son, and the enduring nature of this relationship constitutes eternal life. Therefore, Jesus could speak of this life as coming into the possession of believers, although they would not enjoy it to the full until being granted their glorified sinless state. Emphasizing that eternal life could only be attained through him, Jesus repeated, “I am the bread of life.” Although it came from a heavenly source, the manna did not indefinitely sustain the life of the Israelites in the wilderness. As Jesus said, “They died.” The individual eating of the bread that had come down from heaven in the person of the Son, however, would not die. By putting faith in the Son and all that his life and ministry embraced, believers would become sharers in Christ and come to have eternal life. The relationship inherent in this life would not end at death but would continue upon the believer’s being resurrected in glory. Because death does not bring an end to eternal life, all who through faith share in Christ (the way persons can share a meal) do not die. (John 6:45-50)

Again Jesus made the unmistakable identification, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.” He then expanded on this vital truth. “If anyone eats from this bread, he will live eternally, and my flesh is the bread that I will give for the life of the world.” Jesus thereby indicated that he would die sacrificially for the world of mankind and that all who would accept his sacrifice for them would be granted eternal life. (6:51)

Jesus’ words gave rise to controversy among his Jewish hearers. They objected, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” He then replied in terms that were even more graphic. “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, If you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The one who consumes my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever consumes my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, I also live because of the Father, and whoever consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like [the manna your] ancestors ate and died. The one who consumes this bread will live eternally.” (6:52-58; the bracketed words are found in numerous later manuscripts but are missing in the oldest extant manuscripts.)

Eternal life is only attainable by partaking of the benefits made possible through Jesus’ sacrificial death (the surrender of his flesh and the pouring out of his blood). Apart from Jesus’ flesh and blood, individuals may exist but they do not have the real life as divinely approved persons. The eternal life that believers come to possess through their faith in the Son guarantees their resurrection. Jesus’ flesh and blood are true food and drink in that they have a direct bearing on eternal life, just as food and drink do on one’s physical life. (6:58)

In the quotation of Jesus’ words, the Greek term for “consume” is trógo and appears in ancient writings as a term used when speaking of animals as biting or chewing their food. Perhaps the thought conveyed is that of the kind of eating characteristic of hungry animals and, therefore, could suggest the eager response to Jesus as the one who surrendered his flesh for the life of the world. (6:54-58)

To abide in Jesus would signify to be at one with him, and Jesus would be united to the individual in continued fellowship. The Father lives and is the possessor of life-giving power. Therefore, Jesus described himself as living because of his Father, to whom he was united in an eternal relationship. Likewise, the one who would share in communion with Jesus through faith (as one would participate in fellowship when partaking of a meal) would live on account of him. Unlike the manna that could not keep the ancestors of the Israelites alive indefinitely, all who become sharers in Christ, “the bread that came down from heaven,” will live eternally. (6:56-58)

Even among those who had followed Jesus as his “disciples” or learners, many found this “word” or teaching “hard,” troublesome, or intolerable. They responded, “Who can listen to it?” The teaching proved to be unacceptable and offensive to them. (6:60)

Sensing that these disciples were murmuring about his teaching, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What, then, if you were to behold the Son of Man ascending to where he had been formerly?” Jesus’ question about the ascension served to show that they had no valid reason for being offended. If they were to see him ascending to the location he had been previously, this would prove that he had indeed come down from heaven. (6:61, 62)

Clarifying that he had not been speaking in literal terms, Jesus continued, “The spirit is what makes alive; the flesh is of no use at all. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” In the case of the fleshly organism, the “spirit” gives life to the body of flesh, animating it. Without the life force, the flesh is useless. Jesus’ words were of a spiritual nature. Responding to them in faith by accepting him as the “bread of life” would have led to coming into possession of the real life. His words had animating and life-giving power. (6:63)

Fully aware of the lack of faith among certain ones who had followed him, Jesus said, “Among you are some who do not believe.” The account then continues with an explanatory comment. From the “beginning,” Jesus knew those who did not believe and the one who would betray him. This indicates that Jesus discerned from the start when outward expressions did not reflect genuine faith in him. Real faith is an inward response to the Father — to his drawing of individuals through his self-disclosure. This is why Jesus said, “No one is able to come to me unless the Father has granted it to him.” (6:64, 65)

At this point, many who had followed Jesus stopped doing so and returned to their former routine of life. This prompted Jesus to ask the twelve apostles, “Do you also want to go away?” Peter replied, “Lord, to whom are we to go? You have the words of eternal life. And we have believed and known that you are the Holy One of God.” Even among the apostles, however, not all shared this unqualified trust in and attachment to God’s beloved Son. Although he had chosen the twelve, Jesus identified one of them as a “devil” or “slanderer.” This was Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, who would later betray him. (6:66-71)

The later betrayal of Judas did not come as a surprise to Jesus. As God’s unique Son, he knew what none of the disciples could have known. The other apostles had no idea that Judas would betray their Lord, but Jesus discerned from the outset when Judas’ devotion to him was not what it should have been. Therefore, on this occasion, Jesus referred to him as a “devil” or “slanderer.” The other apostles, however, did not know whom he meant. (6:71)

John 7:1-52

In Judea, Jesus’ life was seriously endangered. For this reason, he centered his activity mainly in Galilee. (7:1)

His brothers, James, Joseph (Joses), Judas and Simon (Mark 6:3), did not appear to have been aware of the threat to his life. They did not have faith in him as the Messiah or Christ, the Son of God. In their estimation, he was a worker of miracles who wanted to be more extensively known but had avoided the very region where he would have received greater public attention. Therefore, with the approach of the Festival of Tabernacles in the month of Tishri or Ethanim (mid-September to mid-October), they recommended that he go to Judea and there let his disciples see the work that he was doing. As far as they were concerned, no man acts in secret if his aim is to be widely known. Their advice to Jesus was, “Show yourself to the world.” (7:2-5)

Rejecting their recommendation, he pointed out that it was not yet his time to act but that, for them, the time was always opportune. This was because the “world” or the unbelieving populace did not hate them, implying that his brothers had not done or said anything that would incur hostility. He, however, had become the object of the world’s hatred, for he had presented the testimony that exposed the works of the unbelieving people as bad. (7:6, 7)

Jesus then told his brothers to be on their way to the festival without him. His time for going had not yet arrived. After his brothers had left, Jesus remained in Galilee for a time and then, with some of his close disciples, headed for Jerusalem. He chose to do so at a time when most of the people had already left Galilee to attend the festival, which would have made it possible to avoid having the news about his departure spread. Thus he left Galilee in secret, not openly. (7:8-10)

In Jerusalem, many who knew about Jesus tried to find him and wondered where he was. Among their trusted acquaintances, they engaged in considerable subdued talk about him. Some said that he was a good man, whereas others disagreed, maintaining that he deceived the multitude. Out of fear of fellow Jews, no one spoke concerning him openly. People must have been aware that the Pharisees generally and the prominent members of the nation were hostile toward Jesus. They doubtless feared incurring the displeasure of influential countrymen and being ostracized in the community for suspected sympathizing with Jesus and his teaching. (7:11-13)

In the middle of the festival, Jesus made his public appearance and began to teach in the temple precincts. His teaching astonished those who heard him, and they began to wonder how it could be that he spoke authoritatively as a lettered man when he was not among the recognized learned ones of the nation. In response, Jesus gave all the credit to his Father, saying that his teaching was not his own but that of the one who had sent him. Anyone who desired to do God’s will would recognize whether he was the source of Jesus’ teaching or whether Jesus was expressing his own thoughts. Any man who spoke of his own would be desirous of glorifying or bringing honor to himself. Then, referring to himself, Jesus indicated that the one who sought to glorify or honor the one who sent him is “true” (completely trustworthy and truthful) and free of any evil. There would be nothing deceitful or underhanded in him. His motivation would be pure. (7:14-18)

Those who heard Jesus’ teaching should have responded to him in faith, especially since they claimed to believe in Moses. From Moses they had received the law; yet, as Jesus pointed out, they did not heed it. According to the words of the law they considered to have been received from Moses, the Jews who heard Jesus knew that they were to listen to the prophet like Moses. (Deuteronomy 18:15) The miracles Jesus performed as the representative of his Father confirmed that he was a prophet “like” Moses and, in fact, the prophet greater than Moses and the foretold Messiah or Christ. Those who wanted to kill Jesus, instead of heeding his words, proved undeniably that they did not do what the law said. Those in the crowd who were unaware of the earlier attempt to kill Jesus for violating the Sabbath and for blasphemy regarded his comments as preposterous and accused him of having a demon. “Who is trying to kill you?” they asked incredulously. (7:19, 20)

In response, Jesus called attention to the one work he had done on the Sabbath, which had been the curing of a man who had been afflicted for 38 years and was lying on a mat at the pool near the Sheep Gate. (5:2-9) That work had prompted amazement among those who came to know about it. (7:21)

The Son of God then referred to the law to show that no one should have objected to what he did on the Sabbath. Moses had given the command about circumcision (Leviticus 12:3), which command had actually come from an earlier time. It had been given to the “fathers” or ancestors of the Israelites, specifically to their forefather Abraham. (Genesis 17:11-14) If the eighth day falls on a Sabbath, a baby boy is circumcised to avoid breaking the law of Moses. Why, then, asked Jesus, should the people be infuriated at him for having made a man’s body completely whole on the Sabbath? He called upon them to desist from judging according to mere appearances but to judge rightly. (7:22-24)

Certain inhabitants of Jerusalem among the multitude who heard Jesus’ words recalled that he was indeed the one whom fellow countrymen wanted to kill. It puzzled them that he spoke openly and that no one said anything, causing them to wonder whether the rulers had come to know that he was indeed the Messiah. Believing that they knew from where Jesus was (from Galilee, if not also from Nazareth), they, however, dismissed the possibility of his being the Messiah. They reasoned that no one would know from where the Messiah had come. (7:25-27)

Refuting their claim about knowing him and from where he came, Jesus cried out that he had not come of his own and that the one who sent him is true and was unknown to them. Thus he identified himself as the one whom his Father had sent. When speaking of him as “true,” Jesus probably meant “trustworthy” or “dependable.” He thereby appears to have implied that the people should have believed in him, for he did the works of his Father and conveyed his teaching. If they had known his Father, they would have recognized him, for as the Son he reflected his Father flawlessly in word and deed. Unlike the unbelieving Jews, he knew his Father and could truthfully say, “I am from him, and he sent me.” (7:28, 29)

Those who opposed Jesus wanted to seize him, doubtless to take him to the ruling authorities. No one, however, laid a hand on him, for “his hour” had not yet come. It was not then the time for him to finish his earthly life. (7:30)

Despite the prevailing unbelief, many among those who listened to his teaching believed in him. They reasoned that when the Christ or the Messiah came he would not perform more signs than Jesus had. (7:31)

The unbelieving Pharisees heard the subdued talk about him and appear to have found it very disturbing. Therefore, they and the chief priests decided to send temple guards to arrest him. (7:32)

Knowing what lay ahead for him, Jesus told the multitude that he would be with them for only a short while and then would return to the one who had sent him. Though they would look for him, they would not find him, for they would be unable to go where he would be. Not understanding that Jesus would return to his Father, the people were puzzled about the meaning of his words. Some thought that he might leave the land of Israel and go to the “Dispersion of the Greeks” (Jews living among the Gentiles) and teach the Greeks (or non-Jews). (7:33-36)

The festival of tabernacles ended the agricultural year and was marked by great rejoicing. The law required only the males to be present for the observance, but they often attended with their whole family. For seven days, they were to dwell in temporary shelters or booths made from palm fronds and leafy branches from various trees. These shelters were to remind them of the tents in which the Israelites lived during their journeying in the wilderness after they left Egypt. (Leviticus 23:34-43; Deuteronomy 16:13-15; Nehemiah 8:14, 15)

The law outlined the specific sacrifices to be offered on each day of the festival. Other ceremonial features came to be added later in connection with the temple services. One of these involved the pouring out of water brought from the Pool of Siloam. Ancient rabbinical views are divided as to whether the water was poured out only on the first seven days or also on the eighth day. According to ancient rabbinical sources, two silver bowls were positioned above the altar. Wine would be poured into the one to the east, and water into the one to the west. These bowls were perforated with holes through which the liquids could flow into a channel that led to the base of the altar. (Tosefta, Sukkah, 3:14, 15) The act of pouring out accompanied “the offering up of the limbs of the daily whole-offering.” (Tosefta, Sukkah 3:16, Jacob Neusner’s translation)

Ancient Jewish sources associate the water with Ezekiel 47:2-10 and Zechariah 13:1 and 14:8. (Tosefta, Sukkah, 3:3[4]-10) In Ezekiel, the reference is to life-giving water flowing from the temple and continuing to deepen until it formed a river. (Compare Joel 3:18[4:18].) Zechariah’s prophecy (14:8) speaks of living water flowing from Jerusalem, with half of it going to the “former sea” (the “eastern sea” or the Dead Sea) and the other half going to the “hinder sea” (the “western sea” or the Mediterranean Sea). Zechariah 13:1 pointed forward to the time when a fountain would be opened for the house of David and the people of Jerusalem, a fountain that would serve for cleansing from sin.

On the last day of the festival, Jesus revealed that the foretold life-giving water was available through him. As he stood, he cried out for all thirsty ones to come to him and drink. Paraphrasing the words of the prophets, he added regarding anyone who believed in him, “Rivers of living water will flow from his inmost part.” (John 7:37, 38)

No specific passage in the Scriptures matches the quotation in John 7:38, but the thought can be gleaned from the prophetic writings. A linkage of water and spirit (7:39) is found in Isaiah 44:3. There God’s pouring out of water on the ground (in the form of rain) parallels the pouring out of his spirit on his people. Then, in Isaiah 58:11, those who would repent and change their ways are promised to become like a watered garden and an unfailing spring of water.

The account explains Jesus’ words as applying to those who would receive God’s spirit because of believing in him. As Jesus had not yet been glorified or in possession of the splendor he formerly had when with his Father in heaven, there was as yet “no spirit.” Whereas God’s spirit did powerfully operate through the Son of God and also when the apostles performed miracles in his name, none of the disciples enjoyed the fullness of the spirit’s operation. With holy spirit operating fully within them, they would be abundantly blessed spiritually, empowered to conduct themselves in harmony with God’s will, enlightened to grasp Jesus’ teaching, strengthened and sustained in times of trial and distress, and filled with courage to make expressions about their faith. Moreover, they would be able to impart to others everything that was essential for coming into possession of eternal life. Thus it proved to be that streams of living water flowed out from them, and those who responded in faith came to enjoy the real life, ceasing to be dead in sin. (7:38, 39)

Based on what they had heard, the people came to different conclusions about Jesus. Some regarded him to be “the prophet,” probably meaning the prophet like Moses but distinct from the Messiah. (Deuteronomy 18:15) Others believed him to be the Messiah or Christ. Not knowing that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem, certain ones reasoned that he could not be the Messiah, for he had come from Galilee, which did not agree with the scripture that foretold his being of the “seed [offspring] of David” and David’s village Bethlehem. As a result, the multitude proved to be divided in their view of him. (7:40-43)

It appears that knowledge about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem may only have existed among the few who were familiar with his early history, likely only members of the family and close acquaintances. The majority knew him as being from Galilee, where he had lived nearly all of his life. (7:41, 42)

“Some,” likely meaning the temple guards whom the unbelieving Pharisees and chief priests had sent to arrest Jesus, wanted to seize him. No one, however, laid a hand on Jesus. (7:44)

When the temple guards returned empty-handed, the unbelieving Pharisees demanded why they had failed to bring Jesus in. “Never has a man thus spoken,” they replied. The indignant Pharisees chided them for having been deceived and added that none of the rulers or Pharisees believed in him. The only ones who did were those of the ignorant multitude, persons who did not know the law and whom they pronounced as accursed. (7:45-49)

Nicodemus, a Pharisee who had much earlier spoken to Jesus, tried to appeal to his fellow Pharisees on the basis of their sense of justice. He reminded them that the law did not condemn a man until he is first heard and known for what he is doing. Nicodemus was then ridiculed, “Are you also from Galilee? Search and see that no prophet is to be raised up from Galilee.” The prominent unbelieving members of the nation failed to recognize the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah (9:1, 2) that referred to a great light to be seen in the territory of Galilee and disregarded the very law they were obligated to uphold. (7:50-52)

John 7:53-8:59

The text of John 7:53 through 8:2 provides an introduction for the account about the woman. This introduction relates that each one went to his home and that Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, returning to the temple precincts early in the morning of the next day and seating himself to teach the people.

Later, the scribes and Pharisees brought the woman and asked Jesus about his view of the law that set forth stoning as the penalty for her sin, their aim being to trap him so as to have something to use to accuse him. He ignored them, bent down, and began writing on the ground with his finger. When, however, they continued questioning him, he straightened up and said that the one without sin should cast the first stone and then bent down again and resumed writing on the ground. Thereafter the accusers began to depart, leaving the woman by herself. When Jesus asked whether anyone had condemned her, she replied, “No one.” After telling her that he also did not do so, he admonished her not to continue sinning. (8:3-11)

That Jesus would be writing on the ground seems unusual and, therefore, raises a question about whether the account preserves a historical event. If it does pertain to an actual happening, a possible explanation could be that Jesus, by his action, chose to indicate that he was not going to involve himself in the matter. According to the law, both the man and the woman were guilty and yet the scribes and Pharisees made no mention of the adulterer, which would suggest that their seeming concern about the law was insincere. (8:6-8)

Although the question about the historicity of the account may need to be left open because of its existence in many later manuscripts, the narrative does not seem to fit with the rest of the eighth chapter of John. After Jesus’ admonition directed to the woman in verse 11, the next verse tells of his addressing the multitude and starts with the words, “Again, therefore, Jesus spoke to them.” These introductory words suggest a continuation of his teaching at the Festival of Tabernacles. Moreover, what he said thereafter harmonizes with that conclusion. Accordingly, it appears preferable to regard John 7:53 through 8:11 as an insertion that interrupts the logical flow of the narrative about what Jesus said at the Festival of Tabernacles.

Another later custom associated with the Festival of Tabernacles involved illumination for most of the nights. According to ancient Jewish sources, four large golden lampstands occupied the Court of the Women. Each of these lampstands had a ladder and four golden bowls that held the oil. Four youths of priestly descent would ascend the ladders, each carrying a jar holding a large quantity of oil. They would pour the oil into the bowls and light them. The worn drawers and girdles of priests served as wicks. Light from the illuminated courtyard could be seen at a great distance. With torches in their hands, men known for godliness and good works danced before the lampstands. They would raise their voices in song and praise. Many Levites played harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets and other instruments as they stood on the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women. (Mishnah, Sukkah 5.2-4)

When Jesus identified himself as the “light of the world,” those who heard him may well have thought about the impressive illumination during the Festival of Tabernacles. His statement also answered the objection that no prophet would arise from Galilee, as his words alluded to the prophecy of Isaiah (9:1, 2) that referred to a “great light” to be seen there. (8:12)

As the “light of the world,” Jesus provided spiritual illumination and dependable guidance. No one who followed him would walk in darkness or be unable to discern the right course of action. Instead, the individual would have the “light of life.” This could be the light needed for the enjoyment of the real life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with the heavenly Father and his Son. Another possibility is that this would be the essential light for living a divinely approved life. (8:12)

The Pharisees objected, contending that Jesus’ testimony rested solely on his own word and, therefore, could not be “true,” being unacceptable on the basis of the law that required at least two witnesses for verification. He countered with a statement revealing the superior nature of his testimony. Even if he did testify about himself, his witness proved to be true or deserving of full acceptance, for he knew from where he had come and where he was going. His testimony was not like that of humans generally, for he had come from the realm above and would return to this heavenly realm. The Pharisees did not know from where Jesus had come and where he was going, for they refused to believe his words. They judged “according to the flesh” or by human standards. He, however, did not judge or condemn anyone in this manner. If he did judge, his judgment would be “true,” right, or just, for he would not be acting alone or exclusively on his own authority. The one who had sent him, the Father, would be with him. (8:13-16)

According to the law, “the testimony of two men is true.” Jesus testified about himself through his words and works, and the one who had sent him, the Father, testified, enabling his Son to perform miracles of a nature and on a scale that no one else did. (8:17, 18)

In response to Jesus’ words about his Father, the Pharisees asked, “Where is your father?” “You know neither me nor my Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew me, you would also know my Father.” By his words and deeds, Jesus flawlessly reflected his Father. In him, therefore, the Pharisees should have recognized the image of the Father and acknowledged him as his Son. Their failure to recognize the Son revealed that they did not know his Father. (8:19)

This interchange took place in the treasury of the temple precincts. According to ancient Jewish sources, this was located in the Court of the Women, where 13 trumpet-shaped chests lined the surrounding wall. Into these chests, the people deposited their monetary offerings and contributions. Six of these receptacles were designated for freewill offerings. Each of the other seven served for a distinct purpose — new shekels, old shekels, bird offerings, young birds for burnt offerings, wood, frankincense, and gold for the propitiatory. (Mishnah, Sheqalim 2:1; 6:1, 5; Tosefta, Sheqalim 3:1) During the time Jesus taught in the treasury, no one laid hold of him or arrested him. His “hour” had not yet come. It was not then the time for him to finish his earthly course. (8:20)

Previously, Jesus had said to the people that he was going away. He again repeated this point, telling them that they would seek him (probably meaning that they would continue to look in vain for the coming of the Messiah), would die in their sins, and would be unable to come to the place where he was going. Completely misunderstanding that Jesus would be returning to his Father in heaven, certain ones wondered whether he might kill himself, as they could not come to the place where he would be going. He then made it clear that he had come from a different realm, saying that they were from “below,” whereas he was from “above.” They were from the world of sinful mankind, but he was no part of that world. If, as Jesus said, they did not “believe that I am,” they would “die in [their] sins.” To refuse to acknowledge his true identity as the one who had come from above (God’s unique Son) would signify to reject the provision of forgiveness of sins through him. With their record of sin remaining unforgiven, they would die in their sins. Obstinately refusing to acknowledge Jesus as the one he had revealed himself to be, the unbelieving Jews asked him challengingly, “Who are you?” (8:21-25)

The Greek text conveying Jesus’ reply is obscure, and this accounts for the variations in the renderings of modern translations. Preserving the basic meaning of arché (“beginning”), a number of translations read, “I am exactly who I told you at the beginning.” (CEV) “What I told you from the beginning.” (NAB) “I am what I have told you from the beginning.” (NCV) “I am what I have told you I was from the beginning.” (Phillips) Other translations do not render the word arché as “beginning” and translate the statement as a question. “Why do I speak to you at all?” (NRSV) “Why, in the first place, am I speaking to you?” “Why should I speak to you at all?” (NJB, footnote) There is a strong possibility that arché (“beginning”) could be understood to denote that which is fundamental, essential, or basic. Jesus’ reply may be rendered, “Basically, what I am also [kaí, meaning, and, even, and also] telling you,” indicating that all along his words revealed his true identity. (8:25)

When Jesus’ words are translated “that I am even speaking to you at all,” they are commonly construed as a question, “[Why is it] that I am even speaking to you at all?” To preserve the meaning “beginning” for arché requires adding the preposition “from” or “at” and changing the present tense Greek word for “I speak” or “I say” (laló) to the past tense (“whatever [or what] I said to you from the beginning”). Taking the words tén archén as being used adverbially and meaning “essentially,” “fundamentally,” or “basically” does not require supplying additional words or changing the verb from the present tense to the past tense. Therefore, the preferable sense appears to be, “Basically, what I am also telling you.” In the left margin of an early papyrus manuscript (P66, probably from the second century), the words eipon hymin (“I told you”) appear and are meant for insertion before tén archén. By supplying “from,” the text (with the insertion) would read, “I told you [from] the beginning what I am also saying to you.” (8:25)

Jesus had much to say about the unbelieving people and to express judgment respecting them. Both his words and his judgment would relate to their failure to put faith in him despite the abundant evidence, including his many miracles. They had ample proof that the Father had sent him. This should have given them sound reason for faith, for the Father is “true,” ultimately trustworthy. In the world or among the people, Jesus spoke what he had heard from his Father, the one who had sent him. Therefore, the Son of God should have been believed. Although Jesus had spoken about coming from “above” and his words about the one who had sent him clearly did not pertain to an earthly father, the unbelieving people did not recognize that he was talking about his heavenly Father. (8:26, 27)

