Sermon and Worship Resources

2 Samuel 1:1-16 · David Hears of Saul’s Death

1 After the death of Saul, David returned from defeating the Amalekites and stayed in Ziklag two days. 2 On the third day a man arrived from Saul's camp, with his clothes torn and with dust on his head. When he came to David, he fell to the ground to pay him honor.

3 "Where have you come from?" David asked him. He answered, "I have escaped from the Israelite camp."

4 "What happened?" David asked. "Tell me." He said, "The men fled from the battle. Many of them fell and died. And Saul and his son Jonathan are dead."

5 Then David said to the young man who brought him the report, "How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?"

6 "I happened to be on Mount Gilboa," the young man said, "and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and riders almost upon him. 7 When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said, 'What can I do?'

8 "He asked me, 'Who are you?' " 'An Amalekite,' I answered.

9 "Then he said to me, 'Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I'm still alive.'

10 "So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord."

11 Then David and all the men with him took hold of their clothes and tore them. 12 They mourned and wept and fasted till evening for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the army of the Lord and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.

13 David said to the young man who brought him the report, "Where are you from?" "I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite," he answered.

14 David asked him, "Why were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the Lord 's anointed?"

15 Then David called one of his men and said, "Go, strike him down!" So he struck him down, and he died. 16 For David had said to him, "Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, 'I killed the Lord 's anointed.' "

Song Of Loss Song Of Hope

2 Samuel 1:1-16

Sermon
by Charles Curley

David loved Jonathan and, from the day they met, David was loved in return, with a love which has virtually defined the meaning of friendship down through the generations. "The soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." - 1 Samuel 18:1

The difficulty was that Jonathan was Saul's son and heir. Jonathan was to be the next king of Israel, following his father, King Saul. God had disinherited Jonathan, dethroned Saul, and sent Samuel to anoint David King of Israel - but Saul and Jonathan didn't know that yet. Oh, Saul knew there was something wrong with this boy-warrior who had appeared out of nowhere, who had won the adulation of the crowds, the loyalty of Saul's son Jonathan, and the love of Saul's daughter Michal, who became David's wife. Saul knew something was wrong, and so, the scripture says, "Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, but he had departed from Saul." - 1 Samuel 18:26

Saul tried to kill David. First he tried to kill David by pinning him to the wall with his spear. When that did not work, he declared him an outlaw and ordered his execution. David, however, proved elusive. After many failed attempts at reconciliation negotiated by Jonathan, acting as a go-between, David finally took his followers and went off, far away from Saul. Thus David was not present on Mount Gilboa when the armies of Saul met Israel's enemies the Philistines in their last, conclusive battle. Israel was defeated. Saul and Jonathan were killed. And a messenger set out to bring the crown to David.

David did not rejoice at the death of Saul and Jonathan. He tore his clothing as a sign of his grief, and David and all who were with him: "mourned and wept, and fasted ... for Saul and for his son Jonathan, and for the army of the Lord and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword." Then David sang his grief, out loud, for all to hear: "Your glory, O Israel, lies slain upon your high places. How the mighty have fallen." - 1 Samuel 1:19

What can we learn, and how can we find ourselves in David's grief? Last week we saw how David, faced with depression, talked and talked and talked. He talked his way out of depression, when our most frequent way of dealing with depression is silence, withdrawal, cutting ourselves off from those around us. Now David, filled with grief, sang aloud. He made his grief public; he did not bottle it up inside. In fact, from our 20th century perspective, we would probably describe David's actions as inappropriate or overly dramatic. Had we been present, we might have been somewhat embarrassed, or even slightly ashamed at this outpouring of emotion, emotion which we feel is best kept inside. We are, in this society, such extreme individualists that we have forgotten the communal nature of grief. In our world grief is a private, personal, individual thing. We say to someone who is grieving, "I don't want to intrude on your grief." It is as though we could never understand, or share, or be part of what they are going through. Oh, we do our grieving. We sing our own painful songs of loss, but we sing them inside - in isolation from others.

David knew the void which the deaths of Saul and Jonathan left in his own life. He also knew the greater void they left in the life of the nation. But David knew more than this. He knew, in the words of the poet John Donne (who also lived in a less individualistic time), "Any man's death diminishes me." We see so much pain and loss and death around us in our world, in the streets of Serbia, and Lebanon, and Detroit. Why don't we rage like David over such loss?