Once, however, they had “raised the Son of Man up high,” they would come to know who he truly is (“that I am”), doing nothing of his own accord but speaking what his Father had taught him. The “raising up high” refers to his being lifted up on the implement on which he would die. His agonizing death through crucifixion led to his glorification, for he was raised from the dead and returned to heaven as the exalted Son of God. When the people would again see him as the one whom they had lifted up or in whose death they shared by rejecting him, they would see him as the one entrusted with all authority in heaven and on earth. Their former unbelief would merit adverse judgment, and they would come to know who Jesus truly is and that he, while in their midst, had spoken the truth that his Father had taught him. At all times, the Father who had sent him proved to be with him, never leaving him. This was because he always pleased his Father. (8:28, 29)

Although many persisted in their unbelief, others began to believe in Jesus. To the believing Jews, he said, “If you remain in my word [continuing to act on his message in faith], you truly are my disciples. And you will know the truth, and the truth will free you.” This truth relates to him — his identity as the Son of God. Through him alone, full knowledge about the Father is disclosed and forgiveness of sin is made possible, liberating all who put faith in him from the sin that stood as a record of debt against them. (8:30-32)

Whereas Jesus’ words were directed to those who believed, the others who did not put faith in him also heard his words. These unbelievers seem to have been the ones who strongly objected and later tried to stone him. They proudly maintained that they were the “seed” or offspring of Abraham and never had been slaves to anyone. They then asked, “How can you say, ‘You will become free’?” Although they were then living under Roman authority, their reply focused on their status as free children on the basis of their descent from Abraham. They were not born in slavery. (8:33)

In response, Jesus repeated “amen” (truly) when solemnly calling attention to their being enslaved to sin, saying that “everyone who engages in sin is a slave of sin.” Alluding to the dismissal of the slave woman Hagar and her son Ishmael from the household of Abraham, Jesus reminded them that a slave does not remain permanently in the household but a son does. A son, however, could set a slave free. Therefore, Jesus, as the Son of God, could liberate individuals from enslavement to sin, making them completely free. While Jesus acknowledged that those who had objected to his words were of the “seed” of Abraham or his descendants, he implied that their attitude did not reflect that. They were seeking to kill him, as his “word” or the message he proclaimed encountered obstinate resistance, finding no room among them. (8:34-37)

Whereas Jesus spoke what he had seen while he had been with his Father, they did what they had heard from their father. In this way, the Son of God revealed that their desire to kill him proved that they had a different father, an evil father with a murderous disposition. There are, however, manuscript readings that do not qualify the second mention of “father” with the adjective “your.” This is the reason for the following renderings: “You should do what you have heard from the Father.” (NRSV) “Then do what you have heard from the Father.” (NAB) Contextually, these renderings, however, do not fit the subsequent objection, “Our father is Abraham.” (8:38)

Again, they claimed to have Abraham as their father. Jesus, though, indicated that this would mean that they should have been doing the works of Abraham, which would have included manifesting the kind of faith Abraham did. This, however, was not the case. Instead of putting faith in Jesus, they tried to kill him, the very one who had told them the truth he had heard from God. “Abraham did not do this.” They did the works of their father. Insisting that they were not illegitimate children, they maintained that their only Father was God. (8:39-41)

Countering their claim, Jesus said that they would love him if God were their Father, for he had come from God. He had not come on his own accord but had been sent by him. “Why,” asked Jesus, “do you not comprehend what I am saying?” He then answered the rhetorical question, “Because you cannot [stand to] listen to my word.” They did not want to accept what Jesus said. (8:42, 43)

He then outspokenly declared the devil to be their father. It was the devil’s desires that they wished to carry out. He was a murderer (by implication the one responsible for the death of the first humans) from the “beginning” or from the time he commenced his life as the devil or slanderer. He did not “stand” in the truth, not proving himself to be its upholder, for truth is not in him. As a malicious slanderer, he is a depository of lies and so there is no “truth in him.” By reason of who he is, he speaks the lie. The falsehood has its source in him, for he is a liar and the father or originator of it (probably alluding to the first lie on record, the one conveyed to Eve). (8:44)

Jesus, though, told the people the truth, but they refused to accept it. Addressing their unbelief, he asked who among them could level a charge of sin against him and why they did not believe him when he told them the truth. Explaining the reason for their unbelief, Jesus said, “Everyone who is from God [belonging to him] listens to the words of God. Therefore, you do not listen, for you are not from God [not belonging to him].” (8:45-47)

Angered, they accused Jesus of being a Samaritan (not a recognized member of God’s chosen people) and having a demon. “I do not have a demon,” said Jesus. “I honor my Father, but you dishonor me.” As he was the Son, their dishonoring him indicated that they also dishonored the Father who had sent him. Jesus did not seek glory for himself, diligently striving to win the plaudits of others. He looked to his Father to bestow glory on him, manifesting his approval. The Father also did judging. Unlike the baseless judgment of the unbelieving Jews that slandered him as being a demonized Samaritan, Jesus’ reference to his Father as judging implied that his judgment was right or just. The Son of God followed this up with the startling statement (preceded by a repeated “amen” [truly]) that those who observed his word or heeded his teaching would never “see” or experience death. The unbelieving Jews did not understand that he spoke about coming into possession of the real life as persons forgiven of sin and, therefore, liberated from the condemnation of death. Believers would not die as condemned sinners. (8:48-51)

Refusing to recognize that Jesus had come from the realm above, the unbelieving Jews replied that they were certain he had a demon, saying, “Abraham died; also the prophets. And you say, ‘Whoever observes my word will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Also the prophets died. Who do you make yourself [out to be]?” (8:52, 53)

Jesus acknowledged that glorifying himself or making claims on his own authority would not mean anything. The Father, however, had glorified him, the very one whom the unbelieving Jews professed to be their God. The miracles Jesus performed proved that his Father had empowered him, thus glorifying him as his beloved Son. (8:54)

The murderous hatred of the unbelieving Jews proved that they did not know God, that they had no relationship with him. Otherwise, they would have recognized his Son and loved him. Therefore, about his Father, Jesus could say to them, “You do not know him, but I know him [his relationship being that of an intimate, the beloved Son of his Father].” If Jesus had said that he did not know the Father, he would have been a liar, as they had demonstrated themselves to be liars. They claimed to know God, but their slanderous words and hateful actions directed against the Son proved that this was not the case. (8:55)

Jesus, though, knew his Father and observed his word, always acting in harmony with his Father’s will. Abraham, the “father” or ancestor of the Jews, rejoiced to see, or eagerly anticipated with joy, the time Jesus called “my day.” In faith, Abraham saw it and was glad. His thus seeing it was based on the promise that through his “seed” (or offspring) all the families of the earth would be blessed. (8:55, 56)

Knowing that Jesus could not possibly be even 50 years old, the unbelieving Jews challenging said, “And you have seen Abraham?” “I am [from] before Abraham existed” (literally, “Before Abraham came to be, I am”), Jesus replied, preceding his words with the solemn “amen, amen” (truly, truly). Thus he confirmed that he, the one whom the people then saw, was the very same person prior to Abraham’s birth. (8:57, 58)

For many centuries, the expression “I am” (egó eimi [in 8:58]) repeatedly has been linked to Exodus 3:14, where the same words appear in the Septuagint. The Exodus passage relates to the time God revealed his unique name (YHWH) to Moses. The words egó eimi, however, do not constitute the complete thought in the Septuagint, but the Almighty is quoted as saying, egó eimi ho ón (“I am the One Who Is” or “I am the Being”). Then, what Moses is to say to the Israelites is not a repetition of egó eimi but of ho ón (ho ón apéstalkén me prós hymás; “the One Who Is has sent me to you”).

Like “I am” or “it is I,” the Greek egó eimi often is the expression individuals used to identify themselves. At the time confusion existed about his identity, the former blind man who had received sight through Jesus is quoted as telling others, egó eimi (“I am,” meaning that he was indeed the same person as the man who had previously been blind). (9:9) Similarly, when the disciples were frightened upon seeing what they imagined to be a phantom or a ghost walking on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus is represented as identifying himself with the words, egó eimi; mé phobeísthe (“I am [It is I]; fear not”). (Mark 6:50)

In keeping with common use, John 8:58 may be understood to mean that Jesus identified himself as being the very same person (the unique Son of God) before Abraham’s birth as he then was among the existing generation. Therefore, an appropriate rendering that preserves the meaning of “I am” for egó eimi would be, “I am [from] before Abraham existed.” This would harmonize with Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday and today, and into the ages [to come].” Other places in John 8, where “I am” appears, also point to the true identity of Jesus.

Furious that Jesus claimed to predate Abraham and, by implication, to be from the infinite past, the unbelieving Jews picked up stones to hurl at him. He, however, went into hiding and left the temple precincts. (8:59)

John 9:1-41

Upon seeing a man blind from birth, the disciples asked Jesus whether the reason for his condition was his own sin or that of his parents. Their question reflected the common (but erroneous) view about the afflicted and suggests that it interfered with their looking upon him with compassion, wanting him to have sight. It appears that they had not grasped the lesson contained in the book of Job that the illnesses or other afflictions individuals may experience are not a valid reason for concluding that they are guilty of serious sin. Correcting their wrong view, Jesus indicated that the man’s blindness was not to be attributed to his sin or that of his parents, adding that it was that the “works of God” would be revealed in him. The condition in which the man found himself provided the occasion for a marvelous work of God to be seen. This would be the work of granting him sight, which work could not have been accomplished through human power or ability. (9:1-3)

Indicating that it was then the time for carrying out this work of God, Jesus continued, “We must [I must, according to many extant manuscripts] work the works of him who sent me [sent us, according to the earliest extant manuscripts (P66 and P75)] as long as it is day. The night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the world’s light.” The night that lay ahead was the period of darkness that would see Jesus being arrested, abused, and killed, causing the disciples to scatter out of fear. Before the arrival of that dark day, opportunities continued to exist for doing God’s work. As the light of the world or among the people, Jesus brought enlightenment, opening the eyes of the blind both in a literal and a spiritual sense. (9:4, 5)

He then proceeded to do the work of his Father. After spitting on the ground, Jesus took the moistened soil, placed the clay he had made on the man’s eyes, and instructed him to wash in the Pool of Siloam. The account provides the meaning of the name “Siloam” (“Sent forth”), suggesting that the miracle had been accomplished through the one who had been sent forth. (9:6, 7)

When neighbors or acquaintances and others who were aware of the former blind man’s begging saw him, they thought that he might be the same person. Certain ones, however, concluded that he was just a man who resembled him in appearance. The former blind man is quoted as identifying himself with the words, “I am” (egó eimi) or “It is I.” In response to the question about how he came to have sight, he told them what Jesus had done and how his having washed in the Pool of Siloam as Jesus had instructed him led to his being able to see. Instead of rejoicing with the man about his enjoyment of sight, the questioners reflected a negative attitude toward his benefactor, not even mentioning his name when asking, “Where is he?” “I do not know,” the former blind man answered. (9:8-12)

The man’s blindness had been cured on the Sabbath. Therefore, the questioners led him to the Pharisees, with the apparent intent of determining whether a wrong had been committed. When the Pharisees questioned him how he had gained his sight, the man explained that Jesus had made clay and put it on his eyes and that, upon washing it off, he could see. Certain ones of the Pharisees concluded that Jesus could not be from God, for he did not observe the Sabbath. Others, however, found it hard to accept how a sinner could effect such a miracle, resulting in a division among them. (9:13-16)

They asked the man about his view of the one who had opened his eyes. He replied, “He is a prophet.” Not wanting to accept the evidence, the unbelieving Jews summoned the man’s parents, asking them whether he was their son who was blind at birth and how it happened that he could see. They acknowledged him to be their son who was born blind but disclaimed any knowledge about how he had been cured and who had brought it about. The parents added that their son was of age and would be able to answer for himself. Out of fear that they could otherwise be treated as outcasts, they limited their comments to the condition of their son at birth. Among the Jews generally, it had become known that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be expelled from the synagogue. (9:17-23)

For a second time, the Pharisees summoned the man. “Give glory to God,” they demanded. “We know that this man is a sinner.” The expression “Give glory to God” constituted a solemn charge for him to tell the truth. Although the Pharisees had asserted that they knew Jesus to be a sinner, the man courageously declared that this is something he did not know. What he did know was that he had been blind, but (as he said) “I can now see.” (9:24, 25)

Again the Pharisees asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” Boldly, the man replied, “I told you already, and you did not hear [responsively]. Why do you want to hear [everything] again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” (9:26, 27)

Irritated, they responded abusively to him, saying, “You are a disciple of that one [disparagingly refusing to call Jesus by name], but we are Moses’ disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know from where this one is.” (9:28, 29)

Not allowing himself to be intimidated, the man replied courageously, “This is something amazing, You do not know from where he is, and he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he listens to one who is godly and does his will. From the [past] age[s], never has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. If he were not from God, he would not be able to do anything.” (9:30-33)

Unable to give an answer to the man’s sound reasoning and greatly provoked, they reviled him, saying, “You were fully born in sins, and you are teaching us?” Their angry reply indicated that they considered his having been blind at birth as a reason to despise him as a sinner who had no right to express himself in the manner he did. The Pharisees then expelled him, declaring him to be an outcast. (9:34)

Upon hearing that they had expelled him, Jesus looked for the man and found him, providing him with the spiritual help and comfort that he needed. He asked him whether he believed in the Son of Man (Son of God, according to many later manuscripts). Although the man had declared his faith in Jesus as a prophet who had come from God, he did not then know him as the Son of Man or the Son of God, the promised Messiah. Therefore, he asked, “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in him?” “You have seen him,” said Jesus, “and he who is speaking with you is that one.” “I believe, Lord,” replied the man and prostrated himself, thereby acknowledging Jesus as God’s Son and his Lord. (9:35-38)

Jesus had come into the world of mankind for judgment, that the blind would see and that the sighted might become blind. This judgment, based on how individuals responded to Jesus, revealed whether they wanted to do God’s will. Those who did see were persons who imagined themselves to be sighted and to whom others looked for guidance. The blind, though including the physically blind, primarily were persons who longed for a clearer vision of God and a closer relationship with him. These formerly blind ones put faith in Jesus and gained clear spiritual vision, whereas those who thought of themselves as sighted rejected him, resulting in even greater spiritual blindness in their case. (9:39)

Jesus’ words prompted certain Pharisees who had been listening to ask incredulously, “We, too, are not blind, [are we]?” “If you were blind [unable to perceive],” said Jesus, “you would have no sin. Now, however, you say, ‘We see,’ [so] your sin remains.” Had they sensed a lack within themselves respecting their relationship to God, they could have come to see their error, ceasing to be unbelievers. Their previous unbelief would have been due to ignorance and could have been forgiven. (Compare 1 Timothy 1:12, 13.) When, however, they insisted that they did see, they could not be freed from their sin, for they had deliberately chosen to continue in unbelief. (9:40, 41)

John 10:1-42

The opening verse of chapter 10 does not introduce a change in location. Accordingly, it must have been in the presence of his disciples, the former blind man, the unbelieving Pharisees, and others that Jesus illustrated his personal concern for his followers.

He likened himself to a caring shepherd and his fellow Jews as sheep in an enclosure. “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you,” he solemnly declared. “He who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in another way is a thief and a robber. He, however, who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him, the doorkeeper opens. And the sheep listen to his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought all of his own out [of the enclosure], he goes in front of them, and the sheep follow him, for they recognize his voice. A stranger, however, they will not follow but will flee from him, for they do not recognize the voice of strangers.” (10:1-5)

The unbelieving Pharisees and other religious leaders in the Jewish community had seized a position in relation to their fellow Jews (the “sheep”) that was not divinely approved. The manner in which certain Pharisees had treated the cured blind man was comparable to the actions of a thief and a robber. When expelling him, they deprived him of any acceptable standing in the Jewish community. Like a robber who has no regard for his victim when resorting to violence to seize what he wants, the religious leaders abused the former blind man with hateful words and stole his reputation from him. (10:1)

It was common for several shepherds to shelter their flocks for the night in an enclosure, where a doorkeeper would guard the sheep. In the morning, the shepherds would arrive, calling each one of their own sheep by name. The sheep would then follow their shepherd as he led them out to pasture. A stranger could not get them to follow him, but they would run away from him, especially upon hearing their own shepherd calling. The sheep did not recognize anyone else’s voice. (10:2-5)

Whereas all the Jews professed to be God’s people, not all recognized the voice of Jesus as being that of their divinely appointed shepherd. Only those who listened to him proved to be his sheep, and they followed him, letting his example and teaching guide their course. Those with genuine faith in him paid no attention to the voice of others who presumed to speak for God. (10:4, 5)

John 10:6 indicates that Jesus’ words in the form of a likeness, comparison, or parable were primarily directed to the unbelieving Pharisees, with the reference to “them” applying to the group of Pharisees mentioned in John 9:40. They, however, did not understand what he had said to them.

After a solemn introductory “Amen, amen, I say to you,” Jesus next compared himself to the “door of the sheep.” Whether this is an allusion to a different enclosure out in the field where the flock is pastured cannot be determined. In the case of such an enclosure, the shepherd would lie down in the opening at night and, like a door or gate, keep intruders out. (10:7)

The ones to whom Jesus referred as thieves and robbers would have been those who falsely claimed to represent God. These men could have included false prophets and false messiahs, who deceived many and led them to their ruin. The genuine sheep, as Jesus added, did not listen to them. (10:8)

The Son of God is the “door,” making it possible for those with faith in him to come into a relationship with him and his Father and to continue to have access to him. The “sheep” who enter this door by believing in Jesus would be “saved” or delivered from sin. Liberated from sin, they would enjoy true freedom, their condition being comparable to that of sheep which are not confined but can enter and exit through a gate. Like sheep whom a shepherd leads to pasture and water, Jesus would provide spiritual abundance for believers and look out for their welfare. (10:9)

The thief, whose actions the abusive religious leaders had imitated, would come only to “steal and slaughter and destroy.” Ruin would come to anyone who blindly followed the unbelieving Pharisees. This was the very opposite respecting Jesus’ coming. He came so that believers might have life and have it to the full, enjoying the real life of an enduring relationship with him and his Father. (10:10)

Jesus identified himself as the good shepherd, the shepherd who demonstrates his ultimate concern for the welfare of the sheep by sacrificing his “soul” or life for them. In view of the fact that the former blind man had been declared an outcast, he must have been greatly strengthened and uplifted upon hearing that Jesus deeply cared for him, even being willing to give up his life for him. Jesus is not like a hireling who is primarily concerned about receiving his pay for services. A hireling does not own the sheep and does not have the kind of personal interest in their welfare that a shepherd has. When the hireling sees the wolf coming, he looks to his own welfare first and runs away, abandoning the sheep and leaving them for the wolf to seize and scatter. He does not care about what happens to the sheep, because he, as a hireling who works only for pay, has no personal attachment to or genuine interest in them. (10:11-13)

The unbelieving Pharisees and other religious leaders proved themselves to be like hirelings, being primarily concerned about their position and maintaining it. They despised the common people, looking down upon them as persons ignorant of the law and burdening them with many regulations that had no basis in the law. (Compare Matthew 23:4; John 7:49; 11:45-48; 12:10, 11.)

In his role as a good shepherd, Jesus knows his sheep, and they know him. The relationship is an intimate one, being like the one Jesus enjoys with his Father. His Father knows him as his beloved Son, and he knows his Father like no one else does, because he is the unique Son. For the “sheep” that are dear to him, Jesus said that he would lay down his “soul” or life. (10:14, 15)

At the time Jesus spoke about giving up his life, all of the “sheep” who recognized him as their shepherd were believing Jews. They, however, were not to be his only sheep. He had other sheep who were not in the same enclosure or not members of the “house of Israel.” (Compare Matthew 15:24.) These future sheep he would also lead. They would listen to or respond to his voice and, with the Jewish believers, come to be one flock, following him as their one shepherd. (10:16)

Jesus enjoyed his Father’s love because he delighted to do his will and that included sacrificing his “soul” or life for the sheep. Although he would give up his life, he would receive it again. The surrender of his life would not come about based on any human determination to have him killed, but he would lay it down of his own accord. His Father had granted him the power or right to lay down his life and to receive it again. Jesus referred to this “power” as having been given him on the basis of his Father’s commandment or authoritative decree. Therefore, his resurrection was certain. (10:17, 18)

Jesus’ words resulted in a division among those who heard them. Many concluded that he was a demonized madman, and they could not understand why anyone would listen to him. Others, however, did not believe Jesus’ words to be the expressions of a demonized man. They found it impossible to conclude that a demon could open the eyes of the blind. (10:19-21)

John 10:22 starts a new narrative about another confrontation Jesus faced, which occurred at the Festival of Dedication (Hanukkah), about three months after the Festival of Tabernacles. During the intervening period, Jesus’ activity appears to have continued in and near Jerusalem and in other areas of Judea.