David sang his grief for all to hear, until all the people joined in his song. David knew that grief shared is grief transformed. The modern therapeutic mentality of 20th century America thinks of grief as something to be "worked through," as if we just manage to find the proper technique to work through our grief in the correct way, everything will be all right again.

I would not dare tell David: "Don't worry, everything will be all right." David knows that everything will never be all right again. And, though you can hardly tell it from his song, David knows it never was all right. David, who lived in the hills and hid in caves because of Saul's anger, Saul's jealous rages, Saul's vindictive wrath, knew that there never was a time when everything was even close to being all right. So why did David grieve over Saul? Jonathan we can understand. "My brother Jonathan, greatly beloved." But Saul? "O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul."

We often say: "You should not speak ill of the dead." But David did far more than refrain from speaking ill of Saul. "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely ... they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions."

When I meet a family before a funeral I often say: "Tell me about the person you've lost." Their first words are usually, "He was a good man." "She was a good woman." Well, maybe they were and maybe they weren't, but that is what we need to remember about them, their goodness. Grief does that for us; grief magnifies the good. Grief reminds us of the treasures we have been given in the relationships of everyday life; treasures we often do not recognize until they are gone. I knew two brothers who argued, fought and picked at one another every day of their lives, until one of them died. Then the one who was left experienced as much emptiness, loss and pain as anyone has ever felt for the most beloved brother.

Yes, Saul was David's enemy, Saul tried to kill David repeatedly. But just saying he was David's enemy in no way encompasses the complex range of feelings David had for Saul. His grief for both Saul and Jonathan is large and complex and difficult to understand. Such complex emotions as those David throws into this song are particularly difficult for us to understand in a world which constantly tries to reduce complex social, political and personal issues to simple statements which can be recorded in 20- to 30-second "sound bites." The complexities of David's feelings for Saul just don't fit.

As pastor of a downtown church I have from time to time been called by reporters from the local newspaper who asked questions about the "church's" position on issues like assisted suicide, abortion or capital punishment. Time after time I would struggle to give as clear and brief an answer as possible, and then I would see my 10-minute interview reduced to a 10-word statement in the news. I finally gave up even trying to comment on such complex issues in such a forum. Some things just can't be simplified. Life is never as simple as we try to make it.

Ambiguity is part of human relationships. From Saul and Jonathan, David received love and hate, pain and pleasure, rejection and affirmation; all of the things, in fact, which all of us have received at one time or another from those with whom God has put us into relationships of mother and father, sister and brother, husband and wife, friend and neighbor. But David grieves that his relationship with Saul has ended. Life is not ideal.

Relationships are not ideal. But relationships are precious and important gifts from God. Sometimes only loss and grief show us just how precious and important others are to us: even those with whom we have some ambivalence, some disagreement, some pain in our relationship, like Saul's relationship with David. God had anointed David to be king over Israel, because God saw something in David's heart greater than in the hearts of those around him. But up to now we have not had the opportunity to see what God saw in the heart of David. I suspect that David could sing about Saul in the same way that he sings about Jonathan because, no matter how hard Saul tried, Saul could not alienate the love that was in David's heart. It is sad not to appreciate what we have until we lose it. David's great grief for Saul and Jonathan should remind us how important are the relationships which are the most invisible, because they are the ones closest to us, the ones we take most for granted.

This is why David's song is a song of hope, as well as a song of loss. It is a song of hope because the love in David's heart was poured out on both Jonathan, who loved him in return, and on Saul, who did not. It is a song of hope because it reminds us how important relationships are to us; how they transcend all the petty annoyances, disagreements, jealousies of everyday life. That's a reminder we need to hear.

Thank God for David, whose song of loss is a song of hope as well. It is a song of hope for all of us who love and need one another, even though we sometimes fail to show it. But maybe it's a song that, with a little practice, we too can learn to sing.

Forgive us, O Lord, when we reduce the complexities of life to black or white, friends or enemies, "for us" or "against us." Help us to accept the subtle shadings of human relationships, to rejoice in the mystery of friendship and to mourn those times when anger separates us from one another. Grant us the grace of compassion, and the clarity of your love, poured out on all our encounters with one another. May we live so as to reflect your presence in our words and actions, all of our life long. Amen.