The Festival of Dedication took place in the month of Chislev (mid-November to mid-December).This festival commemorated the cleansing of the temple from the defilement for which Antiochus Epiphanes (a Hellenistic king of the Seleucid Empire in the second century BCE) was responsible. As it was wintertime, Jesus may have chosen to walk in the sheltered location of the colonnade of Solomon. There he was surrounded by a significant number of Jews who demanded of him that he openly tell them if he was indeed the Christ. (10:22-24)

He had already performed many miracles that clearly indentified him as the Christ. Therefore, he could say, “I told you [by my works], and you do not believe. The works I am doing in the name of my Father [as representing his Father], these testify about me.” Jesus then disclosed the reason for their unbelief in him as the promised Messiah or Christ. They were not his sheep, for they refused to follow him as their shepherd. Jesus᾿ sheep, however, did recognize him as their shepherd. They “heard” or listened to his voice. He recognized them as his own, and they followed him. (10:25-27)

To his sheep, Jesus is the giver of “eternal life.” This is an enduring life as persons inseparably attached to him and with an approved standing with his Father. As a loving shepherd, Jesus would care for his sheep, guarding them so that no one would grab them out of his hand. Apparently Jesus referred to these sheep as having been given to him by the Father and as being greater than everything, for they were indeed very precious. According to another manuscript reading, the Father is the one who is greater than all. Like the Son, the Father had deep concern for the sheep and would not permit anyone to rip them out of his hand. Both the Father and the Son were united in their concern and care for the sheep, and this appears to be the reason that Jesus added, “I and the Father are one.” (10:28-30)

The manner in which Jesus described his intimate relationship with the Father angered the unbelieving Jews. They picked up stones to hurl at him in order to kill him. Jesus spoke up, calling attention to the many good works he had done and which had the Father as their source. He then asked, “For which of these works are you stoning me?” Their response was that they were not stoning him for a good work but for blasphemy. They contended that Jesus was a mere man and yet he had made himself out to be God. (10:31-33)

Jesus countered their contention when calling to their attention that the law (apparently referring to the whole of the holy writings) contained the words, “You are gods.” He pointed out that this was directed to corrupt judges who would die or who merited death. (Psalm 82:6, 7) There was no way that these words (“you are gods”) could be set aside. Jesus, though, had not claimed to be God or a god. His Father had set him apart as holy and sent him into the world of mankind. Therefore, Jesus asked those who were hostile to him why they maintained that he blasphemed when he said, “I am the Son of God.” They would have a reason for unbelief if he did not do the works of his Father or the good works that he had been empowered to perform. If, however, he did the works of his Father and they still did not believe him as the Son, they should believe the works, the miraculous works that brought welcome relief to afflicted people. Jesus then revealed that belief in the works would result in their coming to know or recognize that the Father was “in” him and that he was “in” the Father. An inseparable unity existed between the Father and the Son. (10:34-38)

The hostile Jews again tried to seize Jesus, apparently with a view to killing him. He, however, escaped and headed eastward across the Jordan to the location where John the Baptist had originally done baptizing. Jesus remained there for an undisclosed time. (10:39, 40)

Upon coming to know Jesus᾿ whereabouts, many came to him. They acknowledged that John the Baptist had not performed a single “sign” or miracle but that everything he said about Jesus proved to be true. Many of those who came to Jesus became believers in him, recognizing him to be the promised Messiah and the Son of God. (10:40-42)

John 11:1-57

Martha, her sister Mary, and their brother Lazarus lived in Bethany, a village about two miles (c. 3 kilometers [15 stadia (11:18)]) from Jerusalem. Lazarus became seriously ill, and his sisters apparently looked to Jesus either for comfort or to restore their brother to good health. They sent him the following message about Lazarus, “The one whom you love is sick.” (11:1-3)

Verse 1 contains the first mention of Martha, Mary and Lazarus. A number of other women were also called Mary. Therefore, in verse 2, the sister of Lazarus is uniquely differentiated from the others by a notable deed that had not as yet taken place. She was the one who anointed Jesus with perfumed ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. (11:1, 2)

To the messenger or messengers, Jesus then indicated that the sickness would not have death as its final outcome but would serve to bring glory or praise to God. Moreover, through this illness, he, the Son of God, would be glorified. This would be because his greatness would be revealed in an astonishingly impressive way. By his words (which would have been related to Martha and Mary), Jesus desired to provide hope to them. (Compare 11:40, where Jesus reminded Martha about having told her about seeing the glory of God.) (11:4)

He did not leave for Bethany immediately but stayed two days longer where he was. Indicating that this delay did not reflect unfavorably on his compassion, the account says that Jesus loved Martha, her sister, and Lazarus. (11:5, 6)

When he then told his disciples about his decision to go with them to Judea, they were shocked, reminding him that the unbelieving Jews there had intended to stone him. In disbelief, the disciples asked, “Are you going there again?” (11:7, 8)

Jesus assured them that they had nothing to fear. “Are there not twelve hours of day?” By walking in the day, one would not stumble, for one would see the “light of the world” or the sun. If, though, a person walked in the night, he would stumble. Light enters the eyes, and this may be why, when all is darkness and no light can enter the eyes, Jesus is quoted as saying, “The light is not in him.” In daylight, one would be able to see obstacles and avoid them, but darkness conceals, creating a far greater likelihood for tripping over an object in one’s path. (11:9, 10)

As far as Jesus’ activity was concerned, the night had not yet come when he would be arrested and killed. It continued to be daylight for carrying out his commission, which included bringing comfort to those in distress. Moreover, while with his disciples, he served as a light to them. When he would be taken away from them in death, darkness would set in for them, causing them to succumb to fear and to scatter. (11:9, 10)

Jesus then told the disciples that their friend Lazarus had fallen asleep and that he would be going to awaken him. They understood this to mean that Lazarus was getting his rest and would get well. To correct their misunderstanding, Jesus said, “Lazarus died,” thereby also revealing to them his being in possession of miraculous knowledge. (11:11-14)

For the sake of his disciples, Jesus rejoiced that he had not been in Bethany, for what was about to take place would lead them to “believe” or would strengthen their faith in him as God’s Son. Although Lazarus had died, Jesus said, “Let us go to him.” (11:15)

One of the apostles, Thomas, also called Didymus (meaning “Twin,” probably because he had a twin brother or sister), spoke up, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” Lazarus was already dead, and so Thomas would not have meant dying with Lazarus. It appears that Jesus’ reassurance had not convinced him that returning to Judea would not be risky. Thomas seems to have concluded that the unbelieving Jews would kill Jesus and that the apostles should nevertheless go with him to Judea and share his fate. By the time they arrived at Bethany, Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. The family seems to have been well known in Jerusalem, for Bethany was only about two miles [c. 3 kilometers] away. Many Jews had come to see Martha and Mary, seeking to comfort them over the loss of their brother. (11:16-19)

As soon as she learned that Jesus was on his way, Martha, typical of a woman of action, left to meet him. Mary, however, stayed in the house, remaining seated as a mourner in the presence of those who had come to comfort her and her sister. (11:20)

Martha’s first words to Jesus reflected her faith in him. “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give you.” Her words indicate that she believed Jesus could and would have restored her brother to soundness of health. Still, she had not given up hope, for she confidently acknowledged that God would grant all of Jesus’ requests. (11:21, 22)

In response to Jesus’ assurance, “Your brother will rise,” Martha expressed her belief in the resurrection, “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” Her reply suggests that she was familiar with the assurance given to Daniel (12:13, NRSV), “You, go your way, and rest; you shall rise for your reward at the end of the days.” Martha was confident that the promise of a resurrection “at the end of the days” or “on the last day” also applied to her brother. (11:23, 24)

Jesus then indicated that Martha would not have to wait until the “last day” for Lazarus to rise. “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he dies, will live. And everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” When referring to himself as being “the resurrection and the life,” Jesus revealed that he had the authority to raise the dead and to impart life. This assured a resurrection for believers who died. All living believers enjoy an enduring relationship with him and his Father. Death does not end that relationship, for it is eternal. Therefore, believers continue in possession of the real life or the eternal life and, in that sense, would never die. (11:25, 26)

At the time, Martha seemingly did not fully understand Jesus’ words, for her response focused on why she believed what he had told her. “Yes, Lord, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.” Martha believed him because she recognized him to be the promised Messiah, God’s Son. She returned to her home, called Mary, and “secretly” or privately told her, “The teacher has come and is asking for you.” Martha’s intent for speaking to her sister away from others may have been to give her the opportunity to have a private conversation with Jesus. Mary then rushed off. Jesus had not as yet entered Bethany, remaining at the location where Martha had met him. When those who had come to comfort Mary saw her get up and quickly leave the house, they followed her, thinking that she was heading for the tomb to weep. (11:27-31)

Mary fell to her knees at Jesus’ feet and expressed herself just as Martha had, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” It is likely that the two sisters had often said this to one another, prompting the same spontaneous expression from them when meeting him. Seeing Mary and those who accompanied her weeping, Jesus was deeply moved emotionally. The “weeping” of Mary and those who were with her would have been an audible weeping or wailing. The Greek word klaío, meaning “weep,” “mourn,” or “wail,” lays stress on the sound associated with the weeping. In describing Jesus’ reaction, the Greek text has a form of embrimáomai, which can mean “to be indignant,” “to rebuke,” or “to charge sternly.” In this context, the term may indicate that the grief brought about by the death of Lazarus caused Jesus to be “indignant in spirit” or to experience an intense internal upheaval. It disturbed him greatly, and he also came to be troubled and distressed. Jesus then asked, “Where have you laid him?” The mourners replied, “Lord, come and see.” The grief Jesus witnessed affected him deeply, and he began to weep. In Greek, the term dakrýo designates the weeping of Jesus. The noun form of this verb is dákryon, meaning “tear.” So it would seem that Jesus’ sympathetic sorrow proved to be a silent shedding of tears. Observing this, many regarded his tears as an evidence of his great affection for Lazarus. The expressions of others suggested a measure of unbelief, “Was not this one who opened the eyes of the blind man able to keep this one from dying?” (11:32-37)

Upon arriving at the burial site, Jesus again felt indignant (embrimáomai) within himself, was deeply moved, or experienced an inner upheaval. Both the weeping and the expressions of unbelief must have contributed to this internal emotional stirring. The body of Lazarus had been placed in a cave, and the opening had been closed with a large stone. (11:38)

When Jesus asked for the stone to be taken away, Martha protested, “Lord, he already stinks, for it is four [days].” Her reaction was an emotional response based on knowledge about the stench resulting from decomposition. This instantaneous emotional reaction did not take into consideration that Jesus had identified himself as “the resurrection and the life.” He reminded her of his promise, “Did I not tell you that, if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (11:39, 40)

Certain ones then did remove the stone. Jesus focused his eyes heavenward and thanked his Father for having heard him. Continuing to pray, he said, “I, however, knew that you always hear me, but because of the crowd standing around I spoke, that they may believe that you sent me.” In response to Jesus’ loud cry for him to come out, Lazarus did so. His hands and feet were still wrapped with bands, and a cloth covered his face. Jesus asked that the restraining bands be removed, making it possible for Lazarus to walk. (11:41-44)

Many of those who witnessed this miracle became believers. Some, though, did not put faith in Jesus. They reported what had happened to the unbelieving Pharisees. (11:45, 46)

This news prompted the chief priests and Pharisees to arrange for the members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, to meet to determine what they should do about Jesus. Because of the many signs he had performed, they feared a popular uprising. Many would put faith in him as the promised Messiah, leading to a conflict with Rome. As they expressed it, “The Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” Convinced that war with Rome would mean loss of their place, meaning their land, their holy city Jerusalem, or their temple, and the destruction of the nation, they felt that they needed to act. They must also have recognized that their position as prominent members of the nation was at stake. What seems to have troubled them was their lack of the needed evidence to justify having Jesus executed. (11:47, 48)

Caiaphas, who was then the high priest, had no qualms respecting this. He basically told the members of the Sanhedrin that they did not need any evidence of guilt, saying, “You do not know anything nor do you understand that it is better for you [us, according to other manuscripts] that one man die for the people and not for the whole nation to be destroyed.” As far as he was concerned, Jesus endangered the continued existence of the nation and needed to be killed. Saving the whole nation was sufficient reason for executing one man. (11:49, 50)

According to Josephus (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2), Valerius Gratus, whom the Roman emperor Tiberius had appointed as procurator of Judea, replaced Simon with Joseph Caiaphas as high priest. Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas (Ananus, according to Josephus), whom Valerius Gratus had deprived of the high priesthood about three years earlier but who continued to wield great influence in the affairs of the nation. (18:13; Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2) The reference to Caiaphas as being “high priest that year” does not mean that he was annually appointed to the office. It may be understood to signify that he served as high priest at that time or in the significant year when Jesus was put to death. (11:49)

Whereas Caiaphas spoke as one guided by political considerations, the words were framed in a manner that expressed a prophecy appropriate for one occupying the position of high priest. The account includes the editorial comment that Caiaphas did not speak of his own and adds, “Being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that he might gather into one the scattered children of God.” Jesus did die for people everywhere, making it possible for all those who believed in him to become God’s children and form one united whole or one family even though they were widely dispersed in different regions. (11:51, 52)

In keeping with the words of the high priest, the Sanhedrin determined to have Jesus killed. Possibly word about this development reached Jesus through Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. (Compare Luke 23:50, 51; John 7:45, 50, 51.) As a result, Jesus could no longer walk openly among the people. He left Bethany and the area around Jerusalem and headed for a less populated region. For a time, he and his disciples stayed in Ephraim. This town is commonly thought to have been located about 12 miles (c. 19 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem, but the identification is uncertain. (11:53, 54)

According to the law, ceremonial defilement could result from touching a dead body, being present when someone dies, entering the home where there is a dead person, walking over a grave, or experiencing certain bodily afflictions or conditions. (Leviticus 14:1-20; 15:1-33; Numbers 19:11-18) To observe the Passover, one had to be ceremonially clean. (Numbers 9:6-14) Therefore, many Jews went to Jerusalem before the Passover in order to fulfill the legal requirements for purification from ceremonial defilement. (11:55)

In the temple precincts, these early arrivals began looking for Jesus and talking about him with one another. Among them were those who wondered whether he would even come to the Passover festival. The chief priests and the influential Pharisees in Jerusalem had given the order that anyone knowing Jesus’ whereabouts should inform them, as they wanted to arrest him. (11:56, 57)

John 12:1-50

Six days before the Passover, Jesus and the apostles arrived in Bethany. This village, situated about two miles (c. 3 kilometers) from Jerusalem, was the home of Lazarus (whom he had raised from the dead), Martha, and Mary. (12:1)

Sometime during their stay, Jesus and his disciples were guests in the home of “Simon the leper.” Simon doubtless was a believer whom Jesus had cured of his leprosy, but the designation “Simon the leper” served to distinguish him from the other disciples with the same name. Lazarus was among those partaking of the meal, and his sister Martha served the guests. Their sister Mary had brought with her an alabaster container of costly ointment, one pound (Roman pound [c. 11.5 ounces; c. 327 grams]) of genuine nard. While Jesus and the other guests were reclining at the table to eat, Mary approached Jesus and began pouring the perfumed ointment on his head. After applying it to his feet, she wiped them with her hair. The entire house became permeated with the aroma of the fragrant ointment. (12:2, 3; see also Matthew 26:6, 7; Mark 14:3.)

There is uncertainty about when Jesus and the apostles were guests in the home of Simon the leper. The mention of Jesus’ anointing with costly ointment, the objections raised regarding it, and his response provide the basis for concluding that Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:2-8 relate to the same event. The account in John 12:2-8 (though unique in identifying Mary as the woman and Judas as the one who raised the objection) does not refer to the house of Simon the leper nor specifically say when in relation to the six days after his arrival in Bethany Jesus and the apostles were guests in the home. In Matthew 26 and Mark 14, the incident is narrated after the mention of “two days” until the Passover. (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1)

Judas, who would later betray Jesus, appears to have been first to object to what Mary had done, raising the question as to why the ointment had not been sold for 300 denarii and the proceeds given to the poor. In indignation, other disciples then similarly expressed themselves. They could not understand why the nard had been wasted instead of sold and the money given to the poor. (12:4, 5; see also Matthew 26:8, 9; Mark 14:4, 5.)

Mary’s act was an expression of deep love and appreciation for Jesus and what he had done for her and her sister and brother. No words, acts, or gifts could have fully expressed the depth of gratitude Mary must have felt in having her brother brought back to life. The costly ointment, with a value of about a year’s wages (300 denarii, with a denarius being the daily pay for a common laborer), likely was the most precious item that Mary possessed. Whether she had obtained it to anoint Jesus with it or initially bought it for another purpose is not revealed in the account. Jesus’ words indicate that Mary’s use of the ointment was an expression of the full limit of what she was able to do for him in view of his imminent death and burial. (12:3, 5, 7)

It is generally believed that the source of the nard or spikenard is Nardostachys jatamansi, a plant that grows in the Himalayas. If the nard did come from distant India, this would explain why the ointment had a very high value. (12:3)

In his Natural History, first-century Roman scholar Pliny the Elder wrote concerning nard: “Of the leaf, which is that of the nard, it is only right to speak somewhat more at length, as it holds the principal place among our unguents. The nard is a shrub with a heavy, thick root, but short, black, brittle, and yet unctuous as well; it has a musty smell, too, very much like that of the cyperus, with a sharp, acrid taste, the leaves being small, and growing in tufts. The heads of the nard spread out into ears; hence it is that nard is so famous for its two-fold production, the spike or ear, and the leaf. There is another kind, again, that grows on the banks of the Ganges, but is altogether condemned, as being good for nothing; it bears the name of ozænitis, and emits a fetid odour. Nard is adulterated with a sort of plant called pseudo-nard, which is found growing everywhere, and is known by its thick, broad leaf, and its sickly colour, which inclines to white. It is sophisticated, also, by being mixed with the root of the genuine nard, which adds very considerably to its weight. Gum is also used for the same purpose, antimony, and cyperus; or, at least, the outer coat of the cyperus. Its genuineness is tested by its lightness, the redness of its colour, its sweet smell, and the taste more particularly, which parches the mouth, and leaves a pleasant flavour behind it; the price of spikenard is one hundred denarii per pound.” (English translation edited by John Bostock and H. T. Riley)

While others doubtless were sincere in their expressions about giving the proceeds from the sale of the nard to the poor, Judas had ulterior motives. He had been entrusted with the bag or box for keeping the common fund and had been stealing from it. (12:6)

Jesus came to Mary’s defense, telling those who objected to leave her alone and not to make trouble for her. He went on to say that she had done a good deed, one that had been undertaken prior to his burial. While there would always be the poor whom they would be able to assist, the disciples would not always have Jesus personally with them. (12:7, 8; see also Matthew 26:10-12; Mark 14:6-8.)

When the news spread that Jesus was in Bethany, many came to see, not only him but also Lazarus whom he had resurrected. Quite a number became believers because of what had happened to Lazarus. Therefore, in an effort to prevent more Jews from believing in Jesus, the chief priests determined to kill Lazarus. (12:9-11)

According to John 12:12-15, the “next day” Jesus, seated on a donkey’s colt, headed for Jerusalem. This could be the day after Mary used the costly ointment. In Matthew and Mark, however, the narrative about the entry into Jerusalem precedes the account concerning the meal in Simon’s home. (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11)

In view of the mention of “six days” (12:1) and then the “next day” in John 12:12, it would appear that a chronological sequence is being followed, which would mean that the words in Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9 are not in chronological order. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the “next day” refers only to the day after the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus (12:10, 11) and that the incident involving the meal is not in chronological sequence. In that case, the meal in Simon’s home should be regarded as having taken place after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.

As Jesus headed for Jerusalem, an increasing number of people began to accompany him. Many placed their outer garments on the road ahead of him, and others laid down leafy branches they had cut from nearby trees. (Matthew 21:8; Mark 11:8; Luke 19:36) When word reached Jerusalem that Jesus was coming, a large crowd, with palm branches in their hands, went out to meet him. One of the reasons for doing so was their having heard about his having resurrected Lazarus. (12:12, 13, 17, 18)

When Jesus reached the location where the road began to descend over the western slope of the Mount of Olives, his disciples and many others joyfully shouted, “Hosanna,” and acknowledged Jesus as one who came in God’s name (or as representing the Most High) and as being the king of Israel. Among the expressions the extant accounts represent as coming from the lips of those who walked ahead of him and those who followed were, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” “Blessed [be] the one coming in the Lord’s name,” “Blessed [be] the coming kingdom of our father David,” “Blessed [be] the king coming in the Lord’s name,” “Hosanna in the [highest] heights,” and “In heaven peace, and glory in the [highest] heights.” (12:13; see also Matthew 21:9; Mark 11:9, 10; Luke 19:37, 38.)

“Hosanna” means “help, I pray,” “save, I pray,” or “save, please.” If regarded as an exclamation of praise, the words “hosanna in the [highest] heights” may denote “praise be to the Most High.” Luke 19:38, when introducing the expressions of the disciples, does refer to their joyfully praising God concerning all the works of power they had seen. Another possibility is that the words “hosanna in the [highest] heights” serve as an appeal for the angelic hosts to share in joyfully crying out, “Hosanna!” In that case, “hosanna” (linked, as it is, to Jesus) could convey a meaning comparable to “God save the Son of David.” (12:13)

When Jesus rode on a young donkey to Jerusalem, this fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9, “Fear not, daughter of Zion. Look! Your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt.” At the time, the disciples did not understand that this prophecy was then being fulfilled. After Jesus was “glorified,” or after his death and resurrection as the one who had conquered the world and had been granted all authority in heaven and on earth, they recalled what had been written in the Scriptures and what had been done when Jesus rode to Jerusalem. (12:14-16)

Upon seeing Jesus ride into Jerusalem, the inhabitants of the city were stirred up, and they asked, “Who is this?” “The prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee,” came back the reply from the crowd that had accompanied him. (Matthew 21:10, 11) Among them were persons who had been present when Jesus resurrected Lazarus, and they added their testimony about what they had witnessed. News about the resurrection of Lazarus prompted many others to meet Jesus. Observing the multitude around Jesus, the unbelieving Pharisees were greatly disturbed. They apparently recognized that they had failed in their efforts to stop fellow Jews from following Jesus. Their efforts had been of no use, and they were at a loss about what they could do. Numerous modern translations are more specific than is the Greek text when quoting what the Pharisees said to one another. “You see? You’ve accomplished nothing. Look ― the world has gone after Him!” (HCSB) “You see, we are not succeeding at all! Look, the whole world is following him.” (TEV) “There’s nothing we can do. Look, everyone has gone after him.” (NLT) “There is nothing that can be done! Everyone in the world is following Jesus.” (CEV) (12:17-19)

Among those who had come to the festival to worship were some Greeks. Their not being referred to as proselytes may indicate that they were not such but had come to believe in the one true God. Either on this or another day, these God-fearing non-Jews approached Philip, the apostle from Bethsaida in Galilee, and expressed their desire to see Jesus. Possibly they chose to speak to Philip because of his Greek name, meaning “fond of horses.” It appears that Philip was unsure about what he should do and so first spoke to Andrew about the desire of the Greeks. Then both of them went to Jesus and informed him about this. (12:20-22)

Against the backdrop of the desire of the Greeks to see him, Jesus foretold that there would be even greater response to him after his death and subsequent glorification, which would have included his resurrection and ascension to heaven as the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been entrusted. He then said that the “hour” or time had come for the “Son of Man to be glorified.” Illustrating that his death would result in an increase in disciples, he referred to a grain of wheat as dying (or ceasing to exist as just one grain) and thereafter bearing much fruit. If it did not fall on the ground (being sown), it would remain just a single grain. Indicating that he was conveying an important truth, Jesus prefaced his statement with a repetition of a solemn “amen” (truly). (12:23, 24)

Suggesting that the resulting increase after his death would be through the activity of his disciples, Jesus called attention to the need for courage. Intense opposition to their activity could even lead to their death. Therefore, the one who loved his “soul” (life), failing to remain loyal to Jesus out of fear, would lose it. The unfaithful one would forfeit his relationship with the Son of God and his Father and thus lose out on the real or eternal life. On the other hand, the person who “hates his soul in this world” or does not make the preservation of his present life more important than loyalty to Christ would be safeguarding it “for eternal life.” Even though the faithful individual may be put to death, he would retain his eternal relationship with the Son of God and his Father. For the loyal disciple, life in the age to come would be certain. (12:25)

Those who would serve the Lord Jesus Christ would follow him, heeding his teaching and imitating his example. With reference to the blessing awaiting the faithful servant, Jesus said, “My servant will also be there where I am. If anyone serves me, [my] Father will honor him.” As Jesus returned to the realm above, his faithful disciples would come to be there with him and be honored by the Father as his approved children. (12:26)

Seemingly, as Jesus considered what lay ahead for his disciples, he began to think about the suffering and excruciating death he would shortly face. Within himself he sensed a disturbing upheaval, prompting him to say, “My soul is troubled,” and causing him to wonder just what expression he should make. Greatly distressed in spirit, he prayed, “Father, save me from this hour.” If the possibility of being delivered from a dreadful end had been an option, Jesus would have wanted to be rescued. (Compare Luke 22:42 regarding Jesus’ prayer shortly before his arrest.) The Nestle-Aland Greek text (twenty-seventh edition), however, punctuates Jesus’ expression about being saved “from this hour” as a question and not as a prayerful request that ends with a period. Numerous modern translations likewise render the words as a question that has “no” as the answer or as the implied answer. “And what should I say — ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour.” (NRSV) “Now my heart is troubled — and what shall I say? Shall I say, ‘Father, do not let this hour come upon me’? But that is why I came — so that I might go through this hour of suffering.” (TEV) “Now I am deeply troubled, and I don’t know what to say. But I must not ask my Father to keep me from this time of suffering. In fact, I came into the world to suffer.” (CEV) (12:27)

Jesus recognized that submission to his Father’s will mattered most, motivating him to say, “But therefore I have come to this hour.” The culminating purpose for his coming to the earth had been to make possible the rescue of the world of mankind from sin and death through his own sacrificial death. As the obedient Son who delighted to do his Father’s will, Jesus turned his attention away from himself and prayed, “Father, glorify your name.” It was his Father’s will for him to lay down his life, and Jesus’ prayer was that doing it would glorify his Father’s name (or his Father, the bearer of the name). The glorification consisted of the ultimate revelation of his Father’s love and compassion for humankind. (12:27, 28; see also John 3:16; Romans 5:8-11; 1 John 4:9, 10.)