CSS Publishing Company, The Way Of The King, by Charles Curley

Overview and Insights · David Becomes King and Reunites the Kingdom Politically (1:1–5:25)

2 Sam. 1:1–10:19 covers the rise of David and the restoration of Israel. David hears of Saul’s death and honors both Saul and Jonathan with a lament (1:17–27). A civil war breaks out between those loyal to the house of Saul and those loyal to David. In contrast to how David had spared Saul, David’s general, Joab, murders Saul’s general, Abner, breaking the resistance. David now has complete control of Isr…

The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016

2 Samuel 1:1-16 · David Hears of Saul’s Death

3 "Where have you come from?" David asked him. He answered, "I have escaped from the Israelite camp."

4 "What happened?" David asked. "Tell me." He said, "The men fled from the battle. Many of them fell and died. And Saul and his son Jonathan are dead."

5 Then David said to the young man who brought him the report, "How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?"

8 "He asked me, 'Who are you?' " 'An Amalekite,' I answered.

9 "Then he said to me, 'Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I'm still alive.'

13 David said to the young man who brought him the report, "Where are you from?" "I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite," he answered.

14 David asked him, "Why were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the Lord 's anointed?"

Commentary · David Hears of Saul's Death

2 Sam. 1:1–5:25 · David Unifies Judah and Israel:When Saul dies it appears that Israel’s experiment with the monarchy has been a failure. Philistine control has increased rather than decreased, and Israel is on the verge of splitting into north and south because of the dispute between Saul and David. Within seven years, however, David is able to unify the people of Judah and Israel, defeat the Philistines, and establish a strong national presence in the Near East. Israel’s golden age is about to begin.

1:1–16 · It must have been with a heavy heart that David awaited news of the battle in the north. Although an Israelite defeat would hasten David’s rise to the throne, it would also bring hardship and sorrow to the young nation.

Three days after David’s return to Ziklag, he learns the outcome of the battle (1:1–16). An Amalekite who has escaped from the scene describes how he himself put Saul out of his misery. His account differs from that of 1 Samuel 31. Most likely the Amalekite claims credit for killing Saul with the hope of getting a reward from David. He undoubtedly reached Saul before the Philistines did, saw his dead body, and took the crown as plunder. Having confirmed the death of Saul and Jonathan, David and his men tear their clothes as a sign of their grief. David displays no joy whatsoever over Saul’s death and in fact orders that the Amalekite be executed because he testified that he had killed the Lord’s anointed. It is obviously not lost on the historian how ironic it is that an Amalekite is executed for Saul’s death since Saul’s downfall began with the failure to destroy the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:18–19; 28:18). In light of David’s recent conflicts with the Amalekites (1 Samuel 30), the young man’s hope for a reward was slim to begin with.

David’s harsh treatment of Saul’s alleged murderer is an important part of David’s “apology.” To avoid the charge of being a usurper, David expresses displeasure with anyone who hastens the demise of Saul and his family. When Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth is assassinated, David likewise orders the execution of the two assassins (4:10–12). No one in the tribe of Benjamin can say that David is supporting those who have killed his political rivals.

The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Big Idea: The Lord fulfills his promises to his chosen servants as his people depend on his providence and align their desires with his purposes.

Understanding the Text

With Saul’s death, David’s path was open to the throne of Israel. This next part of the unfolding story (2:1–5:5) tells how David fulfills his destiny and ascends the throne. This is a distinct literary unit, marked out by an inclusio. It begins with David’s being anointed in Hebron by the men of Judah (2:1–4) and ends with all Israel coming to Hebron and anointing him king over the entire nation (5:1–5). In between, the narrator tells how Benjamite opposition is eliminated, but not by any wrongdoing on David’s part.

After Saul’s death, David does not try to seize the throne. He first asks the Lord if he should even return to Judah, and when he does, in response to the Lord’s positive reply, the men of Judah come to him and anoint him king. Saulide opposition to David is in time removed, but the narrator is quick to absolve David of any wrongdoing. David commends the men of Jabesh Gilead for their loyalty to Saul, and he tries to maintain a nonaggression policy against the house of Saul. Abner eventually transfers his loyalty to David and recognizes David’s divine calling (3:17–18), only to be murdered by Joab. Benjamite assassins murder Ish-bosheth, whose death David swiftly avenges (4:11–12). David does not endorse the murders of Abner and Ish-bosheth, and the narrator absolves him of complicity in their deaths (cf. 3:28, 37; 4:9–11).

The narrator’s overall portrayal of David is definitely positive, especially when he is contrasted with Saul, who desperately tried to hold on to his royal power and treated David as an enemy. However, along the way the seeds of trouble are planted: David’s harem grows, and he fails to bring Joab to justice for his murderous attack on Abner. His growing attention to women will escalate (cf. 5:13) and culminate in his devastating affair with Bathsheba, and his lack of attention to justice within his own royal court and family will contribute to Absalom’s rebellion, with its attendant chaos and pain.

Historical and Cultural Background

When the Israelites make David king, they recall an oracle in which the Lord says that David will “shepherd” his people (5:2). The metaphor of the king as a divinely appointed shepherd is common throughout the ancient Near East. Examples abound from Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, and Assyria.1 For example, a Sumerian text describes the god Enlil’s choice of King Shulgi as follows: “Enlil chose Shulgi in (his) pure heart, he entrusted the people to him. The lead-rope and the staff he hung on his arm—he is (henceforth) the shepherd of all the lands” (COS, 1:553).

Interpretive Insights

2:1 David inquired of the Lord. David has learned through experience that he must consult the Lord for direction (1 Sam. 23:1–4; 30:8).2

2:6 I too will show you the same favor because you have done this. David’s message to Jabesh Gilead is important for several reasons. Saul is dead, but not due to David’s actions in any way. David, the loyal follower of Saul, is Saul’s rightful successor, and he welcomes the allegiance of Saul’s loyal subjects.

3:9 what the Lord promised him on oath. Abner’s confession is another piece of crucial evidence in the narrator’s apology for David. Even Saul’s loyal general (v. 8) acknowledges David’s right to the throne.3

3:18 For the Lord promised David. The promise as quoted by Abner does not appear earlier in the story. Ironically it resembles God’s promise to Saul (see 1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1 [LXX]). In Abner’s mind, David has replaced Saul as God’s chosen deliverer of Israel. Abner joins the other characters in the story that have acknowledged David’s royal destiny, including Jonathan (1 Sam. 23:17), Saul (24:20), and Abigail (25:28–30).

3:21 my lord the king. David addressed Saul in this way (24:8; 26:17), and he referred to Saul as Abner’s lord and king (1 Sam. 26:15). But now that Saul has passed from the scene, Abner has switched his allegiance, and David accepts his loyalty. Before this, David has been referred to as “(a) king” (1 Sam. 16:1; 2 Sam. 2:4, 7, 11; 3:17) or even as “king of the land” (by the Philistines; 1 Sam. 21:11). But Abner’s use of the article (“the king”) marks a turning point in the description of David. Eight more times in this chapter he will be called “the king,” seven times by the narrator (vv. 24, 31–33, 36–38; in v. 23 he is called “the king” in a quotation).

3:28 I and my kingdom are forever innocent before the Lord concerning the blood of Abner. The text goes out of its way to exonerate David. It tells us that David did not know about Joab’s message or the murder until after the fact. When he does find out, he protests his innocence, calls a curse down on Joab and Abishai, orders and leads a state-sponsored funeral procession, and calls another curse down upon Joab for good measure.

4:2 from the tribe of Benjamin. It is important to the narrator’s defense of David to identify the assassins as Benjamites. Two of Ish-bosheth’s own tribal kinsmen kill him, not David’s supporters.

4:8 Saul, your enemy. The Benjamite assassins cast Saul in the role of David’s “enemy.” Others have done the same, including the narrator (1 Sam. 18:29), David’s men (24:4), Saul (24:19), and Abishai (26:8), but David did not use this designation for Saul, and his response here shows that he does not view Saul in this manner.

the Lord has avenged my lord the king. Earlier David appealed to the Lord for justice and prayed that the Lord would avenge Saul’s offenses against him, but he refused to lift a hand against Saul (1 Sam. 24:12). Having consistently taken this stance toward Saul, he is not about to tolerate this crime against Saul’s innocent son (cf. v. 11).