In response to his prayer, a voice resounded from heaven, “And I have glorified [my name] and will glorify [my name] again.” Through the miracles and works of power he enabled his Son to perform, the Father had glorified himself, with many expressing praise to him for the marvelous deeds that brought relief to the afflicted. Then, through his Son’s death and subsequent resurrection, he would once again glorify his name or bring glory to himself. In increasing numbers, believers would thank and praise him. (12:28)

A crowd of people heard the voice from heaven, but they appear not to have understood the words. Some concluded that it had thundered, whereas others thought that an angel had spoken to Jesus. He, however, told them that the voice had resounded for them or their benefit and not for him. (12:29, 30)

Through his death in faithfulness, Jesus would triumph over the powers of darkness, ending the tyranny of the ruler of the world who would be unable to restrain anyone from transferring to the realm where God rules through his Son. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the judging or condemning of the world (exposing the world of mankind to be alienated from his Father) and the ejection of Satan, the ruler of this world. (12:31)

The effect of Jesus’ being “lifted up” from the earth would be his drawing “all” to him, indicating that people from everywhere would respond to him in faith and accept his having died for them. The expression “lifted up” indicated that he would be lifted up on the implement on which he would be crucified. Understanding Jesus as having referred to his experiencing the kind of death associated with being “lifted up,” certain ones in the crowd expressed the view that the “law” or their holy writings indicated that the Christ would remain forever. So they asked Jesus why he said the Son of Man would be lifted up and who this one is. (12:32-34)

No specific part of the Hebrew Scriptures says that the Messiah would remain forever. Possibly based on what they had heard about the coming Messiah, they came to this conclusion. Psalm 89:36(37) did point to the permanence of rule in the line of David, and Daniel 7:13, 14 portrays someone “like a son of man” being granted eternal dominion, and it may be that such passages provided a basis for the belief that the Messiah or Christ would remain forever. (12:34)

The Son of God did not answer their question directly. His words, however, should have made it possible for them to recognize that he was the promised Messiah, the one through whom true enlightenment was available. It would only be a little while longer that the “light” (he as the one through whom the light was available) would be among them. Jesus admonished the people to “walk” while they had the light, conforming their ways to what the light revealed, and avoiding the hazards of walking in darkness or without the dependable guidance he provided. Persons who walked in darkness would not know where they were going, placing themselves in danger. At this point, the Son of God clarified that faith in him was essential. “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” (12:35, 36)

All who put faith in Jesus came into possession of true light, for acting in harmony with his example and teaching made it possible for them to have his Father’s approval and to conduct themselves aright. As persons fully enlightened and conducting themselves accordingly, they would be able to testify concerning God’s Son, imparting light or enlightenment to others. Thus, through their conduct and testimony, they would prove to be “sons of light.” (12:36)

At this point, Jesus left and concealed himself from the unbelieving people. This suggests that he recognized that his life was in danger, but it was then not the time for him to give up his life. (12:36)

Although Jesus had performed many “signs” or miracles, the people did not believe in him. In their case, the words of prophet Isaiah were fulfilled, for they manifested the same unresponsiveness to Jesus as did their forefathers to Isaiah and the message he proclaimed. “Lord [LXX, but not in the extant Hebrew text], who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord [YHWH, Hebrew text] been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1, LXX; John 12:36-38)

The implied answer is that the message (or the word of which the Most High was the source and, therefore, of what Isaiah and Jesus had heard from him) was not believed. Although God had revealed his “arm” or his activity and power, the contemporaries of Isaiah and of Jesus generally remained blind to it. The reason for their unbelief is set forth in Isaiah 6:10, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart [mind], that they may not see with their eyes and perceive with the heart [mind], and they change [literally, turn], and I would heal them.” (12:39, 40)

The words in John 12:40 are not an exact quotation from the extant Septuagint text of Isaiah 6:10 nor from the extant Hebrew text. The Septuagint reading represents the unresponsiveness of the people as being their choice (“they have shut their eyes”). In the Masoretic Text and also the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, the words are a directive to Isaiah (“shut their eyes”). In the Scriptures, whatever takes place by God’s permission is commonly attributed to him. Therefore, the way in which Isaiah 6:10 is quoted in John 12:40 and applied preserves the basic meaning.

According to John 12:41, “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke about it.” The prophet did have a vision of the glory of God after which he said, “My eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts.” (Isaiah 6:1-5) Being the perfect reflection of the Father or his very image, the Son possessed the glory that Isaiah saw in vision. (John 1:14; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3) Isaiah also spoke prophetically concerning him. (Isaiah 9:6, 7; 53:1-12) Accordingly, the words of Isaiah could be represented as spoken by one who saw Christ’s glory and whose experience with unbelief to the message from the Most High found its exact parallel or fulfillment in the case of Jesus. The Father did not prevent the people from choosing to remain blind and refusing to believe and change. Consequently, he is represented as blinding their eyes and hardening their heart. (12:40, 41)

Nevertheless, not all of the people remained unresponsive. Even among the prominent ones (“rulers”) of the nation, there were those who believed. But, at the time, because of the unbelieving Pharisees, they did not openly acknowledge him as the Christ, not wanting to be cast out of the synagogue. They were more concerned about maintaining their honorable standing in the Jewish community (“the glory of men”) than about glorifying God by honoring his Son. Thus they revealed themselves to be persons who loved “the glory of men more than the glory of God.” The expression “glory of God” could (as commonly rendered) mean the glory he bestows on those who put faith in his Son, accepting them as his beloved children. Possibly the rulers included Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who later chose the right course, identifying themselves as disciples. (12:42, 43)

It appears that before Jesus went into hiding he raised his voice, telling the people of the need to put faith in him. Anyone who believed in him would also believe in the one who had sent him. Likewise, whoever saw him, recognizing him as the unique Son of God, would see the one who had sent him, for Jesus perfectly reflected his Father. No one who believed in him would remain in darkness, for Jesus had come as “light into the world,” making it possible for individuals to have his Father’s approval and to have the essential guidance for conducting themselves aright as his children. (12:36, 44-46)

Jesus did not come to judge or condemn those who heard his words but did not heed them. His mission was to save the world of mankind, not to condemn it, opening up the opportunity for all to change their ways, become his disciples and his Father’s beloved children, and be liberated from sin and thus saved from condemnation. There would, however, be a basis for judgment or condemnation in case of individuals who disregarded Jesus and refused to accept what he said. “On the last day” or at the time of judgment, the “word” he had spoken would serve as judge, condemning those who deliberately rejected it. This would be because the Father was the source of Jesus’ teaching. The Son did not speak of his own but spoke only what his Father had commanded him to speak. Regarding his Father’s commandment, Jesus said, “I know that his commandment is eternal life.” Obedience to that “commandment,” which included putting faith in the Son, would result in having an approved relationship with him and his Father, and that enduring relationship constitutes the real or eternal life. (12:47-50; 17:3)

Because of what he knew about his Father’s commandment, Jesus did not in any way depart from it in his teaching. He expressed only what his Father had told him. (12:50)

John 13:1-38

With the approach of the Festival of Unleavened Bread preceded by the observance of Passover, Jesus knew that his “hour” or time had come to leave the world in which he had lived and to return to his Father. He was fully aware that it was the time for him willingly to surrender his life, not resisting or seeking to avoid being executed like a criminal seditionist. By laying down his life, he would express his great love for his disciples and for the world of mankind, as his sacrificial death would provide the basis for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with his Father. (13:1)

Jesus’ death would also serve to reveal his Father’s boundless love for mankind. By not sparing his dearly beloved Son from sacrificing his life, the Father reached out to the human family in a manner that should have left no doubt about his love. He thereby extended to all the opportunity to respond in faith or trust in him, appreciatively accepting his arrangement to be forgiven of their sins and to become his dear children.

As for his disciples, Jesus had always loved them and he “loved them to the end.” This could mean that his love continued to the very end or that he loved them to the limit, completely or utterly. The ultimate expression of his love proved to be the surrender of his life for them. (13:1)

In the evening, Jesus and the apostles arrived at the house in Jerusalem where they would be partaking of the Passover meal. The reference in Mark 14:17 to the “twelve” may indicate that, after having completed the preparations, Peter and John returned and that thereafter Jesus and all twelve apostles departed. Another possibility is that “twelve” functions as a collective designation for the apostles, meaning that Jesus arrived with the company of apostles numbering ten at the time. This included Judas Iscariot (the son of Simon) who had already, in his “heart” or deep inner self, yielded to the devil in the determination to betray him. (13:2)

Ancient Jewish sources provide background for understanding developments in connection with the Passover meal. The eating did not begin until after dark and all had reclined at the table. Four cups of wine were to be available. (Mishnah Pesahim, 10:1) The meal itself was to end by midnight. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 5:13) The head of the household or the one officiating pronounced a blessing over the first cup of wine. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:2; Tosefta, Pesahim, 10:2, 3) In conjunction with the second cup of wine (if the celebrants were part of a household), the son would ask his father about the significance of the event. If the boy was too young to ask questions, the father would teach him as much as he could comprehend. The head of the household would then begin a recitation of the Hallel, either all of Psalm 113 or both Psalm 113 and 114. The mixing of the third cup of wine was followed by a blessing for the food. When it came time for the fourth cup, the Hallel was completed. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 10:4, 6, 7) After the meal, the entire night would be spent in consideration of the laws of the Passover. (Tosefta, Pesahim, 10:11, 12)

Probably early during the course of the meal and likely before the introduction of the third cup of wine, Jesus, fully aware that his Father had given all things into his hands and that he had come from him and would be returning to him, undertook the task of a lowly servant. Not one of the apostles had thought to serve his fellow apostles by washing their feet, which would have become dusty during the course of their walk. (13:3)

Jesus, however, stood up, laid his outer garment down, girded himself with a towel, poured water into a basin, and commenced washing the feet of the disciples. To Peter it seemed inconceivable that his Lord, the Son of God, would wash the feet of a disciple, prompting him to say by way of objection, “Lord, are you washing my feet?” Jesus told Peter that, though he did not then comprehend this action, he would later come to understand it. Still, Peter protested, “You will never wash my feet.” He simply could not understand that Jesus, whose greatness he recognized, would perform the task of a lowly servant; it did not seem right to him. “If I do not wash [your feet],” said Jesus to Peter, “you have no share with me.” Immediately Peter stopped objecting. Highly valuing his relationship with Jesus and not wanting to jeopardize it in any way, he declared himself ready to submit to more extensive washing. “Lord, not my feet only,” Peter said, “but also the hands and the head.” (13:4-9)

Jesus pointed out that one who had bathed only needed to have his feet washed. Whereas the hands and the head were not in contact with the ground as one walked about, the sandals did not keep the feet clean. Therefore, as Jesus said, the bathed person who had his feet washed would be completely clean. Making an application to more than physical cleanness, he continued, “And you [apostles] are clean, but not all.” Jesus said this because he knew the one who would betray him and, therefore, the one who was not morally clean. He had treated Judas just like the other apostles, washing his feet and in no way acting in an unloving or resentful manner toward him. Nothing in Jesus’ words and actions gave a hint to the other apostles as to who the betrayer could possibly be. (13:10, 11)

Viewed from a moral standpoint, Jesus’ washing the feet of his disciples seemingly revealed the necessity of completely relying on him for cleansing from sin. Whereas believers have been forgiven of their sins on the basis of their faith in Christ and his sacrificial death for them, they still commit sins. Accordingly, they continue to need Jesus’ washing or cleansing from the transgressions committed in their daily walk. (1 John 1:8-2:2)

Jesus’ washing the feet of the apostles served as a vital object lesson for them about the way in which they should conduct themselves as unassuming servants. After having finished washing the feet of all twelve men, Jesus put on his robe and then reclined at the table. His question (“Do you know what I have done for you?”) served to draw to their attention the important lesson they should learn from his example. They rightly called him “Teacher” and “Lord,” for he indeed was such. Since he as their Teacher and Lord had washed their feet, they should have been willing to perform lowly tasks for others in imitation of his example. With a repetition of a solemn “amen” (truly), Jesus continued, “I say to you, a slave is not greater than his lord [master] nor is the one being sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, happy are you if you do them.” (13:12-17)

It would have been contrary to the sense of propriety for underlings to refuse to render the kind of service a master or one with authority to commission was willing to perform and to consider the service as beneath their dignity. With a proper understanding of their position as fellow servants, the disciples would be happy to act in that capacity. They would find joy in serving others in ways that could be considered as lowly. (13:16, 17)

Jesus’ words about experiencing happiness from doing what he had taught were not directed to everyone. He fully knew the ones whom he had chosen, not being blinded by any outward appearances. Among them was one whose actions were portrayed in the treachery described in Psalm 41:9(10), “The one who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me.” The expression “lifting up of the heel” evidently signifies base treachery, the figure apparently being of a raised foot that is ready to kick. (13:18)

The quotation in John 13:18 from verse 9(10) of Psalm 41(40) conveys the basic thought of the Septuagint rendering (“the one eating my bread has magnified [his] treachery against me”), but the words are not identical. In the Septuagint, the Greek word for “treachery” is pternismós, a term incorporating the word ptérna, meaning “heel.” The related verb pternízo basically denotes “to bite someone’s heel,” to go behind someone’s back, to deceive, or to outwit. The quotation in John 13:18, however, says “heel” (ptérna), contains a different Greek word for “eat,” and uses a term for “lifted up,” not “magnified.”

Jesus explained why he had revealed that he would become the object of base treachery, saying, “When it happens, you may believe that I am [the one]. Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, Whoever receives anyone I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” The fulfillment of Jesus’ prophetic words would provide additional confirmation that he was indeed the Son of God. This would serve to strengthen the faith of the loyal apostles, for this development would be part of the cumulative evidence for their belief in him. All who would accept those whom Jesus had sent would recognize them as trustworthy witnesses about him. Therefore, the acceptance of those sent would constitute acceptance of Jesus as the sender, the one to whom the testimony of the messengers would have led all who embraced it. Acceptance of Jesus also signified acceptance of his Father, as he was his Father’s representative. (13:19, 20)

After Jesus referred to the words of the psalmist, he became greatly disturbed in spirit, or inwardly, and solemnly declared, “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you, One of you will betray me.” In great perplexity, the apostles looked at one another, with none of Jesus’ loyal apostles having any idea about who the future betrayer could possibly be. Among themselves they discussed regarding whom Jesus might have been speaking. His words distressed them. Not being able to imagine that they would make themselves guilty of betrayal, they asked, “Not I, [is it]?” (13:21, 22; see also Matthew 26:21, 22; Mark 14:18, 19; Luke 22:21-23.)

Peter must have wanted to ask Jesus personally who the betrayer would be, but he appears not to have been close enough to do so without being overheard. He then got the attention of the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved (John), requesting him to raise the question. John seems to have been reclining on Jesus’ right side, with his head being in close proximity to Jesus’ breast. This would have made it possible for him to lean back to speak to Jesus (doubtless in a subdued manner or whisper) without any of the other apostles being aware of it. (13:23-25)

In response to the question about who the betrayer would be, Jesus said, “It is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and [to whom] I shall give it.” He then took the morsel, dipped it, and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. It would appear that Judas was within easy reach of Jesus, probably reclining on his immediate left. Thus, to the very end, Jesus treated him with kindness and even favored him with being in his close proximity. The account says that, as soon as Judas took the morsel, “Satan entered into him.” This suggests that, despite the love Jesus had shown him, Judas completely yielded to the satanic inclination that made him a traitor. Jesus then told him, “Quickly do what you are doing.” The other apostles did not know why Jesus said this to Judas. (13:26-28)

As Judas had been entrusted with the common fund, some among the apostles thought that he was being instructed to buy something needed for the festival or to give something to the poor. Immediately after he accepted the morsel, Judas left. The account adds, “And it was night.” This reference to “night” seems to have had more than a literal significance. It proved to be a night of darkness, for Jesus was betrayed and arrested. If judged from outward appearances, the powers of darkness had seemingly triumphed. (13:29, 30)

It would not have been unusual for someone to leave during the Passover meal or for several private conversations to be carried on among those eating. The meal itself was not a hurried affair. According to the Mishnah (Pesahim, 10:8), some might even fall asleep. If not all of the group fell asleep, they could resume eating upon waking up. One rabbinical view was that if all merely drowsed and did not fall into deep sleep, they could eat again. The Tosefta (Pesahim, 10:8) refers to those who had no one to recite the Hallel for them. They would then go to the synagogue for the reading of the first part, return home to eat and drink, and then return to the synagogue to complete the Hallel. If the distance was too great for them to return to the synagogue, the entire Hallel was completed the first time. This interruption of the meal with the Hallel may provide a basis for concluding that Judas left before the introduction of the third cup of wine. (13:30)

After Judas had left, Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man when speaking of his glorification and that of his Father “in him.” In the Greek text, the verb for “glorified” is in the aorist tense, which is commonly used to denote something that happened in the past. By willingly submitting to his Father’s purpose for him and what this would ultimately accomplish, Jesus was glorified as the unique and beloved Son of God. “In him,” or by means of everything Jesus had done and would do as one fully submissive to his Father’s will for him, the Father was glorified or honored. Jesus’ willing surrender of his life would climax an earthly ministry devoted to glorifying his Father. At the same time, his Father had glorified him through the works he had empowered him to perform. Seemingly, because his ultimate glorification (his resurrection and ascension to heaven) was an imminent reality that would complete the glorification process, Jesus introduced his reference to the past glorification with the word “now” (nyn), “Now the Son of Man has been [or, was] glorified, and God has been [or, was] glorified in him.” (13:31)

Numerous Greek manuscripts represent Jesus as saying, “If God has been glorified in him [the Son of Man], also God will glorify him in himself, and he will immediately glorify him.” The omission in many other manuscripts of the introductory phrase (“If God has been glorified in him”) does not materially affect the meaning of the words that follow. The action of God’s Son in glorifying his Father, especially in the surrender of his life in full submission to his will, would lead to his Father’s glorifying him and doing so immediately. On the third day after Jesus’ death, his Father did glorify him, raising him from the dead and granting him unparalleled authority in heaven and on earth. When Jesus returned to his Father, he did so as the exalted Son who had the right to be universally acknowledged as Lord. (13:32; also see Philippians 2:9-11.)

Affectionately referring to his disciples as “children,” Jesus told them that he would be with them only a little while longer. “You will seek me,” he continued. As he had said on an earlier occasion to the unbelieving Jews (7:33, 34), he now told his disciples, “Where I am going you cannot come.” In the case of the disciples, their “seeking” would be indicative of a strong inner desire to be with Jesus. (Compare 2 Corinthians 5:1-6; Philippians 1:23.) He, however, would be absent from them, and they, in their earthly state of existence, would not be able to join him. (13:33)

While Jesus had been with his disciples, he had shown them the kind of love that surpassed everything they had formerly experienced. Now when he was about to make the superlative expression of his love by surrendering his life for them, he gave them a new commandment, one that required their loving one another as he had loved them. All observers would be able to recognize them as his disciples by the love they had for one another. What made this commandment new is that it went beyond the law’s requirement of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. In imitation of God’s Son, the new commandment called for a love that put the interests and well-being of others ahead of one’s own. This love was a self-sacrificing love that found its fulfillment in selfless giving and serving. (13:34, 35)

In response to Jesus’ words that the disciples would not be able to come to the place where he would be heading, Peter asked, “Lord, where are you going?” “Where I am going,” Jesus replied, “you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” Jesus would surrender his life, be resurrected, and return to his Father. Later, Peter would also die and, upon being raised from the dead, would again be with Jesus. (13:36)

As one who deeply loved God’s Son, Peter felt that he was prepared to go anywhere with him regardless of what the circumstances might be. Even if it were to mean imprisonment or death for him, he would not hesitate to go. (Luke 22:33) Firmly convinced about his loyalty to Jesus, Peter said, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will give up my soul [life] for you.” (13:37)

“Will you give up your soul for me?” Jesus replied. Then, with a solemn introductory “amen, amen” (truly, truly), he declared that Peter would disown him three times that night before a cock crowed, probably just before dawn. (13:38)

John 14:1-31

Concerning his leaving them (if not also his words about their abandoning him and Peter’s denial), Jesus said to the apostles, “Do not let your hearts be troubled.” Within themselves, they were not to give way to feelings of alarm and uneasiness. Instead, Jesus admonished them to believe in God and also in him. Their faith would then enable them to come through the difficult time that lay ahead. (14:1)

Jesus’ leaving them would not be an event they were to dread. There was ample room for them in his Father’s house, with its “many dwelling places.” If that had not been the case, Jesus would have told the disciples. His departure and return to the Father meant that he would be preparing a place for them. This assured them that he would come again and take them to be with him. Where he had his home, they also would be. Jesus then added, “You know the way [to the place] where I am going.” His earlier comments should have helped them to discern that “the way” involved faith in God and in him. (14:2-4)

Thomas may not have been alone in failing to make this connection. Thinking that Jesus had spoken about a literal way or path, he raised the question, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” (14:5)

In his response, Jesus made it clear that he was not referring to a literal road or path. “I am the way,” said Jesus, “and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known [know, P66 (second century) and other manuscripts] me, you would have known [will know, P66 and other manuscripts] my Father also. From now [on] you know him and have seen [him].” (14:6, 7)

Jesus is “the way,” for through him alone can one come to the Father. The Son’s example and teaching provide the dependable guidance. As the unique Son of God, the one who has fully revealed the Father in a manner that he alone could, Jesus is “the truth” or the embodiment of the truth. He is “the life,” for through him and faith in him one comes into possession of the real life, the life that is distinguished by an enduring relationship with his Father. (14:6)

If P66, the earliest extant manuscript, preserves the original reading, then Jesus said that, by knowing him, the disciples would come to know his Father. This would suggest that, in the future, they would come to know the Father fully. The meaning conveyed in many other manuscripts appears to be that the disciples had not yet come to know Jesus from the standpoint of coming to know the Father fully through him. In that case, Jesus’ words would have constituted a reproof. The phrase, “from now [on] you know,” then appears to suggest that, based on what he had revealed to them, the disciples did know the Father. They also had seen him. Jesus could say this, for he, the unique Son, was the express image of his Father. On the other hand, if P66 contains the original text, Jesus’ words could be understood to mean that their knowing the Father would not come about at some future time but was possible from then on. Based on what Jesus had revealed in his own person, the disciples did know the Father and had seen him. (14:7)

Seemingly, Philip understood Jesus’ reference to seeing in a literal sense. This prompted him to say, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Philip felt that, if Jesus would let the disciples actually see the Father just once, they would be completely satisfied. (14:8)

Jesus appears to have directed his reply to Philip in a way that included all of the apostles. This is suggested by the plural “you,” seemingly indicating that Philip may not have been the only one wanting to be shown the Father in a perceivable manner. “Have I been with you [plural],” Jesus said, “[for] so much time, and [still], Philip, you do not know me? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak to you [plural] I am not speaking [as originating] from myself, but the Father who remains in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and [that] the Father [is] in me. But if not, believe for the reason of the works themselves.” (14:9-11)

Philip was among Jesus’ first disciples and so, along with the other early disciples, had been with him from the start of his ministry. Therefore, Jesus could refer to Philip and the other apostles as having been with him for considerable time. Nevertheless, Philip still had not fully recognized in Jesus the complete reflection of his Father. Philip’s request to be shown the Father revealed that he had not as yet understood that, in the face of the Son, he had seen the Father. (Compare 2 Corinthians 4:6.) Jesus perfectly reflected everything about him. As Hebrews 1:3 indicates, the Son is the exact imprint of his Father’s very being. Therefore, when seeing Jesus, being closely associated with him, and witnessing the works his Father had empowered him to perform, the disciples were being given an all-encompassing and clear vision of the Father. Accordingly, they had seen the Father in the Son. On account of what Philip had experienced during a course of many months, Jesus rightly asked him, “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (14:9-11)

In every way, the Son enjoyed a oneness with his Father. Because of being completely at one with him, Jesus could say that he was “in” the Father, and the Father was “in” him. Jesus did not speak of his own but expressed what his Father had committed to him to speak. So, through Jesus, the disciples heard the words of his Father. Although his Father was in heaven, this had no bearing on the intimate relationship he enjoyed with him. In all that Jesus said and did, the Father remained “in” him, was with him, or resided in him. Therefore, the marvelous deeds that Jesus performed (healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, soundness of body to the lame and the crippled, and raising the dead) were his Father’s works. (14:10, 11)

When Jesus told his disciples, “I am in the Father and the Father [is] in me,” he could rightly say to them, “Believe me.” They had ample evidence for believing him. Yet, if they did not believe him, not accepting his word, they could not deny the fact that they had witnessed marvelous deeds. As Jesus said, “Believe for the reason of the works themselves.” (14:11)

For the disciples, their belief, faith, or trust in Jesus would result in their doing works they could not then have imagined. After his solemn introductory words (“Amen, amen” [Truly, truly], I say to you”), Jesus continued, “He who believes in me will do the works I am doing, and greater [works] than these he will do, for I am going to the Father.” Upon returning to his Father, Jesus would no longer be physically present and bringing relief to the afflicted as he had while with the disciples. They would then be doing the very deeds that he had done. Collectively, their activity would be more extensive, reach far beyond the areas where Jesus had ministered to the people, and continue for much more time. Therefore, he could say that he who believes in him would do greater works. (14:12)

His being away from the disciples did not mean that his care and concern for them would diminish. Moreover, they could look to him for aid and guidance. “Whatever you ask in my name,” Jesus said, “I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you [plural] ask [me, found in numerous manuscripts] anything in my name, I will do it.” (14:13, 14)

After Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the disciples commonly directed their prayers to the Father, doing so in Jesus’ name or as persons who recognized him as their Lord. Colossians 3:17 specifically refers to “thanking God the Father through him [the Lord Jesus].” (14:14)

At certain times, the disciples directly appealed to Jesus. The apostle Paul mentioned having three times pleaded with the Lord to remove his “thorn in the flesh.” Paul did not say how he received the Lord’s answer, “Sufficient is my grace [unmerited favor] for you, because my power is made complete in weakness.” He humbly accepted it as Christ’s answer, telling the Corinthians that he would prefer to take pride “in [his] weaknesses, that the power of the Christ might dwell with [him].” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9)

This illustrates that Jesus’ words about doing what his disciples requested does depend upon its being in harmony with the divine will or prerogative. In Paul’s case, the power of Christ proved to be more fully manifest through his continuing to bear his “thorn,” with the grace or favor extended to him being sufficient for him to endure it. From a personal standpoint, Paul would benefit from seeing Christ’s interests advanced despite his “thorn” and those who responded in faith would be able to see that the advancement of Christ’s cause did not depend on human strength.