4:11 when wicked men have killed an innocent man. David has them executed on the spot for murdering an innocent man. He characterizes them as “wicked men” (resha‘im). Earlier David quoted a proverb that used this same term: “From evildoers [resha‘im] come evil deeds” (1 Sam. 24:13a). David refused to lift a hand against Saul, because he realized that to do so would be an evil deed, characteristic of evildoers, and he wanted to demonstrate to all that his intentions toward Saul were not evil. Having refused to do evil himself, he is not going to tolerate such a deed being done on his behalf.

5:1 All the tribes of Israel came to David. The inclusion of “all” depicts national unity and emphasizes the complete support that David receives (cf. Josh. 24:1; 1 Sam. 10:20). The tribes of Israel initiate this covenant with David; he does not solicit their support (cf. 2:4).

We are your own flesh and blood.They identify themselves as David’s “own flesh and blood” (“your bone and your flesh” [AT]), emphasizing their common ancestry as descendants of Jacob. The expression is used elsewhere of flesh-and-blood kinship relations (Gen. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 19:12–13).

5:2 You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler.There is no earlier reference to the oracle quoted, but it appears to allude to Samuel’s statement to Saul regarding the one who would succeed him (1 Sam. 13:14) and is similar to Abigail’s assuring word to David (25:30).4The people do not grant unbridled authority to David, however. The divine oracle speaks of him as a shepherd who will care for the Lord’s people, and here they refer to him as “ruler” (nagid), not “king” (see the comments above on 1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; and 25:30).

Theological Insights

Saul’s death brought humiliation to Israel. Even the new king in waiting, David, responded with sorrow and lamentation. However, as in the case of Eli’s death and the capture of the ark, the darkness of judgment was not permanent (cf. Ps. 30:5). God’s decree of judgment against Saul proved to be reliable, but so is his promise to place David on the throne of Israel. David seeks the Lord’s guidance and waits on divine providence. The Lord in turn brings to realization the promise he has stated in conjunction with his rejection of Saul (1 Sam. 13:14; 15:28) and has reiterated on several occasions through various voices (20:15; 21:11; 23:17; 24:20; 25:28; 26:25; 28:17). For the exiles, suffering the humiliation of defeat, this is encouraging. The Lord has promised that he will eventually restore his people by raising up a new David, who will lead them into a new era of divine blessing (see esp. Isa. 9:6–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 30:8–9; 33:15–26; Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:24–25; Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11–12; Zech. 12:7–14).

Teaching the Text

1. Though the fulfillment of God’s promises may seem to be delayed and even jeopardized, God is faithful to bring them to realization. As David ran from Saul and then, following Saul’s death, reigns over the region of Judah for seven and a half years, he must be wondering when God will fulfill his promise to place him on the throne of Israel. Despite apparent delays and opposition, God’s promise is fulfilled. God’s people today wait and pray for his promise of a kingdom of peace to be realized in conjunction with the second coming of the new, ideal Davidic king, Jesus the Messiah (Matt. 6:10). Though it may seem to be delayed, causing some to scoff and doubt, it will arrive in God’s own good time (Matt. 24:36; 2 Pet. 3:3–11).

2. The Lord’s chosen servants trust in his timing and do not resort to wrongdoing while waiting for the fulfillment of the divine promise. On several occasions, David came close to death and wavered in his faith. But to his credit, he did not force the issue by killing Saul or by trying to seize the throne following Saul’s death. He is not involved in any way in the murder of Abner or Ish-bosheth. David knows that the Lord is his protector (4:9), and he waits on the Lord to fulfill his promise.

3. God’s people do well to recognize his purposes and act accordingly. As noted above (see “Theological Insights”), God has made known his intention to replace Saul on the throne of Israel; many, including Saul and those closest to David, recognize David as God’s choice to be Saul’s successor. When Saul has been killed and David has returned, Judah and then in due time Israel align themselves with God’s purpose. Through David’s military exploits under Saul, the Lord has previewed his future king for Israel; finally the people, recognizing David’s gifts and calling, willingly anoint him as their king in recognition of God’s purposes for him and Israel.