Jesus’ unique oneness with his Father is of such a nature that his will and that of his Father are identical. Accordingly, appeals that are made in Jesus’ name, or in recognition of him as Lord, will be answered. His words to the disciples indicate that he would act in keeping with their petitions and that his doing so would serve to glorify the Father. The Father would be honored “in the Son,” for the Son’s response would perfectly reflect the Father’s will. (14:13, 14)

The disciples would manifest their love for Jesus by observing his commandments, following his example and adhering to his teaching. The implication is that they should do so even after his departure. (14:15)

While with them, Jesus had proved to be their “paraclete” (parákletos), helper, comforter, advocate, supporter, or intercessor. Although he would be going away, he would not leave them with-out needed aid. He assured them that he would request his Father to give them another paraclete to be with them permanently (literally, “into the age”; forever). (14:16)

Jesus referred to the paraclete as the “spirit of the truth.” When functioning in the capacity of teaching or guiding the disciples or of recalling to their minds Jesus’ teaching, the spirit’s aid would be solidly based on truth and could always be trusted. Regardless of the circumstances, the disciples could rely on the spirit for spiritual strength and for help in their loyally upholding and advancing the interests of God’s Son. Based on the context, the paraclete may primarily be regarded as a helper. (14:17)

In a state of alienation from and at enmity with the Father, the world of mankind cannot receive the spirit. Not wanting a relationship with the Father and his Son, those of the world in their state of alienation can neither know nor see the spirit’s function in a personal way. With their minds focused solely on what pleases the senses, they are unresponsive and unreceptive to the spirit. (14:17)

Regarding the spirit, Jesus said to his disciples, “You know it, for it remains with you and is [will be, according to other manuscripts] in you.” In the life and activity of Jesus, the disciples had repeatedly seen the operation of God’s spirit. Empowered by the spirit, they, too, had performed miraculous works. From personal experience, they knew or had acquaintance with the spirit. As they followed through on the commission Jesus had given them to proclaim the glad tidings and to cure the sick and infirm, the spirit had not left them and was at work “in” and through them. At the same time, however, their acquaintance with the spirit was never independent of Jesus’ personal presence with them. The future reception of the spirit would result in a continuing possession thereof while the Son of God would not be personally among them. (14:17; see the Notes section.)

He promised not to leave them as orphans or in a helpless and needy state, adding, “I am coming to you.” After his resurrection, Jesus did reveal himself alive to his disciples. The context, though, suggests that this particular coming to his disciples relates more to his turning his attention to them through the provision of another paraclete and, by means of this helper, making his home with them. (14:18)

His death, resurrection, and return to his Father being imminent, Jesus could say that the world would shortly no longer see him. The disciples, though, would see him, for, as he told them, “I live and you will live.” As one raised from the dead, Jesus did live, and the disciples were infused with new life upon seeing him and his giving them many proofs that he was indeed alive. (Acts 1:3) Moreover, with the pouring out of God’s spirit upon them on the day of Pentecost, the disciples truly could be spoken of as living. With boldness they began to witness concerning the Son of God. Jesus’ words spoken just before his last post-resurrection appearance were fulfilled, “You will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and all of Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (14:19; Acts 1:8)

Jesus’ request to his Father for the disciples to be given another paraclete was answered on the day of Pentecost. Particularly in connection with that day Jesus’ words to them applied, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you [are] in me, and I in you.” Jesus received the holy spirit from the Father and then, through Jesus, the disciples received the spirit. (Acts 2:33) This provided undeniable evidence that he was indeed “in” or at one with his Father. As for the disciples, the reception of the spirit from Jesus established that they were “in” or at one with him and that he was “in” or at one with them. (14:20)

For one to “have” Christ’s commandments would mean to have received or accepted them. Acceptance and observance of these commandments would demonstrate love for him. The one who thus loved Jesus would be loved by his Father, and Jesus would love the individual and would reveal himself to him. In view of Jesus’ return to his Father, this revealing of himself would be through the spirit. (John 14:21)

Judas (not Iscariot, but the son of James), also called Thaddaeus, asked how it would be that Jesus would be revealing himself to the disciples but not to the world. His answer indicated that this disclosure depended on a relationship that the world did not have. “If anyone loves me,” said Jesus, “he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling place with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word that you [plural] are hearing is not mine, but [is that] of the Father who sent me.” (14:22-24)

Only those who love Jesus, loyally adhering to his word or teaching, would have the clear vision of him that would follow the reception of the spirit. The Father would love the person who loved his Son. By means of the spirit, both the Father and the Son would make their home with the individual who faithfully followed the Son’s teaching. That word or teaching did not originate with Jesus but had been received by him from his Father. Therefore, the individual who did not observe Jesus’ words also disregarded his Father who had sent him, and demonstrated himself to be a person having no love for Jesus. Being unreceptive to the spirit by reason of a state of alienation and enmity, such a person could not come to have a clear vision of the Son nor of the Father. Therefore, just as Jesus had said, the world would not see him. (14:23, 24)

Regarding the teaching he had then imparted to them, Jesus said, “These things I have told you while remaining with you.” This kind of personal teaching would end after his going away to his Father. From then onward, the paraclete, the holy spirit, to be sent by his Father in his name (or on the basis of his request as God’s unique Son), would teach them everything they would need and recall to their minds everything he had said to them. (14:25, 26; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

Jesus’ mention about his departure troubled the disciples. Reassuringly, he told them, “Peace I leave you.” His going away from them was not to occasion disquietude or alarm. Spiritually, the disciples would not experience any lack, and they would have the dependable help and guidance of the paraclete. Continuing, Jesus said, “My peace I give you.” (14:27)

This peace was his gift. As recipients thereof, the disciples would enjoy an inner sense of well-being and calm from knowing that he deeply loved them. Jesus’ giving was not like that of the world. His giving was an expression of genuine concern and love. Those who are part of the world alienated from the Father often do their giving with impure motives, endeavoring to secure future gain or favors for themselves. (14:27; see the Notes section for additional comments.)

In view of his gift of peace, Jesus admonished the disciples not to allow their hearts to be troubled nor to become fearful. He thereby implied that his leaving them should not occasion inner alarm, apprehension, uncertainty, or confusion. (14:27)

Jesus reminded the disciples of what he had said to them, “I am going away, and I am coming to you.” Although the disciples did see Jesus on numerous occasions after his resurrection, his appearances primarily served to show them that he was alive. Often he appeared for just a short time and then vanished. Therefore, the coming to which Jesus referred appears to be the coming by means of the paraclete. This appears to be indicated by the words that follow, which words focus on his again being with his Father and not personally with them. “If you loved me,” Jesus said, “you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I [am].” (14:28)

The love of the disciples for Jesus should rightly have moved them to rejoice with him, for he would again be with his Father. As the Son sent by and given the words of the Father to speak, Jesus could say about him, “The Father is greater than I [am].” Upon returning to his Father, Jesus would be the exalted Son to whom his Father had given all authority in heaven and on earth. He would then enjoy the closest relationship possible with his Father, the possessor of unsurpassed greatness. For Jesus’ disciples, his friends, this should have occasioned rejoicing. (14:28)

By telling them about what would soon be taking place, Jesus provided the disciples with an additional evidence for faith. Whereas they believed in him as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, his death and resurrection would so overwhelmingly confirm his identity that it would be as if the disciples believed anew, with the strongest conviction possible. (14:29)

Only a short time remained for Jesus to be with his disciples. Therefore, he told them that he would not be speaking much more to them. The ruler of the world, Satan, was coming, suggesting that Jesus knew that he would shortly face intense assault from the powers of darkness. Confidently, Jesus expressed himself regarding this impending threat, saying that the ruler of the world had “nothing” in him. Satan had no power over Jesus, for there would be nothing he could get hold of in an effort to sway him from carrying out his Father’s will. (14:30)

With apparent reference to the surrender of his life in loyal submission to his Father, Jesus spoke of this as the way in which he would show the world that he loved him. For Jesus, his Father’s will constituted his Father’s command. As the loving and obedient Son, he would act on the commandment, which included sacrificing his life. (14:31)

The words, “Rise, let us go from here,” do not necessarily indicate an immediate departure from the location where the Passover meal had been eaten. Thereafter Jesus is represented as continuing to speak. Not until a while later did he actually leave with the disciples and head for the Mount of Olives. (18:1) Therefore, Jesus’ words about going may have been his way of saying that the time had come for him to surrender his life and of expressing his determination to set out on the course his Father had willed for him. (14:31)

Notes:

The holy writings or sacred scriptures with which Jesus’ disciples were familiar included numerous references to the spirit (Hebrew, rúach; Greek, pneúma), God’s spirit, or holy spirit. Like the corresponding Greek word pneúma, the Hebrew term rúach can also mean “wind.” Whereas pneúma is neuter gender, rúach is feminine gender. In the holy writings, the spirit is often mentioned in contexts identifying it as a divine agent or the power emanating from God. (Judges 3:10; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Samuel 11:6; Ezekiel 3:14; 8:3; 11:1; 37:14) For the disciples to have come to a changed understanding about the spirit would have required explicit teaching from God’s Son. In expressing his promise about the paraclete or the spirit of the truth, Jesus’ use of some masculine pronouns would have been far too subtle for the disciples to have come to understand the nature of the spirit differently.

The Hebrew, Syriac, and Aramaic forms of the word “paraclete” came into use through Greek influence and, like the Greek, are masculine gender. According to the idiom of the language in which Jesus spoke to his disciples, he would have used feminine pronouns when referring to the spirit and masculine pronouns when speaking of the paraclete. Therefore, what has been regarded as a fluctuation of masculine and neuter pronouns in the Greek text of John 14 is best understood as being of a grammatical nature. Where the apparent or intended antecedent is pneúma, the corresponding pronouns are neuter. If, on the other hand, the apparent or intended antecedent is parákletos, the corresponding pronouns are masculine.

In John 14:26, the paraclete (parákletos) is identified as “the holy spirit.” The phrase that follows, in keeping with the neuter gender of “spirit” (pneúma), starts with the neuter pronoun hó (“which [hó] the Father will send in my name”). Then, in agreement with the masculine parákletos, the masculine pronoun ekeínos (“that one” or “he”) begins the concluding part of the sentence (“that one will teach you everything and recall to you everything I said to you”).

The reference to the giving that is not like that of the world does not have a designated object in the Greek text of John 14:27 (“not like the world am I giving to you”). A number of translations have added “it,” making “peace” the antecedent, and other translations have added the word “peace” as the object of the giving. “I am leaving you with a gift — peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give isn’t like the peace the world gives.” (NLT) “I give you peace, the kind of peace that only I can give. It isn’t like the peace that this world can give.” (CEV) “Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. I do not give peace to you as the world gives.” (NLB) According to this meaning, the peace the world gives could be understood to be the kind of seeming well-being and security that is based on attaining positions or possessions and would be temporary.

The world, however, cannot give real peace, the enduring well-being, security, and tranquility that comes from having a relationship with the Son of God and his Father. Some translations render the verse in a way that conveys the inability of the world to give peace. “Peace is my parting gift to you, my own peace, such as the world cannot give.” (REB) “Peace I bequeath to you, my own peace I give you, a peace which the world cannot give, this is my gift to you.” (NJB)

Without an object for “give,” this verb could be understood in a generic sense, indicating that Christ’s giving differs from that of the world. This may be the preferable meaning of John 14:27, considering that it requires no additions to the actual reading of the Greek text. “I do not give as the world gives to you.” (HCSB)

John 15:1-27

Illustrating the need for his disciples to be inseparably united to him, Jesus referred to himself as the true vine, his Father as the vine grower, and his disciples as the branches in the vine. His Father would remove all unproductive branches and prune (literally, “clean”) fruit-bearing branches so that they might yield more fruit. In verse 2, the Greek term used for the removal of unproductive branches is aíro, literally meaning “to raise” or “to lift up” but here signifying “to remove” or “to take away.” The Greek word for “clean” or “prune” is kathaíro. The use of the two Greek terms suggests a play on words (aíro — kathaíro). (15:1, 2)

The word, message, or teaching Jesus imparted to his disciples had already “pruned” or “cleaned” them. They had accepted his word, acting on it by imitating his example and testifying to their faith in him. By their conduct, which reflected favorably on him, and their witness about him, the disciples proved themselves to be productive branches that had been made fruitful through the cleansing power of his word. (15:3)

As Jesus remained “in” his disciples, being attached to them, he admonished them to remain “in” him, continuing to be at one with him. Only by remaining part of the vine do branches bear fruit. Likewise, the disciples would only be able to bear good fruit as persons attached to Jesus or at one with him. (15:4)

After identifying himself as the vine and his disciples as the branches, Jesus again stressed that the one who remained “in” him (attached like a branch to the vine) and he “in” the individual (attached like the vine to a branch) would bear much fruit. Therefore, apart from him, the disciples could not produce anything, that is, anything which his Father, the vine grower, would consider acceptable fruit. (15:5)

The person who failed to remain “in” Jesus or to be attached to him would prove to be like an unproductive branch that is thrown away and the leaves of which wither. Useless branches would be gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. This indicates that a severe judgment awaits those who forsake Jesus and, in disposition, word, and deed, cease to bear fruit, no longer conducting themselves as persons who recognize him as their Lord. (15:6)

If the disciples remained “in” or attached to him, and his word or teaching remained in them (being like a deposit in their inmost selves and motivating their thoughts, words, and deeds), whatever they might wish to request would be granted. In view of their being at one with Jesus and their having made his teaching their own, their asking would have been in harmony with God’s will, and this would have assured their receiving a favorable response to their petitions. (15:7)

Ultimately, when Jesus’ disciples bore much fruit in word and deed, and proved themselves to be his faithful disciples by advancing his interests, his Father would be glorified or honored. (15:8)

Just as the Father loved him, the Son loved the disciples. His appeal to them was, “Remain in my love.” For them to continue in his love would require that they keep his commandments, adhering to his teaching in their life as his disciples. Jesus had set the example for them. He had kept his Father’s commandments and thus had remained in his love. (15:9, 10)

The reason Jesus spoke about their remaining in his love by keeping his commandments was so that he might find joy in them. On seeing their faithfulness in bearing much fruit and proving themselves to be his disciples, he would rejoice. Their responsiveness to his word would occasion joy. At the same time, their joy would be made complete. They would experience the inner contentment from knowing that they were pleasing to him as their Lord and, therefore, also to his Father. Upon attaining their reward, the disciples would attain the ultimate fullness of joy. (15:11)

Jesus’ principal command for them was, “Love one another as I have loved you.” This called for a self-sacrificing and selfless love, a love that expressed itself in finding delight in serving others. Jesus’ love for them surpassed anything they had ever experienced. As he told them, “No one has greater love than this, that someone give up his soul [life] for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you [to do].” By acting on his command to love one another, they would prove themselves to be his friends, loving as he loved. (15:12-14)

Although Jesus was their Lord, he did not treat them in a manner that resembled a master-slave relationship. As he said, “I am not still calling you slaves, for a slave does not know what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, for I have made known to you everything I have heard from my Father.” In a master-slave relationship, the master primarily issued commands to the slave. He did not treat him as a confidential friend to whom he would have entrusted precious intimate thoughts. The slave primarily obeyed his master out of a sense of duty and fear. Jesus, however, disclosed the teaching of his Father, teaching that he had received as his Father’s dearly beloved and unique Son. Being acknowledged friends of Jesus, the disciples would be motivated to heed his commands because they loved him. (15:15)

The disciples had not chosen Jesus, granting him the authority to be their Lord and Teacher. He had chosen them to be his disciples and his apostles. His purpose for choosing them was that they might go and bear fruit and that this fruit would remain. They would be going out among the people, and their fruit in the form of words and deeds would move others to accept their testimony about Jesus and put their faith in him. Accordingly, these believers would prove to be the enduring or remaining produce of the apostles’ faithful service. The labors of the apostles yielded fruit that has remained to the present time, for throughout the centuries many have put faith in their testimony and have acted on it. When fulfilling the purpose for their being chosen, the disciples would also have an approved relationship with his Father. So, as Jesus indicated, their fruit bearing would assure that the requests they directed to the Father in Jesus’ name (in recognition of who the Son truly is) would be granted. In carrying out their commission, the disciples would need the courage to speak with boldness, the strength to endure hostility, and the wisdom to express themselves appropriately and effectively. They could be confident that their petitions respecting the accomplishment of their assigned service would be answered. (15:16)

Indicative of the prime importance of love, Jesus is quoted as again saying, “These things I am commanding you, that you love one another.” (15:17)

In the world of mankind alienated from the Father, they would not find the love they were to enjoy among themselves. They would be hated. If or when this happened, they should be able to understand it, for they knew that the world hated Jesus before expressing its hatred against them. If they were part of the world, living as persons without faith in the Son and, therefore, also without faith in the Father, the unbelievers of the world would love them as their own. Although living in the world of mankind, the disciples were not from that world. Their thoughts, words, and deeds were focused on proving themselves to be Jesus’ disciples. He had chosen them out of the world, no longer to be a part of it in its unbelief and its ways that did not honor his Father. As persons who had ceased to be part of the world, the disciples were objects of its hatred. (15:18, 19)

In relation to their encountering the world’s hatred, Jesus wanted them to remember what he had told them previously, “A slave is not greater than his master.” (Compare Matthew 10:24, Luke 6:40, and John 13:16.) Therefore, they should expect the same kind of response and treatment as Jesus had experienced. As he said, “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word [accepting his teaching and observing it], they will also keep yours.” (15:20)

Whatever hostility or mistreatment the disciples were to experience would be on account of Jesus’ name or because of their being identified as belonging to him as his disciples. The hateful reaction and treatment would result because those who persisted in unbelief did not “know” the Father who had sent his Son. They did not recognize the Father in the Son, revealing that they had no relationship with him. (15:21)

If Jesus had not come and labored among them and spoken to them, “they,” according to his words, “would have no sin.” But he did labor and teach among them, leaving them without any excuse for their sin — their persistence in unbelief and hatred of him. His example in love, compassionately bringing relief to the sick and afflicted, and his teaching gave them no basis for their hateful response. The clear evidence of God’s spirit working through the Son in the accomplishment of good served to condemn their unbelief and hostility. Without this overwhelming evidence, they would have been acting out of ignorance and so would not have had the sin of deliberate unbelief charged against them. (15:22, 24)

When hating Jesus, the unbelievers also hated the Father who deeply loved his Son. No one else had done the works that Jesus did among them. If he had not done these marvelous works that resulted in relief for many suffering fellow Jews, the unbelievers would not have had sin. They could not have taken a hostile stand despite evidence of good deeds, for they would not have witnessed these works. Having, however, seen Jesus and the works he did, they nevertheless hated him and his Father (the very one whose works Jesus was performing and whose teaching he was conveying). This fulfilled the “word” of the “law” (in this case seemingly meaning words in the holy writings that had the authority or validity of law), “They hated me without cause.” These words of Psalm 69:4 (68:5, LXX) found their full meaning in the hatred Jesus experienced. (15:23-25)

With the aid of the paraclete, the spirit of the truth, the apostles would be able to discharge their commission to testify concerning Jesus. He would send the paraclete from the Father, the one from whom this helper or “the spirit of the truth” proceeded. Upon arriving, the paraclete or helper would testify about Jesus. This testimony would have included opening up to the minds of the apostles how the words of the holy writings and everything Jesus had said to them beforehand had been fulfilled in him. With the spirit operating within them, the apostles would then be in a position to testify concerning Jesus, for they had been with him from the time he began his ministry among the people. The spirit would recall to their minds the things he had said, and they would be able to convey his teaching to others. (15:26, 27)

The designation “paraclete” (parákletos) at the start of John 15:26, as in John chapter 14, is best understood to mean “helper.” In agreement with its masculine gender, the apparent or intended antecedent parákletos is followed by pronouns in the masculine gender. This is so even though the parenthetical expression that includes the neuter noun pneúma with its corresponding neuter pronoun hó (“the spirit [pneúma] of the truth, which [hó] proceeds from the Father”) separates parákletos and the accompanying phrase (“whom [hón, the masculine pronoun] I will send you from the Father”) from the conclusion of the sentence. Without the parenthetical words about the spirit, the sentence would read, “When the helper arrives, whom I will send you from the Father, that one [or he; the masculine pronoun ekeínos] will testify about me.”

John 16:1-33

Initially, Jesus did not tell his disciples about the hatred that would be directed against them because of being his disciples. He did not want to stumble them, frightening them to the point that their fragile faith could have given out. (16:1)

With the passage of time, their faith had grown and become stronger. Moreover, in view of his imminent departure, Jesus recognized that it was essential for them to know what they would be experiencing. They would be expelled from the synagogues. The hour or time would come when unbelievers would imagine that they were serving God by killing the disciples. Unbelieving fellow Jews would come to view them as apostates, as persons who were followers of a false Messiah and who posed a threat to the traditional Jewish ways. As the book of Acts reveals, murderous hatred flared up because of regarding the disciples as speaking against Moses, the temple, and the law. (Acts 6:13, 14; 21:27-31) Based on the penalty the law set forth for apostasy, they would have regarded themselves as doing God’s will by killing the disciples. (16:2; see Deuteronomy 13:6-10.)

The hateful action of unbelievers would stem from their knowing neither the Father nor Jesus. Their traditional views blinded them so that they could not perceive the things of God. Unable to see in Jesus the perfect reflection of his Father, they could not recognize him as the Son of God and so could not possibly know the Father whom they had never seen. (16:3)

The “hour” or time was bound to come when the disciples would face persecution and even death. Having been prepared in advance for this, they would then recall what Jesus had told them. While he was with them, the hatred was primarily directed at him, and he came to their defense when others raised an issue about them. (Compare Matthew 12:1-8; 15:1-9.) Therefore, it was not vital for them to know at the start just what might happen to them because of being his disciples. As Jesus said, “I did not tell you these things from the beginning, for I was with you.” (16:4)

The situation would soon be different. Jesus would be going back to the one who had sent him, his Father. Earlier, Peter had asked, “Lord, where are you going?” (13:36) Thomas, in response to Jesus’ telling the apostles that they knew the way to the place where he was going, said, “Lord, we do not know where you are going.” (14:5) In neither case, however, were the words focused on what this would mean for Jesus. Peter’s question related to why he would not be able to follow, and the words of Thomas indicated that the disciples did not know the way to the place where Jesus was going. With apparent reference in relation to himself, Jesus said, “Not one of you asks me, Where are you going? But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.” Within themselves, they were pained upon hearing that Jesus would no longer be with them. Overwhelmed by their sadness, they did not reflect on what it would mean for him to return to his Father. Therefore, they did not make any inquiry about where Jesus would be going or concerning anything else that specifically related to him in connection with this departure. (16:5, 6)

In view of their sadness, Jesus reassured them, “I am telling you the truth, It is better for you that I am going away; for if I do not go away, the paraclete will not come to you.” Upon going away, Jesus would send them the paraclete. As a man on earth, he dealt with the limitations human existence imposed. His activity was confined to a comparatively small geographic area, and he could only be with them in one specific location at a time. The paraclete, however, would be with them at all times and in every location where they would be spreading the message about the Son of God. Accordingly, from the standpoint of what would be accomplished, it was really in the best interests of the apostles for him to depart and for them to benefit from the paraclete or from another helper. (16:7)

As to what would be accomplished through the powerful working of the paraclete, Jesus said, “That one [ekeínos, masculine gender to agree with the masculine gender of paraclete (parákletos)] will reprove the world about sin and about righteousness and about judgment.” Jesus then explained the way in which the paraclete would reprove the world, exposing the wrong of those who persisted in unbelief. As in John chapters 14 and 15, so also in chapter 16, masculine pronouns are used when the apparent or intended antecedent is “paraclete” (parákletos). The Greek word for “spirit” (pneúma) is neuter gender, and this explains why both masculine and neuter pronouns appear in the narration that includes Jesus’ words about the paraclete, the “spirit of the truth.” (14:16, 17; 15:26; 16:8)

They were guilty of sin, rejecting the clear evidence that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. This evidence included his miraculous works (healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and soundness of body to the crippled and the lame, and raising the dead). With God’s spirit operating through them, the apostles would perform like miraculous works, further confirming the sin of the world’s refusal to believe in Jesus to be inexcusable. (16:9)

Unbelievers misrepresented the Son of God, slandering him as being a man in league with the demons, a lawbreaker, and a deceiver. (Compare Matthew 12:24; 27:63; Luke 23:2.) His return to his Father and, therefore, his disciples’ no longer seeing him proved that he was righteous in every way. At the same time, this revealed that a right standing with his Father could only be obtained through faith in him and the forgiveness made possible through his sacrificial death. The imparting of the spirit to the disciples established that he had returned to his Father and received the spirit from him. Empowered by the spirit, the disciples boldly testified that Jesus had been raised from the dead and exalted to the right hand of God and that, through him alone, forgiveness of sins was possible. (Acts 2:33, 36, 38; 3:14-21; 5:29-32; 13:27-39) Thus their testimony, backed by miracles, proved to be the spirit’s witness about righteousness. (16:10)

Through his death in faithfulness to his Father, Jesus defeated the powers of darkness. This, too, would be a feature of the spirit’s testimony. It would be a witness about judgment, for the ruler of the world had been condemned and exposed as unable to turn Jesus away from doing his Father’s will. No longer could Satan hold people in slavery by means of the fear of death. (Hebrews 2:14, 15) The visible manifestation of the spirit’s operation through the disciples bore witness to the reality of Jesus’ resurrection, exaltation, and triumph over the power of the enemy, proving that Satan had been judged. This also confirmed that Jesus would be the judge of all, both the upright and the unjust. (Acts 17:31) All who defiantly persisted in unbelief would, like Satan, be condemned. (16:11; compare Matthew 25:41.)

Jesus wanted to tell the apostles much more, but he knew that they were then not prepared to “bear” it. This suggests that they would have been troubled or overwhelmed, unable to comprehend his words. (16:12)

With the arrival of the paraclete, the spirit of the truth, they would come to understand, being guided into all the truth. Everything that would be conveyed to them would be completely trustworthy and would meet their needs. The paraclete would not be functioning independently (speaking “of his own”) but would be reliably making known what had been heard from Jesus and ultimately from the Father and would declare or reveal things to come. In the context of Jesus’ words, the “things coming” appear to relate to what lay ahead for him, and the spirit would enable the apostles to see how the Scriptures and his words were fulfilled. (Compare John 2:22.) Through the spirit, the Son would be glorified or honored, for the spirit would be announcing or revealing what had been received from him. (16:13, 14)

As the unique Son, Jesus shared everything with his Father. “Everything the Father has,” Jesus said, “is mine.” Therefore, although the Father is the ultimate source of the spirit, Jesus could say that the paraclete received from what is his and then would make announcement to the apostles. (16:15)

Again indicating why the apostles would need another paraclete or helper, Jesus reminded them about a change to come. In a little while, they would no longer see him, and then in a little while they would see him. (16:16)

This puzzled the disciples, and some of them talked among themselves as to what he meant about not being seen and then being seen, and regarding the words “because I am going to the Father.” They found it impossible to comprehend what he meant respecting “a little while” and concluded that they did not know what he was talking about. (16:17, 18)

Discerning that the disciples wanted to ask him about what he had said, Jesus illustrated the developments that lay ahead. After expressing his solemn introductory words, “Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you,” Jesus told the apostles that they would weep and mourn, but the world of unbelievers would rejoice. Whereas they were pained, their pain or sadness would be changed to joy. When the hour or time has come, a woman, during the birthing process, experiences pain. After the birth of the baby, however, she does not remember the distress but is happy that a boy has been brought into the world. (16:19-21)

Applying the illustration about the woman, Jesus said that while the disciples were then experiencing pain or sadness (with apparent reference to his departure), they would see him again. Their “heart” or they, in their inmost selves, would rejoice upon seeing him, and no one would be able to take their joy away. After his resurrection, the disciples did see Jesus again, and this filled them with boundless joy. Having been given the evidence that he was alive, their joy continued, with no one able to rob them of it by wrecking their faith in him and his word. Moreover, as their resurrected Lord, with all power in heaven and on earth having been granted to him, he would be able to respond to their appeals even after his return to his Father. (16:22)

“In that day,” seemingly referring to the time when he would again be with his Father, Jesus said that the disciples would not ask him anything. This may mean that all things would become clear to them, as they would have another helper, the spirit. The “asking,” however, could apply either to asking questions or to making requests. If requests, petitions, or appeals are meant, this would indicate that it would not be necessary to direct these to Jesus in order to receive a favorable hearing, for the Father would respond to all requests made in the name of his Son. This significance is explicit in the New Century Version, “In that day you will not ask me for anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you anything you ask for in my name.” Moreover, Jesus would continue to be concerned about them. Up to this particular point, they had not made any appeals in his name or in recognition of his being their Lord. Jesus now, with a solemn assurance (“Amen, amen [Truly, truly], I say to you”) told the disciples to ask in his name or on the basis of his authority, and they would receive the things for which they made their requests. This would result in their joy being made complete. All such requests would of necessity harmonize with the divine will and be directed to the Father in recognition of the Son. (16:23, 24)

Jesus had used figures of speech when talking to the disciples, but he told them that the “hour” or time would be coming when he would no longer do so. He would use clear or plain speech when telling them about the Father. (16:25)

“In that day” or at that future time, the disciples would make their appeals in Jesus’ name or in full recognition of his authority. This, however, did not mean that Jesus would have to ask his Father to respond to the prayers of his disciples. As Jesus said, “I am not saying that I shall ask the Father about you.” This would not be required, for the Father himself loved the disciples because they loved his Son and believed that he had come from him. (16:26, 27)

When coming into the world of mankind, Jesus came from the Father. His departure meant that he would be leaving the world and returning to him. In view of Jesus’ clear statement that he would be going back to his Father, the disciples appear to have understood his words. This prompted them to acknowledge that he had spoken to them plainly and not in figures of speech. (16:28, 29)

Jesus had known that the disciples wanted to ask him about what he had meant when telling them that, in a little while, they would not see him and then, in a little while, they would see him again. He answered the question they had wanted to ask. His having done so appears to be the reason they said, “Now we know that you know everything, and you do not need to have anyone question you. On this account, we believe that you came from God.” The disciples realized that, even without a question being asked directly, Jesus would be able to anticipate it and provide the answer. They saw in what he had done for them clear evidence that he had come from God. (16:30)

Jesus, though, also knew the great test that lay ahead for the disciples and so raised the question, “Do you now believe?” While they had expressed their belief or faith in him, the “hour” or time would be coming and had, in fact, come when each of them would be scattered to his own place (not remaining together for mutual strengthening) and would leave him alone. Jesus, however, would not be alone, for his Father would still be with him. (16:31, 32)

The Son of God had prepared his disciples in advance for what would take place. “In” him or by being united to him, they would have peace, an inner calm and sense of well-being from knowing that they were loved by him and his Father and were objects of their concern and care. In the world of unbelievers, they would experience distress, persecution and intense hostility. Still, they could be courageous, for Jesus, their Lord, proved himself greater than the world. The world of mankind that was in a state of alienation from his Father had no power over him. Despite all the assaults directed against him, Jesus had not yielded. In loyal submission to his Father’s will, he would be surrendering his life. Thus, ultimately through his death, he would defeat the world and be triumphant as the unconquered one. With complete confidence, therefore, Jesus could say, “I have conquered the world.” (16:33)

John 17:1-26

After having finished speaking to the apostles, Jesus raised his eyes heavenward and began to pray. Only a shift in his visual focus ended his speaking to the apostles and started his praying, indicative of how natural it was for Jesus to address his Father and of the intimate relationship existing between them. His mentioning the hour that had come referred to the imminent completion of his ministry on earth and the sacrificial surrender of his life in submission to his Father’s will. (17:1)

Jesus’ petition, “Glorify your Son, that the Son [your Son, according to numerous manuscripts] may glorify you,” constituted a request to be honored subsequent to the humiliation of a shameful execution. This glorification would have included everything that revealed him to be the Son of God. Awesome signs accompanied his death. After his resurrection from the dead on the third day, he returned to his Father. Thus honored in keeping with his petition, Jesus glorified his Father through what he had accomplished in carrying out the commission entrusted to him. (17:1)

The Father had granted his Son authority over all flesh or the entire human family. This authority was bound up with his sacrificial death, which provided the basis for liberating humans from sin and the consequences from sin, namely, death. Through his death, Jesus would purchase or redeem the human race. By his Father’s giving him those whom he redeemed, Jesus would be able to give them eternal life. (17:2)

He referred to eternal life as being a life distinguished by an enduring relationship with him and his Father. It is a knowing of the Father as the only true God and Jesus Christ as the one whom he had sent. This “knowing” is an intimate relationship of oneness with the Father and his Son. A life that harmonizes with Jesus’ example and teaching and so also with his Father’s will confirms the existence of this relationship. Recognizing that Jesus had been sent by the Father would require acknowledging the reason for his being sent, putting faith in him, and accepting the atoning benefits of his sacrificial death. Being a relationship that does not end, the life that is distinguished by a relationship with the Father and his Son is eternal and will be enjoyed in the complete sense in the sinless state. In that state, the most intimate knowing of the Father and the Son will be possible. (17:3)

Jesus could speak of his having glorified or honored his Father, for he had completed the work he had been given to do. The surrender of his life being at hand, he could rightly refer to the full accomplishment of the work. Upon faithfully carrying out everything that his coming to the earth required, Jesus made it possible for humans to become reconciled to his Father. Moreover, through his words and deeds, Jesus flawlessly revealed him. (17:4)

He prayed that his Father would glorify him, granting him the “glory,” splendor, honor, or dignity he had before coming to the earth and which he had alongside him before the world existed. The glory he previously had was one of being in the very form of his Father, a magnificence that transcended that of all the angels or the other sons of God. (17:5; see Philippians 2:6.)

When acknowledging his Father as the one who had given him the apostles out of the world of mankind, Jesus spoke of having made known his Father’s name (the person of the Father, the one whom the name represented). As his Father’s unique Son, he revealed him in a manner that no one else could have done. Jesus spoke his Father’s words and did his Father’s works. In his activity and interactions, he flawlessly reflected his Father’s zeal for what is right, fair, or just, and manifested his Father’s mighty and beneficent power, concern and care, compassion, and love. Again referring to the apostles as belonging to and having been given to him by his Father, Jesus added, “They have kept your word.” He imparted the “word” or teaching that he had received from his Father to the apostles, and they responded to it in faith. They recognized Jesus as their Lord and heeded his word, which in the ultimate sense was his Father’s word. (17:6)

The name of God expresses everything he is. Therefore, in making known the name, Jesus revealed his Father’s personality and attributes — his matchless and beneficent power (as, for example, when Jesus raised the dead), compassion and love (exemplified in Jesus’ response to the afflicted and to repentant sinners), and justice (through Jesus’ exposure of harshness, oppressiveness, and mistreatment). To his apostles and other disciples, Jesus disclosed how they could become his Father’s children and thus revealed him as the loving Father with whom they could have an intimate family relationship as persons forgiven of their sins. In what the Father had made possible through him, Jesus revealed the Father in a way that far transcended what had been set forth in the existing holy writings with which the apostles were familiar. After Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven, the paraclete or the holy spirit aided the apostles to understand everything he had said and done. In this way, he (as expressed in his prayer) continued to make known his Father’s name, and the apostles came to have a fuller understanding of the Father, their relationship to him, and his boundless love in sending his Son to the earth. (John 17:6, 26)

The apostles came to know that everything that had been given to Jesus had been received from his Father. This was so because of what Jesus had taught them and his identifying his Father as the source of his teaching. (Compare John 7:16-18.) They accepted Jesus’ words, observing them as having come from his Father. Through the words or teaching Jesus imparted to them, the apostles recognized that he had come from his Father and came to believe that his Father had sent him. (17:7, 8)

At this time, Jesus did not pray regarding the world that persisted in unbelief but for the apostles, whom the Father had given him and to whom they belonged. Indicating that his Father had the same care and concern he did, Jesus acknowledged, “Everything of mine is yours, and yours [is] mine; and I have been glorified in them.” Although the apostles belonged to Jesus, they also belonged to his Father, and so would be objects of his Father’s love and concern. By believing in Jesus, they had glorified or honored him as God’s beloved Son. In view of his imminent departure, he deeply cared about them and prayed for them. (17:9, 10)

Though Jesus would no longer be in the world and would be returning to his Father, the disciples would continue to live in the world, facing the pressures and trials associated with a world in a state of alienation from and at enmity with the Father. Therefore, Jesus made his appeal, “Holy Father, look after them in your name which you have given me, that they be one as we are [one].” (17:11)

Being pure in the absolute sense, the Father is holy, and his name identifies him as the God of love, one who deeply cares for his own. The name represents or stands for him. Therefore, if the reference to giving his name to his Son preserves the original reading of the Greek text, this could relate to the Father’s intimate relationship with him, a relationship of oneness stemming from the Father’s having given himself to his Son. It would then be the inseparable oneness Jesus enjoyed with his Father that he desired the apostles to share. (17:11)

For John 17:11, manuscript readings vary. There are ancient Latin, Syriac and Coptic manuscripts that do not include the words, “which you have given me, that they be one as we are [one].” Certain other manuscripts read, “whom [referring to the apostles] you have given me.” This would mean that Jesus prayed that his Father safeguard the apostles in his own name or in keeping with everything his name represented, the God who he is.

While he had been with the apostles, Jesus looked out for them. He did so in his Father’s name. This could mean that he did so on the basis of the authority that his Father had granted him. In relation to Jesus’s watchful care for the apostles in God’s “name,” ancient manuscript readings introduce the phrase “you have given me” with either “which” (applying to God’s name) or “whom” (referring to the apostles). Jesus’ watchful care meant that all except the “son of destruction” had been safeguarded. To fulfill the scripture that a close associate would betray Jesus (Psalm 41:9[10]; John 13:18), Judas Iscariot alone was lost. By choosing a course that led to his ruin, Judas proved himself to be a “son of destruction.” (17:12)

Although he would be returning to his Father, Jesus wanted the apostles to share in his joy. So, while he was still in the world, he expressed himself in prayer as he did. The things he had said centered on his having revealed the Father to them and their relationship to him and to his Father. Jesus’ prayerful words would also have assured the apostles of his Father’s watching over them. Their knowing that they belonged to the Father and were recipients of his loving care would have contributed to their ceasing to be troubled about Jesus’ no longer being with them. This would have enabled them to share in his joy to the full. They could then rejoice in the victory he attained through his death, a triumph that brought liberation from sin to those who put faith in him and spelled defeat for the powers of darkness. Moreover, his again being with his Father as the one to whom all authority in heaven and on earth had been granted would fill them with joy. (17:13)

Jesus had given the word of his Father to the apostles, imparting to them the Father’s teaching. That teaching revealed Jesus to be the unique Son of God. In his own person, Jesus revealed the Father to the fullest extent possible. The apostles had embraced the “word” or teaching in faith, ceasing to be part of the world of unbelievers who were alienated from and at enmity with the Father. Therefore, the world hated the apostles, for, like Jesus their Lord, they were no part of it. (17:14)

As objects of the world’s hatred, the apostles needed divine aid. Jesus did not pray for them to be taken out of the world and thereby to escape the trials and pressures from a world in opposition to him. Instead, he appealed to his Father to watch over them on account of the evil one. Though no part of the world, just as Jesus was no a part thereof, they would be advancing his interests in the world of mankind. As a result, they would be subject to the attacks of the evil one or the devil. (17:15, 16)

In view of their commission, Jesus prayed that his Father would sanctify the apostles “in the truth.” For them to be sanctified meant that they would be set apart for a holy or sacred service. The expression “in the truth” could be understood to mean in the sphere of the truth, suggestive of a life set apart for the advancement of this truth and a life that harmonized therewith. Jesus referred to his Father’s word as being truth and earlier that night spoke of himself as the truth. (14:6) So the truth is the teaching which Jesus had received from his Father and which he then imparted to his disciples by his words and deeds. As the perfect reflection of his Father, the Son was the embodiment of the truth about him. For the furtherance of this truth, the revelation of the Father in the Son, the apostles would be set apart to serve. (17:17)

The Father had sent Jesus to minister in the world of mankind. Jesus likewise sent his disciples to labor in the world. He had sanctified himself or set himself apart for them. In submission to his Father’s will, he faithfully imparted his Father’s teaching and was about to surrender his life. Accordingly, as one set apart to do his Father’s will, Jesus acted for the benefit of the disciples. They received his teaching and, on the basis of his sacrificial death and their faith in him, came to be the Father’s sons and Christ’s brothers. So, by what Jesus did in sanctifying himself for them, they were sanctified “in [the] truth” or set apart to serve in advancing the truth (the truth from the Father and revealed through the Son) (17:18, 19)

Jesus did not limit his prayerful request to the apostles, but included all who would come to believe in him on the basis of the “word” or message they would proclaim. The objective for all those putting their faith in him would be that they would form a united whole, enjoying the same oneness that Jesus had with his Father. With all believers being at one with Jesus and his Father, testimony would be given to the world that the Father had sent the Son. Thus the basis would be provided for the world of mankind or for the people to believe in Jesus as the one whom God had sent. (17:20, 21)

The glory the Father had given him, Jesus gave to the apostles. This glory, splendor, or dignity appears to relate specifically to Jesus’ being the Son of God. In John 1:14, this glory is described as that of a father’s only or unique son, and Jesus granted those who believed in him the authority or right to be God’s children. (1:12) This bestowal of sonship is an honor or dignity of unparalleled greatness. In coming to be part of the family of the Father’s beloved children, a marvelous unity comes into being. Jesus expressed this objective regarding the apostles to his Father, “that they be one as we are one; I in [at one with them] them and you in [at one with] me, that they may be fully one.” This perfect oneness or unity would provide the basis for the world of mankind to know that the Father had sent the Son and loved the disciples (those who had been granted the honor of being his children on the basis of their faith in his Son) just as he loved him. (17:22, 23)

It appears that particularly regarding “what” the Father had given him as the unique Son (provided the oldest extant manuscripts preserve the original reading of the text), Jesus wanted the apostles to be where he was. This would make it possible for them to see the glory or the greatness of the dignity that his Father had given him as the exalted Son with all authority in heaven and on earth. Many later manuscripts, however, indicate the reference to be, not to what or to the glory that had been given to Jesus, but to the apostles (“whom you [the Father has] have given me”). They were the ones whom Jesus wanted to be where he was so that there they could see the fullness of his glory. The glory that he would have upon his return to his Father would be an evidence of his Father’s love. This love existed “before the founding of the world” or from the very start and continued throughout the ages. (17:24)

The world had not come to know the Father, the one who is righteous, just, or impartial in all his dealings. Humans who were part of the unbelieving world were in a state of alienation from and at enmity with him. They had no relationship with the Father and so could not possibly know him. Jesus, however, knew his Father as his beloved Son, and the apostles came to know that the Father had sent him. (17:25)

During the time he was with the apostles, Jesus made known his Father’s name (that is, the person of the Father, the bearer of the name) to them. As the perfect reflection of his Father, Jesus revealed him through his words and actions. His prayer expressed the resolve to continue making his Father’s name known or revealing him to the apostles. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and opened up their minds to a fuller understanding respecting himself and so also regarding his Father. (Compare Luke 24:26, 27, 32.) Upon returning to him, Jesus continued to reveal his Father by means of the paraclete, “the spirit of the truth.” His making him known was for the purpose that the apostles might have within them the love with which his Father loved him. Through Jesus’ love for them, they would come to experience his Father’s love and, therefore, the love with which he loved his Son. This would also serve to have Jesus “in them” or inseparably attached to them in love. With the Father’s love dwelling in them, the apostles would respond in love for him and for his Son. (17:26)

John 18:1-40

According to ancient Jewish sources, the Passover meal could only be eaten until midnight. (Tosefta, Pesahim 5:13) So it may have been around midnight that Jesus and the apostles sang the concluding portion of the Hallel (possibly Psalms 115 through 118) and then headed for the Mount of Olives. Leaving Jerusalem, they descended to the Kidron valley, crossed it, and then ascended the western slope of the Mount of Olives. (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26) Although knowing that he would be betrayed, Jesus did not alter his customary routine. (Luke 22:39) Arriving at a place called Gethsemane, he and the apostles entered a garden. (18:1; Matthew 26:36)

The betrayer Judas knew the place where Jesus would be, for he had often been there with the disciples. Initially, though, Judas and those planning to seize Jesus may have stopped at the house where he had been with the other apostles. Included in the group were Roman soldiers, Levite temple guards, and slaves. Besides a contingent of Roman soldiers (probably drawn from among those stationed at the Tower of Antonia and who were responsible for watching for any disturbance or uprising in the temple area and bringing it under control), there were subordinates or deputies of the chief priests and Pharisees, Levite temple guards, and slaves. They were equipped with torches, lamps, swords, and clubs. (18:2, 3; see also Luke 22:50, 52.)

While Jesus was speaking to the apostles, Judas and the armed men arrived. As it would have been hard for anyone without being personally acquainted with Jesus to recognize him in the dark, Judas had given the armed men an advance signal. “The one whom I kiss is he; seize him [and lead him away securely (Mark 14:44)].” (Matthew 26:47, 48; Mark 14:43, 44; Luke 22:47)

Approaching Jesus, Judas greeted him, addressing him as “rabbi,” and then kissed him. The preserved record does not indicate whether Judas responded to Jesus’ asking him why he had come and whether he was betraying the Son of Man with a kiss. (Matthew 26:49, 50; Mark 14:45; Luke 22:48) At this point, Judas appears to have withdrawn, taking a position with the crowd. (18:5)

Jesus was fully aware of what would happen to him. His response to the crowd demonstrated that he, voluntarily and in submission to his Father’s will, chose to enter upon a course of suffering that would terminate in a painful death. Courageously, he walked toward the crowd, asking, “Whom do you seek?” When they said, “Jesus the Nazarene,” he identified himself, “I am,” that is, I am he. Their reference to him as “the Nazarene” may well have been a slur, for they considered him as no more than a man from Nazareth in Galilee, a city without any distinction. (18:4, 5)

Jesus’ fearlessness appears to have caught the armed men by surprise. Startled, those in front may suddenly have backed up, causing those behind them to lose their footing and fall. No man among them came toward Jesus. So he again asked them, “Whom do you seek?” They again responded, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (18:6, 7)

“I told you,” he said to them, “I am.” Having left no doubt about his identity as the one whom they wanted to seize, Jesus, like a caring shepherd who looks out for the sheep, spoke up to protect his disciples. “If, then, you are seeking me, let these go.” Earlier, in prayer, he had said that he had watched over those whom his Father had given him and that none except the “son of destruction” (Judas) had been “destroyed” or lost. (17:12) Jesus continued to conduct himself in keeping with his prayer, thereby fulfilling his words, “I have not lost one of those whom you have given me.” (18:8, 9)

Becoming aware of what was about to happen to Jesus, the apostles closest to him asked, “Shall we strike with the sword?” With zeal for his Lord, Peter did not wait for an answer, reached for his sword, and struck one of the men. This one, the high priest’s slave Malchus, appears to have succeeded in quickly averting a fatal blow but still lost his right ear, which Jesus healed. Jesus stopped Peter from continuing to use the sword, telling him, “Put your sword into the sheath. Should I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (18:10, 11; see also Matthew 26:51, 52; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:49-51.)