Illustrating the Text

God’s seemingly delayed promises are nevertheless reliable.
Letters: Letters and Papers from Prison, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer (1906–45), a German pastor, theologian, and martyr, understood the pain of delay as he became a part of a movement to overthrow Hitler. Arrested in 1943, he was hanged a few weeks before the Allied liberation. Letters found after his death show his anguish over separation from his family and fiancée, reflecting the full range of his feelings while imprisoned. Yet, while being honest, Bonhoeffer affirms trust in God’s promises and faithfulness in spite of circumstances: “Who stands fast?” he writes. “Only the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedient and responsible action in faith and to exclusive allegiance to God—the responsible man who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God.”5

God may use secondary causes, including human decisions, to accomplish his purposes.
Quote: Leap over a Wall, by Eugene Peterson.

So many people quit reading the Bible or repudiate it: “I can’t read the Bible, especially the Old Testament—too much fighting, too much brutality.” That’s exactly why Christians do read it: we find God’s purposes being worked out in the precise moral and political, social and cultural conditions that we wake up to each morning, a world of shabby morality and opportunist companions, religious violence, religious propaganda—the many, many sons of Zeruiah that are too hard for us.6

God’s people must align themselves with his revealed purposes.
Letters: Letters and Papers from Prison, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. “God is not a ‘god of gaps.’ . . . We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know,” Bonhoeffer says. “It is his will to be recognized in life, and not only when death comes; in health and vigour, and not only in suffering.”7

Teaching the Text by Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Baker Publishing Group, 2016

Dictionary

Direct Matches

Amalekites

The Amalekites inhabited the Negev territory south of Judah (Num. 13:29). The OT represents the Amalekites as descended from Esau and thus related to the Edomites (Gen. 36:12, 16).

The history of relations between the Amalekites and the Israelites is one of perpetual hostility. The Amalekites attacked the Israelites shortly after the Red Sea crossing. The outcome of the battle included a declaration of perpetual war between the Amalekites and the God of Israel (Exod. 17:8 16; Deut. 25:17–19). There were several subsequent conflicts (Num. 14:45; Judg. 3:13; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12), continuing in the campaigns of Saul (1 Sam. 15:1–9) and David (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:16–20).

The final chapter in the historic struggle between Israel and the Amalekites is Mordecai and Esther’s confrontation with Haman, who is identified as an “Agagite”—that is, a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king spared by Saul (Esther 3:1; cf. 1 Sam. 15:8).

Anointed

The English word “messiah” derives from the Hebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh) is christos, which in English is “Christ.”

In English translations of the Bible, the word “messiah” (“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT, kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil as a means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respective offices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1 Sam. 16:1 13; 2 Sam. 2:4, 7).

The expectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,” arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a king who would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal king began with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa. 9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidic kingdom.

The harsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule in such a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an ideal son of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its current plight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son (v. 7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v. 2), will receive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v. 8). God promises that “you will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (v. 9; see NIV footnote). Jesus demonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.” In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The two key Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselves enigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession (8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “You are the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the suffering of the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphas at his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “I am,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “You have said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as the exalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.

Jesus no doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating an inadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role. Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism, he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secure its physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “son of David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distance himself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “son of David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as other characters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; 15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a group of Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them (John 6:15).

In Mark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandings of the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he is something more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’ implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with his teaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiah who will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and through whom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Roman legions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.

Army

The army of Israel was primarily a volunteer military force directed by God and his word. Deuteronomy 20 establishes the guidelines for warfare, Num. 1 describes organization, and Num. 2:17 highlights God’s strategic position as commander in the sacred event of war. Israelite warriors were men twenty years and older from the nation’s tribes, clans, and families. The Levites were appointed tabernacle caretakers and not counted in the census for military duties. The priest was responsible for addressing the nation prior to a battle and then leading the battle procession in connection with the ark of the covenant.

The Israelite army structure is not overly developed in the biblical material. Under God as commander in chief was the king, who then worked in connection with his commanders and officers to execute God’s will by means of a tribal confederation. Prior to the monarchy, God worked through Moses and Joshua to rally the men for battle. Samuel warned the nation that the king would abuse the volunteerism of the army and take their sons and make them render military service with his chariots and horses (1 Sam. 8:11 12). This warning was realized under the leadership of Solomon and Rehoboam. Army divisions included a list of family heads, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, and their officers. In addition, a period of their service was noted (1 Chron. 27).