It may be that the Roman chiliarch (a commander with 1,000 soldiers under him) gave the order to seize Jesus. Roman soldiers and members of the temple guard then took hold of him and bound him. (18:12)

The crowd that had seized Jesus headed for the residence of the high priest, where Annas would first question Jesus. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Quirinius, the governor of Syria, had appointed Annas (Ananus) as high priest. (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 1) He served in this capacity until the “procurator of Judea,” Valerius Gratus, removed him from office in 15 CE. Although no longer in the position of high priest, Annas continued to wield considerable power and influence. Five of his sons and one son-in-law (Caiaphas, the high priest at the time of Jesus’ arrest and who had earlier declared that it would be advantageous for one man to die for the people [11:49, 50]) became high priests. (Antiquities, XVIII, ii, 2; XX, ix, 1) While Caiaphas was then the official high priest, Annas appears to have had rooms in the same residence. This may be deduced from the fact that Peter’s denial occurred in the courtyard of the high priest, and there is no indication that anyone entered more than one courtyard during the course of the night. (18:13-18, 24, 25)

At the time Jesus was led away, the apostles had scattered. Later, Peter decided to follow the armed crowd, but maintained a safe distance. (Matthew 26:57, 58; Mark 14:53, 54; Luke 22:54) Another disciple also followed when Peter was on his way to the premises of the high priest. The female servant stationed at the gate there recognized this disciple, for the high priest knew him. She opened the gate, allowing him to follow “Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest.” Peter, however, was not permitted to enter but remained standing at the gate. (18:15, 16)

Many have assumed that John was the disciple whom the high priest knew. This does not seem very likely. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Peter and John were brought before Annas, Caiaphas, and the other members of the Sanhedrin for questioning. At that time, both of them were perceived to be unlearned and ordinary men, and the members of the high court recognized that they had been associated with Jesus. (Acts 4:5-7, 13) So it seems improbable that an ordinary fisherman from Galilee had the kind of access to the high priest that would have made his word carry sufficient weight for the female servant to allow Peter to enter the courtyard. (18:16)

The recorded details are too limited to draw any definitive conclusions about this other disciple and how it happened that he and Peter were together after Jesus had been taken through the courtyard. One possibility is that the other disciple, as a member of the Sanhedrin, had been summoned by the high priest and, while on his way, had met Peter. Two members of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus and Joseph from Arimathea, were secret disciples, and there may have been others. (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50, 51; John 12:42; 19:38, 39) Members of the Sanhedrin were influential men whose request the female servant would not have hesitated to honor.

Peter had not been with the crowd that brought Jesus in but arrived later. Therefore, the female gatekeeper appears to have thought that Peter could only be one of his followers. So she asked him, “Are you not also one of the disciples of this man?” “I am not,” he replied. Peter’s first denial is mentioned as occurring before Annas questioned Jesus, and the other two denials are represented as taking place later. The accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to be complementary and provide different details. Based on all the recorded narrations, it seems that the female servant at the gate was not satisfied with Peter’s initial response and began to talk to others. Altogether, he was confronted by various ones at three different times, and on each of these occasions he responded with denials. At the time of his first denial, Peter may not have thought that he had denied his Lord, but may have felt that the woman did not really know what she was talking about and that his response would end any further discussion. By his answer, however, he had committed himself to a lie and had failed to put an end to the suspicion about him. (18:17)

Slaves and subordinates (probably temple guards) who participated in the arrest of Jesus had started a charcoal fire in the courtyard, for it was cold that night. Peter joined those who were warming themselves around the fire. (18:18)

Meanwhile Annas questioned Jesus regarding his disciples and his teaching. In his response, Jesus pointed out that he had always spoken openly to the “world” (or the people), doing so in the temple precincts and in the synagogues, where the Jews assembled. After saying that he had not expressed anything in secret, Jesus continued, “Why are you questioning me? Question those who heard what I spoke to them. See! They know what I said.” One of the subordinates (probably a temple guard) then approached Jesus and slapped him, saying, “Is that how you answer the chief priest?” “If I responded wrongly,” Jesus said, “testify about the wrong. But if appropriately, why do you strike me?” After the interrogation, Annas sent Jesus bound to his son-in-law, Caiaphas the high priest. The account in the Gospel of John, however, does not include any details about the questioning of Caiaphas. (18:19-24)

After the first denial, Peter withdrew to the forecourt (an area closer to the gate) or to the gatehouse. (Matthew 26:71, 72) It appears that Peter later returned to the courtyard, stood there to warm himself, and was again confronted with the question, “Are you not also one of his disciples?” He denied it. A relative of the high priest’s slave whose ear Peter had cut off, spoke up, “Did I not see you in the garden with him [Jesus]?” After this third denial, a rooster crowed. (18:25-27)

When the Sanhedrin had determined that Jesus was deserving of death, the chief priests, other members of the court, and subordinates (probably Levite temple guards) led Jesus as a bound criminal to Pilate. A partially preserved inscription found at Caesarea in 1961 refers to Pilate as “prefect of Judea.” The first-century Roman historian Tacitus (Annals, XV, 44), however, referred to Pilate as procurator. This may be because “procurator” was the title by which later Roman governors of Judea were known. Roman officials started their work day early in the morning. Emperor Vespasian (69 to 79 CE), for example, began his day before dawn. So it would not have been unusual for Jesus to have been brought to Pilate at an early hour. (18:28; 19:6; see also Matthew 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1)

At the time, Pilate was in the praetorium, where he had his official residence while in Jerusalem. The praetorium may have been the palace Herod the Great had built. This palace was situated in the northwest corner of the section of Jerusalem south of the temple. According to Josephus, Gessius Florus (War, II, xiv, 8), who served as governor or procurator at a later time, did use the palace when he was in Jerusalem. (18:28)

The chief priests and other Jews did not enter the praetorium because they were concerned about contracting ceremonial defilement, which would have prevented them from eating the Passover. The nature of the defilement is not revealed in the account. It could not have been a defilement that would have ended at sundown after the legal requirements for purification had been followed. Ironically, although they had been willing to override legal requirements in order to condemn Jesus to death, they scrupled about external purity. (18:28)

The night on which Jesus observed the Passover with his disciples was followed by the Sabbath at sundown of the next day. There is a possibility that, in years when this was the case, the Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, reckoned Nisan 14 as Nisan 13. This could explain why those who brought Jesus to Pilate (or at least a significant number among them) had not as yet eaten the Passover meal. A definitive conclusion, however, is not possible on the basis of the available information in ancient sources. (18:28)

Probably in response to a message conveyed to him, Pilate came out to speak to the Jews, asking them what charge they were making against Jesus. They implied that there was no reason for Pilate to inquire about an accusation, for they would not be turning over to him a man other than a criminal. When Pilate told them to judge Jesus according to their own law, they responded that it was illegal for them to execute anyone. By seeking to have Pilate issue the death sentence, they served to fulfill Jesus’ words regarding the kind of death he would die, that is, as one elevated and crucified in an upright position. (18:29-32; compare Jesus’ earlier words [3:14, 15; 12:32, 33].)

It appears that, at this point, they set forth charges that were designed to incite Pilate, as the representative of Rome, to take action. They claimed that Jesus had inflamed the nation, forbidden the payment of taxes to Caesar, and proclaimed himself to be the Messianic king or ruler. In this way, they portrayed him as a dangerous seditionist who posed a serious threat to Roman authority. (Luke 23:2)

Pilate then had Jesus come into the praetorium for questioning, likely having Roman soldiers leading him. He asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (18:33)

Jesus countered with the question, “Are you saying this of your own accord, or have others told you about me?” Pilate’s response suggests that he had no firsthand knowledge. He was not a Jew, and it was members of the Jewish nation and the chief priests who had delivered Jesus into his hands. Pilate asked, “What did you do?” (18:34, 35)

In his reply, Jesus revealed that he posed no threat to the authority of the Romans, explaining that his kingdom was “not of this world.” It was not a rule that originated with or depended upon any human authority. If this had been the case, Jesus continued, “My subordinates would have fought.” Their reason for engaging in armed conflict would have been to prevent his falling into the hands of the Jews who opposed him. “But,” as Jesus added, “my kingdom is not from here,” indicating that it had no link to any human action or source. Pilate asked, “Are you a king?” Jesus’ reply, “You are saying that I am a king,” may imply that Pilate’s question acknowledged the possibility that he was a king. The fact that Jesus did not deny it could have served as an affirmative answer to the question. (18:36, 37)

Nevertheless, Jesus made it clear that his purpose was not to establish an earthly kingdom. He had been born and come into the world “to testify to the truth,” and persons who were “of the truth,” taking their stand for it, would listen to him. Pilate would not have understood what he meant. Jesus had made known the truth about his Father and how to become a part of the realm where he would be ruling by his Father’s appointment. As the intimate of his Father, Jesus was the embodiment of the truth and in a position to reveal his Father in a manner than no one else could. (18:37)

The context does not indicate how Pilate’s question (“What is truth?”) is to be understood. Perhaps he intended it as a dismissive response, reflecting no further interest and no desire to be identified as a person who listened to the truth Jesus could have made known to him. (18:38)

Pilate went out to the Jews who were waiting for his decision regarding Jesus and told them that he had found nothing against him. The chief priests and Jewish elders objected, insisting that the teaching Jesus had begun in Galilee and carried on in Jerusalem had stirred up the people throughout Judea. Despite their continuing to level many charges against him, he remained silent. Pilate asked Jesus whether he did not hear the accusations being made against him. The fact that he said nothing in response filled Pilate with wonderment. After Jesus’ accusers mentioned Galilee, Pilate confirmed that Jesus was a Galilean and under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. At the time, Herod was in Jerusalem for the Passover. Probably in an effort to avoid having to render the judgment Jesus’ accusers were seeking, Pilate sent him to Herod. (18:38; see also Matthew 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5; Luke 23:4-7)

At the time Jesus appeared before Pilate and later before Herod Antipas, a notorious seditionist and bandit named Barabbas was being held in confinement and apparently was to be executed. Barabbas was guilty of murder. (Matthew 27:15, 16; Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19) Probably believing that if they had a choice between the release of Barabbas and Jesus, Pilate apparently thought that the Jews would ask for Jesus to be released. Based on a custom that had developed at the time of the Passover, Pilate presented this choice to those who had meanwhile arrived to petition for the release of a prisoner. (Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6-8) The chief priests succeeded in inciting the petitioners against Jesus and to request the release of Barabbas. (Matthew 27:17, 20, 21; Mark 15:6-11; Luke 23:18) In the case of the petitioners, they may well have been inclined toward wanting an end to Roman rule. If so, their sympathies would have been with Barabbas who had acted violently in keeping with his fanatical opposition to Roman authority. (18:39, 40; see the Notes section for more information about Pilate and why he yielded to the Jews who were hostile to Jesus.)

Notes

It was in the year 26 CE that Pilate assumed his official duties as governor of Judea. It was in the same year that Tiberius transferred his residence to the island of Capri. Until his execution in 31 CE, Sejanus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, functioned as de facto ruler. The ancient historian Dio Cassius (Book LVIII, v, 1; translated by Earnest Cary) wrote regarding him, “Sejanus was so great a person by reason both of his excessive haughtiness and of his vast power, that, to put it briefly, he himself seemed to be the emperor and Tiberius a kind of island potentate.” Therefore, although an appointee of Tiberius, Pilate may have owed his elevation to Sejanus.

If so, the execution of Sejanus would have made Pilate’s position more vulnerable whenever any accusation might be made against him. Without any support from Sejanus, Pilate’s situation would have been precarious. While Sejanus exercised power, anyone close to him could practically be assured of the emperor’s friendship. (Tacitus, Annals, VI, 8)

Tiberius acted on very little evidence when seeking to have the death penalty imposed for laesa majestas (injured majesty). An excerpt attributed to Dio Cassius (though the exact source is not positively known) reads, “Tiberius put to death a man of consular rank, accusing him of having carried in his bosom a coin bearing the emperor’s likeness when he retired to a latrine.” The only thing Tiberius said to him was, “With my coin in your bosom you turned aside into foul and noisome places and relieved your bowels.” (This extract is found at the end of Book LVIII of Dio’s Roman History, translated by Earnest Cary.)

Pilate must have known how seriously Tiberius took any report suggesting that his majesty had been slighted. Therefore, for word to reach Tiberius that he was no “friend of Caesar” would have put him in a precarious situation.

Although the Scriptures refer to a crowd as crying out for Jesus to be crucified, the number of men involved would have been a small minority of those who were then in Jerusalem. The only ones the chief priests needed to persuade to call for the release of Barabbas were men who had come to petition Pilate for the release of a Jewish prisoner. As men with this kind of personal interest in the cause of imprisoned Jews whom the Romans regarded as criminals, they would have been more readily inclined to believe the chief priests that Jesus posed a threat to the nation and would in no way further its welfare.

John 19:1-42

Although he knew that Jesus was not guilty of the false charges that had been made against him, Pilate handed Jesus over to Roman soldiers to be flogged. (Matthew 27:24-26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24, 25) This flogging was an extreme form of torture. The whip consisted of a handle with several leather cords to which pieces of bone or metal were attached. A severe flogging could result in death, as the bone or metal ripped into the flesh and caused serious bleeding. (19:1)

The Roman soldiers, when making sport of Jesus, placed a crown of twisted thorns on his head and probably used a worn-out item of dress that mockingly resembled a purple garment as would be worn by royalty or high officials. They themselves wore red cloaks. An old, faded one could have served their purpose. This would fit the words of Matthew 27:28, where the reference is to a scarlet or red cloak. The Greek term for “cloak” chlamýs can, in fact, designate the kind of cloaks Roman soldiers wore. The soldiers also had him hold a reed in his right hand as if he had a royal scepter. With another reed, they may have taken turns hitting him over the head, likely causing the thorns to penetrate his forehead. Besides slapping him in the face and spitting at it, the soldiers kneeled before him, addressing him as “king of the Jews.” (19:2, 3; see also Matthew 27:27-30 and Mark 15:16-19.)

It appears that the Jews who wanted Jesus executed chose to remain outside the praetorium until they were certain that he would not be released. After the soldiers had ended the flogging and mockery, Pilate again came out of the praetorium to address the Jews, telling them that he would bring Jesus out to them so that they would know that he found no guilt in him. It seems likely that soldiers then brought Jesus outside. He still wore the reddish garment and the crown of thorns. Pilate then said, “See! The man.” (19:4, 5)

The context does not reveal how these words should be understood. In view of the abuse to which Jesus had been submitted, his appearance must have been such as would have evoked sympathy in persons who had retained their humanity. So the expression “the man” could have meant the pitiable fellow or a mere man who posed no threat. There is also a possibility that Pilate was impressed by the control Jesus had exercised in not responding to false charges and by the dignity which he had maintained while being abused and mocked. If these aspects prompted Pilate’s words, the expression “the man” would signify a man in the noblest sense. (19:5)

Unmoved by any feelings of sympathy, the chief priests and subordinates (probably temple guards) shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!” Having found no guilt in Jesus, Pilate responded, “Take him and crucify him yourselves.” In their reply, those who wanted Jesus crucified now revealed that their previous accusations were false. They now said that, according to their law, he should be put to death because he claimed to be the Son of God. (19:6, 7)

On hearing the words “Son of God,” Pilate gave way to superstitious fear. A contributory factor may have been his wife’s dream. While he was sitting on the judgment seat deliberating, she had sent a message to him, telling him to have nothing to do with the innocent man. This was on account of having suffered much in a dream because of him. (19:8; see Matthew 27:19.)

After entering the praetorium with Jesus, Pilate asked him, “From where are you?” When he did not answer, Pilate continued, “Are you not speaking to me? Do you not know that I have the power to release you and the power to crucify you?” “You would have no power over me,” said Jesus, “unless it had been given to you from above. Therefore, the one who delivered me over to you has greater sin.” (19:9-11)

If it had not been his Father’s will for Jesus to surrender his life, Pilate would have been powerless to do anything to him. What was about to take place would occur according to God’s will, and so, by divine permission, Pilate would be exercising the power to hand Jesus over to be crucified. This would not free him from guilt, for he would be acting unjustly toward one whom he knew to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, Pilate’s sin would not be as great as that of the one who had been responsible for handing Jesus over to him. The context does not identify this one. Jesus may have meant the betrayer Judas, the high priest Caiaphas, or the chief priests and other members of the Sanhedrin as a corporate body. (19:11)

After the interchange with Jesus, Pilate still wanted to release him and again addressed the Jews who were waiting outside the praetorium. They then forced him into a position where he had to consider the preservation of his own office and even his own life. “If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar. Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.” Thus they insisted that releasing Jesus would be an act of disloyalty to Caesar (Tiberius) — an offense meriting severe punishment. Tiberius acted on very little evidence when seeking to have the death penalty imposed for laesa majestas (injured majesty). An excerpt attributed to Dio Cassius (though the exact source is not positively known) reads, “Tiberius put to death a man of consular rank, accusing him of having carried in his bosom a coin bearing the emperor’s likeness when he retired to a latrine.” The only thing Tiberius said to him was, “With my coin in your bosom you turned aside into foul and noisome places and relieved your bowels.” (This extract is found at the end of Book LVIII of Dio’s Roman History, translated by Earnest Cary.) Pilate must have known how seriously Tiberius took any report suggesting that his majesty had been slighted. Therefore, for word to reach Tiberius that he was no “friend of Caesar” would have put him in a precarious situation. (19:12)

Pilate brought Jesus outside. He sat down on the judgment seat located at the place known as the “Stone Pavement” or, “in Hebrew, Gabbatha.” It was about the sixth hour. Possibly based on the reckoning the chief priests used in that particular year, it was the day designated for the preparation of the Passover (Nisan 14). In response to Pilate’s words (“See! Your king!”), the Jews who were there shouted, “Away! Away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate called out. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests replied. It was then that Pilate turned Jesus over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified. They clothed Jesus with his own garments and led him away. (19:13-16; see also Matthew 27:31 and Mark 15:20.)

In John 19:14, the word hos (about) qualifies the “sixth hour,” identifying it as an approximate time before noon. (Mishnah, Pesahim, 1:4) The context does not make it possible to determine just how long before noon Pilate said to the Jews outside the praetorium, “See! Your king.” Based on specifics included in the other accounts (including the mention of a darkness lasting from the sixth hour until the ninth hour after Jesus had been crucified), the late morning hour could have been between an hour or two before noon. (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44)

In conjunction with the “preparation of the Passover,” all leaven was burned at the start of the sixth hour. This may be why the sixth hour is mentioned in John 19:14, with a possible implied link to Jesus as the sinless king who would die for the people as the “Lamb of God.”

After having been sentenced, Jesus was led away to the location where Roman soldiers would crucify him. Initially, he carried the beam (staurós). Eventually, however, his strength seems to have given out totally. Likely the extreme abuse and torture to which he had been submitted, coupled with much blood loss, had left him in a very weak state. At the time he could no longer carry the beam, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus) happened to be coming from the direction of a field outside the city. Seemingly, upon noticing him, the Roman soldiers impressed him into service, forcing him to carry the beam behind Jesus. (19:16, 17; see also Matthew 27:31, 32; Mark 15:20, 21; Luke 23:26 and the Notes section for additional comments.)

After the Roman soldiers stripped Jesus of his clothing, they nailed him to the beam and, as he had foretold, lifted him up. Two bandits were also crucified, one on his right and the other one on his left. According to many manuscript readings of Mark 15:28 (but not the oldest extant ones), this development fulfilled the words of scripture (Isaiah 53:12), “And with [among the, LXX] lawless ones he was counted.” (19:18; see also Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33 and the Notes section regarding crucifixion.)

The charge against Jesus (identifying his crime as being that of “King of the Jews”) had been posted above his head. (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38) Pilate had written it in three languages (Latin [the official language of Rome], Greek [the commonly used language in the Greco-Roman world], and Hebrew [the language of the native Jews]). The writing was large enough to be readable from a distance. Many Jews did read the words, for the location was near Jerusalem. After Pilate had written the charge, the chief priests objected, saying, “Do not write ‘the King of the Jews,’ but that “he said, I am King of the Jews.” Pilate, though, had made a legal decision, which he refused to alter. “What I have written,” he said, “I have written.” (19:19-22)

In the accounts, the wording of the charge varies (“This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” [Matthew 27:37], “The King of the Jews” [Mark 15:26], “The King of the Jews this one [is] [Luke 23:38], and “Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews” [John 19:19]). If the words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are regarded as abbreviated versions that convey the substance of the charge, the fullest text may be the one found in John 19:19. Another possibility is that the inscription was not identical in the three languages, and so the writers could have chosen a form of one of the three versions. At any rate, all the accounts are in agreement in identifying Jesus as “the King of the Jews.”

After the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they divided his robe (himátion, an outer garment) into four parts, with each soldier taking a part. This reveals that four soldiers were in charge of the crucifixion. They did not want to divide the tunic (chitón, a garment worn next to the skin), for it was a seamless garment, having been woven in one piece. For this reason, they decided to cast lots to determine which of them would get it. Their action corresponded to the words of Psalm 22:18(19) (21:19, LXX), “They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothes they cast lots.” Because this was indeed what the soldiers did, the words of the psalmist were fulfilled, finding their fullest significance in what happened in the case of God’s Son. Thereafter the soldiers seated themselves and kept watch. (19:23, 24; see also Matthew 27:35, 36; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34.)

Not all who were standing at the site of Golgotha participated the hateful mockery. They looked on with intense grief. The disciple whom Jesus deeply loved, the apostle John, was there and so was Mary. Her pain would have been indescribable. As Simeon had foretold years earlier, her experience proved to be comparable to being pierced with a sword. (Luke 2:35) Other women with Mary included Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife of Clopas (the mother of James the less [or younger] and Joses [Joseph]), and Salome (the mother of James and John, the wife of Zebedee, and the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary). Additionally, present were many other women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee and had attended to his needs. (19:25; see also Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 23:49.)

With her nephew John at her side, Mary approached close enough to Jesus to be able to hear him speak. When he saw his mother and John, the disciple whom he loved and implicitly trusted, he lovingly arranged to have him care for her. Directing his words to Mary, Jesus said, “Woman, see! Your son.” His words to John were, “See! Your mother.” From that “hour” or time onward, John assumed the role of a son to Mary and apparently had her live where he did. It appears that John then led Mary away from the scene of Jesus’ intense suffering. This is suggested by the absence of many details found in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Moreover, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not mentioned among the named women who had followed Jesus from Galilee. These women were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less (the younger) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome (the mother of Zebedee’s sons). This could be understood to indicate that John, though himself later returning, had kindly conducted Mary away from the scene so that she would not be pained to an extent that would have been difficult for her to bear. (19:26, 27; see also Matthew 27:55, 56; Mark 15:40, 41; Luke 23:48, 49.)

Seemingly, when John returned by himself, he heard Jesus cry out, “I thirst.” Knowing that everything had been accomplished, Jesus said what he did to fulfill “the scripture.” His words, “I thirst,” led to the fulfillment of Psalm 69:21(22), “For my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” (Psalm 68:22, LXX) (19:28)

One of those nearby ran to a vessel filled with vinegar (sour wine). After filling a sponge with the vinegar, he placed it on a reed, intending to provide Jesus with a little relief by offering him a drink. (Matthew 27:48, 49; Mark 15:36) Whereas Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 indicate that the sponge was put on a reed, John’s account says it was placed on “hyssop.” There is a measure of uncertainty about the precise plant to which the Greek term hýssopos refers. Possibly, in this case, it designates a plant that would have grown to sufficient height to supply a firm reed. (19:29)

Probably a Roman soldier gave Jesus a drink. It does not appear likely that a mere bystander would have undertaken to do so, for the vessel containing vinegar would have been at the location for the soldiers who carried out the crucifixions and who thereafter remained on guard duty. Possibly the one who extended the small gesture of kindness was the centurion who, based on the developments associated with Jesus’ death, later acknowledged that he must have been a righteous man, God’s Son. (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47)

Besides saying “it is finished” after receiving the vinegar, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” These words paralleled those of the psalmist (Psalm 31:5[6]; 30:6, LXX) and indicated that Jesus was entrusting his life breath to his Father, looking to him to restore him to life. Jesus then bowed his head, and yielded up his life breath. (19:30; see also Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46.)

Not wanting to have the men remain crucified until after the start of the Sabbath at sundown, the prominent Jews requested Pilate to hasten their death. They asked him to direct that their legs be broken and that their dead bodies to be taken away. The account in John refers to that particular Sabbath as being “great,” possibly because the Sabbath, according to the reckoning that year, coincided with the first day of the Festival of Unfermented Bread (Nisan 15). (19:31)

When the soldiers received the order to break the legs of the crucified men, Jesus was already dead. They only broke the legs of the two malefactors, but not those of Jesus. One of the soldiers did pierce his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out. (19:32-34)

John was there to witness these developments. The account includes his solemn declaration, “He who saw [this] has testified, and his testimony is true. And he knows (or there is one who knows [God]) that he is telling the truth, so that you, too, may believe.” The basis for believing is the fulfillment of the scriptures regarding him. “Not a bone of his will be broken.” (Psalm 34:20[21]) “They will look at whom they pierced.” (Zechariah 12:10) The extant Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10 reads, “They shall look to me whom they have pierced.” If this represents the original text, it could mean that the Almighty regards the piercing of the one for whom there should be mourning as having been done to him. (19:35-37)

According to Matthew 27:57 and Mark 15:42, it was “evening” (opsía) when Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. This would have been late in the afternoon, for it was still the day before the Sabbath, which began at sundown. (Mark 15:42) Joseph, a wealthy member of the Sanhedrin, had kept his belief in Jesus secret. Although a good and just man who looked forward to the kingdom of God, Joseph appears to have been fearful about openly identifying himself as a believer. He did not, however, give his consent to the Sanhedrin’s decision to condemn Jesus. Fully aware of the grave injustice that had been committed, Joseph overcame his fear and boldly went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. (19:38; see also Matthew 27:58; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50-52 the Notes section for comments regarding Arimathea.)

It appears that Joseph had discussed his plan with another member of the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus (likewise a secret disciple). Both men, doubtless with the aid of servants, removed the body and prepared it for burial. Nicodemus had arranged to bring a mixture of myrrh and aloes (possibly the fragrant substance derived from the aloe tree [Aquilaria agallocha]), weighing about a hundred pounds (Roman pounds, with a pound weighing 11.5 ounces [327 grams]). According to customary Jewish practice at that time, Jesus’ body was wrapped in linen bandages along with the fragrant mixture. In Joseph’s own new rock-cut tomb in a garden near Golgotha, the men placed the body and then rolled a large stone over the tomb entrance. (Matthew 27:59, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53) An expanded reading of Luke 23:53 in fifth-century Codex Bezae indicates that it would have been difficult for 20 men to roll the stone. The time for preparing Jesus’ body for burial had been very limited, for it was the “day of Preparation” (Luke 23:54) when activities needed to be completed before the Sabbath began at sundown and work restrictions would begin to apply. (19:39-42)

Notes:

The biblical accounts do not include the hideous details about the crucifixion. They do not even provide a limited description of the implement on which Jesus died nor of the manner in which he was nailed to it. The writers’ reticence is more in keeping with their main purpose, setting forth the reason for Jesus’ suffering and death.

In itself, the Greek word staurós, commonly translated “cross,” can refer to a stake or pole, and the staurós which Jesus and later Simon carried was a beam. A long stake with a transverse beam would have been too heavy for one man to carry or drag. The Latin term crux, from which the English word “cross” is derived, can designate a tree or a wooden implement on which victims were either hanged or impaled.

In the allegorical Epistle of Barnabas (thought to date from the early second century and so from a time when the Romans continued to practice crucifixion), the staurós is linked to the letter tau (T). Moreover, very limited archaeological evidence does indicate that the Romans did make use of upright poles with a transverse beam.

Ancient abbreviated forms of the noun staurós and the verb stauróo (a number of preserved occurrences in P66 [second century] and P75 [though not consistently used in this late second-century or early third-century manuscript]) combine the letters tau (T) and rho (R) in a manner that is visually suggestive of a cross. This tau-rho ligature also appears in pre-Christian and non-Christian texts as an abbreviation for a number of terms, including the word trópos (meaning “way,” “manner,” or “habit”). Possibly Christian copyists adopted this ligature when abbreviating staurós because of associating the implement on which Jesus died with the letter tau (T). The existence of other abbreviated forms for the noun staurós and the verb stauróo in ancient biblical manuscripts which do not use the tau-rho ligature would seem to support the conjecture that early copyists chose this ligature for its visual effect.

The Greek word rendered “crucify” (stauróo) can denote hanging, binding, or nailing a victim on or to a stake, a tree, or an implement with a transverse beam. Doubtless the availability of wood and the number of individuals who were executed determined the shape of the implement used for crucifixion. In a Latin work attributed to Vulcatius Gallicanus, Emperor Avidius Cassius had criminals tied from the top to the bottom of a 180-foot (c. 55-meter) high wooden stake. The manner in which these persons were attached to this stake is referred to as crucifixion (in crucem sustulit, according to the Latin text). Roman soldiers do not appear to have followed any specific method when carrying out crucifixions. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus (War, V, xi, 1), the soldiers, out of wrath and hatred for the Jews, nailed those they caught, one in one way, and another in another way.

It is commonly believed that upright stakes were already at Golgotha or that the beams that had been carried to the site were attached to three adjacent trees (or possibly even the same tree) there. The minority view (expressed, for example, in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) is that Jesus was nailed in an upright position to the pole that Simon had carried and that it was not used as a transverse beam.

If correctly identified, Arimathea lay near the northern border of Judea, about 16 miles (c. 26 kilometers east of Joppa and over 20 miles (over 32 kilometers) northwest of Jerusalem. Although originally from Arimathea, Joseph, as a member of the Sanhedrin, must have had a residence in Jerusalem, as suggested by his owning an unused tomb just outside the city. (Matthew 27:60)

John 20:1-31

Early in the morning of the first day of the week (the day after the Sabbath), Mary Magdalene, the other Mary (the wife of Clopas and the mother of James the less [or the younger] and Joses [Joseph]), and Salome (the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John), with the spices they had prepared before the Sabbath, headed for the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body. While on the way, they talked among themselves about who would assist them to roll the stone away from the tomb entrance. Wanting to be at the location as early as possible, the women had left where they were staying while it was still dark. It seems likely that the women from Galilee would have spent the night at various places in Jerusalem, and so a number of them may well have arrived at the tomb later than the others did. (John 20:1; see also Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-3; Luke 24:1.)

John 20:1 does not mention that other women accompanied Mary Magdalene. This is understandable, for the account specifically focuses on her testimony regarding Christ’s resurrection.

When the women approached the tomb, they saw that the stone had already been rolled away. Possibly, at this point, Mary Magdalene ran back to Jerusalem to let Peter and John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) know what she had seen. The empty tomb suggested to her that the Lord had been taken away. Including herself with the other women, she said, “We do not know where they have laid him.” Thereafter Peter and John ran as quickly as they could to the tomb. (20:1-3; see also Mark 16:4 and Luke 24:2.)

After the women had left the tomb, Peter and John came running toward it. Probably because of being the younger man and able to move faster, John arrived first, bent down to look into the tomb, and saw the linen with which Jesus’ body had been wrapped. Upon reaching the tomb, Peter immediately entered and saw the linen wrappings. He noticed that the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head was rolled up and lying by itself. John, who had reached the tomb first, entered afterward. Based on his seeing the empty tomb, the wrappings, and the rolled-up cloth, “he believed.” This suggests that what he saw in the tomb convinced him that no one could have taken the body away and left the wrappings and the cloth behind, indicating that Jesus had been raised from the dead. (20:3-8)

In view of John’s believing, the words of John 20:9 appear to be a comment about the disciples as a group. They had not as yet come to understand the scripture, which revealed that Jesus had to rise from the dead. According to John 20:10, they individually went to their respective places.

After Peter and John were no longer at the tomb, Mary Magdalene returned, stood outside the tomb, and began to weep. While tears were flowing from her eyes, she bent down to look into the tomb. Inside were two angels, one was sitting where Jesus’ head had been and the other one where his feet had lain. Asked why she was weeping, Mary replied, “They have removed my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (20:11-13)

Possibly becoming aware that someone was behind her, she turned around and saw Jesus but did not recognize him. He asked her why she was weeping and for whom she was looking. Thinking he was the gardener, she wanted him, if he had taken the body, to tell her where he had placed it. In her distraught state, she added, “I will take him away.” It is inconceivable that she would have been strong enough to carry the body, revealing that her words were prompted by intense emotion. (20:14, 15)

Seemingly, Mary could not tear herself away from the place where the body had been. Probably, because Jesus did not immediately reply, she again looked in the direction of the tomb. Upon then hearing Jesus call her “Mary,” doubtless in the familiar tone she had often heard, she recognized him, turned around, and said, Rabboni, meaning “Teacher.” (John 20:16)

The account does not say whether Mary then took hold of Jesus but relates his words to her, “Do not touch [or cling to] me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

Many have understood the present tense of the Greek verbs to mean that Jesus was then about to ascend to his Father and did not want Mary to delay him from doing so. Mary’s action would then be comparable to what Jacob did when trying to secure a blessing for himself by trying to hold on to the angel who wanted to ascend. (Genesis 32:26) If the present tense is meant to be taken literally, this would mean that the post-resurrection appearances were like those of angels and that the ascension from the Mount of Olives revealed that the disciples should not expect to see him again until his return in glory. (Acts 1:9-11)

If, on the other hand, the present tense simply refers to the future ascension from the Mount of Olives that was certain to take place, Jesus’ words to Mary may mean that the time for close personal association had ended. His having been raised from the dead did not mean a return to the kind of interaction with him that had existed previously.

Mary Magdalene headed back to Jerusalem and then told the disciples there that she had seen the Lord and what he had said to her. According to Luke 24:10, the apostles heard about the resurrection of Jesus from Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women. In view of the more detailed account in John chapter 20 about Mary Magdalene, the words in Luke 24:10 appear to be a summary statement, with no distinction being made about when the various reports about the resurrection reached the apostles. Although the women told them what they had seen and heard, the apostles did not believe them. Whether the apostles dismissed the women’s testimony as empty talk because of a prejudicial view about the reliability of the word of women is not revealed in the account. (Luke 24:11) That such prejudice appears to have existed among Jewish men is evident from the words of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, “Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.” (Antiquities, IV, viii, 15) (20:18)

It was late on that day, that first day of the week when, much earlier, Jesus rose from the dead. Being fearful on account of the unbelieving Jews, the disciples had chosen to be assembled behind locked doors. Suddenly they saw Jesus standing in their midst. His first words to them were, “Peace [be] to you.” Jesus’ death had plunged them into a state of fear and uncertainty, robbing them of peace, an inner sense of calmness and well-being. Despite his reassuring words, the disciples were frightened. The manner in which he had suddenly appeared in their midst caused them to imagine that they were seeing a spirit, a phantom, an apparition, or a ghost. They reacted as on an earlier occasion when they saw Jesus walking toward them on water while they were in a boat. (Mark 6:49) 20:19; see also Mark 6:49 and Luke 24:36, 37.)

In response to their reaction, Jesus asked why they were troubled and why doubts had arisen in their hearts. He made it clear to them that he was indeed in their midst. They were not seeing an impalpable apparition. “See my hands and my feet,” he continued. “I am he. Touch me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have.” (Luke 24:38-40) According to John 20:20, he showed them his hands and his side.

On this occasion, Jesus again expressed his desire for his disciples to have peace. Just as the Father had sent him, he was then sending them forth, the implied purpose being for them to make known the good news about him and his resurrection. Possibly to assure the disciples that they would be certain soon to receive the holy spirit to assist them in carrying out their commission, he blew upon them and said, “Receive holy spirit.” (20:21, 22)

As the disciples would be carrying out their commission as persons whom Jesus had sent forth, the community of believers would grow and certain ones in their midst would fail to conduct themselves according to his example and teaching. This would require the disciples to render judgments about such erring associates. Regarding those who committed serious sins, Jesus said to the disciples, “If you forgive [their] sins, they are forgiven them. If you retain [their sins, not forgiving them], they are retained [against them].” In the case of individuals who unrepentantly persisted in a life of sin, the retaining of their sins would signify their no longer being part of the community of believers. (20:23; compare 1 Corinthians 5:1-7; 6:9, 10.)

Thomas (called Didymus or the “Twin”) was not with the other apostles when Jesus appeared to them. Later, they told him, “We have seen the Lord.” Thomas, though, did not believe them, saying, “Unless I see the impression of the nails in his hands and place my finger in the impression of the nails and put my hand in his side, I will not believe.” (20:24, 25; in the Greek text two words for “not” appear, indicating that Thomas would positively not believe unless he had concrete evidence.)

After “eight days” (counting the day on which the apostles saw Jesus as one of the eight), or a week later, Thomas and the others were together behind locked doors. Jesus, as on the previous occasion, appeared in their midst, saying to them, “Peace [be] to you.” Turning his attention to Thomas, he said, “Place your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and put it in my side, and cease being unbelieving but become believing.” Upon hearing an echo of the words he had used in his response to the other disciples when they told him that they had seen Jesus, Thomas was overcome with emotion. He exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” (20:26-28)

The words of Thomas (“My Lord and my God” [John 20:28]) somewhat parallel how Manoah expressed himself when he and his wife saw the angel who had appeared to them ascend in a flame. Overwhelmed by the emotional impact, Manoah said to his wife, “We will certainly die, for we have seen God.” (Judges 13:20-22)

Whether Thomas actually felt Jesus’ hands and his side is not revealed in the account. The words directed to him appear to have been enough to convince him. Jesus continued, “Do you believe because you have seen me? Fortunate are those who have not seen and [nevertheless] believe.” (John 20:29)

For the many millions who have put their faith in Jesus throughout the centuries, the kind of proof that Thomas wanted has not been granted. Yet, they believed and their lives were enriched. As Jesus said, all such believers are “fortunate,” “blessed,” or “happy,” enjoying the enviable state of well-being that comes from knowing the Son of God and his Father and being sharers in all the blessings associated therewith.

The editorial comments found in John 20:30, 31 could also have been written regarding the three other accounts. Jesus performed many more signs or miracles that the disciples witnessed but which were not mentioned. The narrations included sufficient essentials to provide a solid foundation for believing that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life in his name.”

The name represents the person. In the case of Jesus, his name represents him as the Christ and the unique Son of God, with all the power or authority that his Father has granted him. The real life of an enduring relationship with the Son of God and his Father can only be attained through unqualified trust or faith in the Son and loyal life. attachment to him. Therefore, it is “in his name” that believers come into possession of this life, the eternal life.

John 21:1-25

When back at his home in Galilee, Peter remarked to some of the other apostles about his intent to go fishing. They decided to go with him, pursuing their customary occupation on the Sea of Galilee (also known as the Sea of Tiberias). With Peter, six others got into the boat. They were Thomas (Didymus [the “Twin”]), Nathanael from Cana, the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and two others. Likely Peter’s brother Andrew was one of the two unnamed apostles, and the other one may have been Nathanael’s close companion Philip. (Compare John 1:43-45.) During the entire night spent in fishing, they caught nothing. (21:1-3)

Early in the morning, Jesus appeared on the shore, but the apostles did not recognize him. He called out to them, “Boys [literally, children], do you have anything to eat?” “No,” came back the reply. Jesus directed them to cast their net on the right side of the boat to make a catch. When they did so, the net filled with so many fish that they were unable to haul it up. At that, John (the disciple for whom Jesus had great affection) said to Peter, “It is the Lord.” Hearing this, Peter, who had been naked (probably to be prepared to jump from the boat if it became necessary to attend to a net in the water), put on his garment, plunged into the lake, and swam a distance of about 200 cubits or approximately 300 feet (c. 90 meters). The other disciples followed in the boat, dragging the net filled with fish. (21:4-8)

Jesus had made preparations for them to eat. Already fish and bread were lying on a charcoal fire, and Jesus asked for some fish from the catch to be brought to him. Peter boarded the boat and hauled the net to the shore. Although it contained 153 large fish, the net did not tear. When the food was ready to eat, Jesus invited the disciples to have breakfast and handed them bread and fish. (21:9-13)

They could not bring themselves to ask him, “Who are you?” This was because they recognized him to be Jesus. It would seem, therefore, that the recognition was not based on his physical features but on the revelation of his miraculous knowledge. Just as the clothing he wore would not have been identical to the garments the Roman soldiers then possessed, his resurrection body was different. Like the angels, he could appear and then vanish from sight. All the recorded instances of his post-resurrection appearances proved to be comparatively brief. Their main purpose, during the course of 40 days, served to convince the disciples that he was indeed alive. If he could have been readily recognized at all times, his presenting them with “many proofs” would not have been necessary. (Acts 1:3) People do not need “many proofs” to recognize a close friend who may have been away for a short time but whom they, on the basis of unsubstantiated reports, had presumed to be dead. (21:12)

Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance at the Sea of Galilee was the third of the ones where most of the apostles saw him. The first time all the apostles, with the exception of Thomas, were present. On the second occasion, all the apostles saw him. (20:24, 26; 21:14)

After the apostles had finished eating breakfast, Jesus directed his words to Peter, saying, “Simon [son of] John [Jonah, according to the reading of other manuscripts], do you love [agapáo] me more than these?” Confident that Jesus knew the answer, Peter responded, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [philéo] you.” (21:15)

In the question that Jesus is represented as asking, the Greek pronoun for “these” can be either masculine (referring to the other disciples) or neuter (everything related to fish and fishing). A number of translations render the question with explicit application to the disciples. “Do you love me more than these others?” (Phillips, REB) “Do you love me more than the others do?” (CEV) This would appear to be the preferable understanding. It would be more in line with Peter’s eagerness in getting to the shore as quickly as possible and his previous affirmation during the observance of the Passover that he would not be stumbled even though all the others might be and that he would be willing to die with Jesus. (Mark 14:29-31)

Indicating how Peter could express his love for him, Jesus said, “Feed my lambs [arníon].” As an apostle, one whom Jesus had personally instructed, Peter was in position to care for the spiritual interests of fellow disciples. These disciples were the sheep who belonged to Jesus and for whom he had surrendered his life. (21:15)

Again Jesus asked him, “Simon [son of] John [Jonah, according to other manuscripts], do you love [agapáo] me?” As he had expressed himself the first time, Peter reaffirmed his love, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love [philéo] you.” Jesus then repeated the admonition, “Tend my sheep [próbaton or probátion (little sheep) in other manuscripts].” (21:16)

When Jesus, for a third time, asked Peter, “Simon [son] of John [Jonah, according to other manuscripts], do you love [philéo] me?” he felt hurt. Hearing the question for the third time may have led to his recalling with sadness that he had disowned Jesus three times. Nevertheless, Peter did not waver in expressing his love for him. “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love [philéo] you.” Jesus then repeated, “Feed my sheep [próbaton or probátion (little sheep) in other manuscripts].” This assignment to serve as a caring shepherd for the sheep reflected Jesus’ confidence in Peter and may well have served to lift from him any lingering burdening effect his previous three denials may have had. (21:17)

Jesus is twice represented as using a form of the Greek term agapáo (love) and once philéo (love). Peter, in his response, is represented as saying philéo. Of the two terms, agapáo is often broader in scope, with philéo being a love that is frequently more closely associated with close friendship and affection. As in the case of the English word “love,” the context determines the nature of the kind of love or affection the verbs agapáo and philéo may be understood to convey. It appears preferable not to attempt to draw too sharp a distinction between the two terms, seeking instead to ascertain the significance from the context. Moreover, Jesus would not have communicated with his disciples in the Greek language. (21:15-17)

At this point, Jesus looked to the end of Peter’s faithful service. In his younger years, Peter had been a man of action. Girding himself to undertake his activity and walking where he chose to go. Upon getting old, he would stretch out his hands and someone else would gird him and take him to a place where he would not want to go. Jesus thus indicated that Peter, in his declining years, would be forcibly taken to the place of execution. Dying as a martyr on account of remaining faithful to God, he would “glorify” or bring honor to him. According to Eusebius (c. 263 to c. 339 CE), Peter was crucified during the reign of Nero. (21:18, 19)

Jesus concluded his words to Peter with the admonition, “Follow me.” It appears that the interchange between Jesus and Peter took place a short distance from where the other disciples were and while the two of them were walking. Seemingly, Peter became aware that another disciple was following them, and he turned around. It was John, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who had asked him during the Passover meal concerning who the betrayer would be. Seeing John, Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, but what about him?” Jesus directed his attention away from John. If it were to be Jesus’ will for John to be alive at his return, this should have no bearing on Peter’s course. As Jesus said to him, “What [is] that to you? You, follow me.” (21:19-22)

Whereas Jesus loved all of the apostles, his relationship to John appears to have been remarkably close. Therefore, the expression the “disciple whom Jesus loved” is an appropriate identifier. The close relationship seems to have come into existence because of John’s exceptional attentiveness and responsiveness to Jesus’ teaching. An outstanding example of John’s attentiveness and responsiveness was his believing that Jesus had been raised from the dead when he saw the empty tomb and the linen wrappings inside. (13:1; 20:8; 21:20)

Jesus’ words about John gave rise to the view among the brothers or in the community of believers that he would not die but would still be living when Jesus returned. This misunderstanding is corrected in the account by reiterating what Jesus actually said. He did not say to Peter that John would not die. Jesus expressed the thought about John conditionally, “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, what [is] that to you?” (21:23)

John 21:24 reveals the source of the entire account. It is one of the apostles, the one about whom Peter asked. The internal evidence identifies this one as John (one of Zebedee’s sons [21:2]), the “disciple who testifies about these things and who wrote these things.” The change to the second person plural in the next sentence of verse 24 may be an indication that he did not write this particular affirmation, “We know that his testimony is true.”

The editorial comments found in John 21:25 could also have been written regarding the three other accounts. Jesus did much more that the disciples witnessed but which were not mentioned. The narrations included sufficient essentials to provide a solid foundation for believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and to have a sure basis for faith in him and the forgiveness of sins his sacrificial death made possible. Using hyperbole to stress the large amount of information that could have been committed to writing, John concluded, “There are also many other things Jesus did, which, if ever they were recorded, I imagine the world could not contain the scrolls [that would be] written.” (21:25)

Although the preserved records are comparatively brief, millions, throughout the centuries, have come to believe that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. On the basis of the written accounts about his exemplary life, deeds, and teaching, they have come to live rich and rewarding lives. Although later believers, unlike the apostles and many other first-century disciples, have never seen Jesus, they love him. Through him, they have come to know his Father, resulting in their enjoyment of the real life, a life of an enduring relationship with both the Father and the Son. Accordingly, because of their faith, they have come to have life “in [Christ’s] name” or on the basis of who he is, the only one through whom a relationship with his Father is possible.

At the same time, just as the personal presence of Jesus in the first century created division among the Jewish people, with some responding to him in faith and others becoming violently opposed, the preserved records about him have had the same effect. There are those who try to discredit them with the same passion as those who fanatically cried out for Jesus to be crucified. Others have a distorted view of God’s Son and, based on what they have been taught, do not allow themselves to be led to the Father through him. They are much like the Jews in the first century who failed to recognize him for who he was, the one who could fully reveal his Father to them. They did not think of Jesus as God’s unique Son but concluded that he was Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets raised from the dead, or possibly even John the Baptist restored to life. Few were those who, like Peter, declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:13-16) Today, too, many tend to express themselves more in line with derived views about Jesus acquired from their particular religious environment, and not with a personal conviction that reflects the language of the preserved accounts regarding him.