Army size was not a matter of importance for success in battle. God as divine warrior led the nation in battle and determined the outcome in keeping with his sovereign purposes. Only a few Israelites were necessary to defeat thousands (Lev. 26:8; Deut. 32:8). The defeat of Pharaoh and his army in the exodus and the conquest provides the most dramatic premonarchy illustrations of God’s defiance of the numbers. During the monarchy, God orchestrated the defeat of the vast Aramean army with a smaller Israelite army (1 Kings 20:27). On the other hand, when the Israelites were disobedient to the covenant, they would be put to flight (Josh. 7).

Blood

The word for “blood” in the Bible is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:3 4), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.

The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).

Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).

The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).

During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).

Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).

The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.

Camp

Temporary homes for seminomadic peoples as well as military personnel.

After the exodus and during the wilderness journeys, the Israelites resided in this type of settlement (Exod. 14:2, 9; Num. 33; Deut. 2:14 15). Moses led the Israelites out of the camp to meet with God at Sinai (Exod. 19:16–17).

Each tribe had its own camp (Num. 2). Because of the presence of God in its midst, Israel’s camp was to be holy. Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain laws regulating camp life (Lev. 14:3, 8; Deut. 23:10–11). Any unclean person or thing was to be put outside the encampment (Num. 5:1–4; Deut. 23:14). The angel of the Lord encamped around them (Ps. 34:7). The Israelite army encamped at numerous places during the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 4:19) and the monarchical period (1 Sam. 29:1).

The NT uses the Greek term parembolē to refer to the Israelite camp where animals sacrificed as sin offerings were “burned outside the camp” (Heb. 13:11–13). Since Jesus suffered outside the gate as a sacrifice for us, believers are called to join him outside the camp, “bearing the disgrace he bore.” Revelation 20:9 speaks of “the camp of God’s people.”

Crown

Headgear signifying honor, victory, power, or authority. A crown was worn by monarchs in the ancient world to designate their royal power, often including a golden headband with precious stones in it, as well as a turban.

There are two important types of crowns in the OT: the priestly and the royal. A royal crown first appears with Saul (2 Sam. 1:10) and is worn by monarchs after him, including David (2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Chron. 20:2; see also Pss. 21:3; 132:18) and Joash (2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chron. 23:11). The book of Exodus depicts a crownlike turban to which is affixed a golden “sacred emblem” bearing the inscription “Holy to the Lord,” which is to be worn by the high priest (Exod. 28:36 37; 29:6; see also, e.g., 39:30; Lev. 8:9).

Zechariah 6:11–14 looks to a future messiah, “the Branch,” who will be both priest and king, thus wearing a priestly and royal crown. Before his crucifixion, Jesus’ tormentors place on his head a mock crown made of thorns (Matt. 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2, 5). In the book of Revelation both godly and satanic figures wear crowns: the elders in heaven (4:4, 10), the rider of the white horse (6:2), the locusts from the Abyss (9:7), the woman clothed with the sun (12:1), the dragon and the beast (12:3; 13:1), the one “like a son of man” (14:14), and Christ himself (19:12).

David

The second king of Israel (r. 1010 970 BC), founder of a dynasty that continued with his son Solomon (r. 970–931 BC), who ruled all of Israel; subsequently the remaining “sons of David” ruled the southern kingdom, Judah, until 586 BC.

Human kingship is a late development in Israel, but a number of ancient texts anticipate the establishment of the institution (Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14–20) and specifically the rise of a king from Judah (Gen. 49:8–12; Num. 24:17). Thus, it is surprising that the first king of Israel is not from Judah, but from Benjamin. When the people ask Samuel for a king, he anoints Saul (1 Sam. 8–12), who proves to be a tremendous disappointment. He forfeits the establishment of his dynasty when he shows a lack of confidence in God by rashly offering prebattle sacrifices (13:13–14). God then rejects Saul as king because he does not execute God’s full judgment against the Amalekites as he knows he should (15:23).

Eventually Saul’s moment of judgment comes. Saul’s final battle is against the Philistines, the major foreign force still inside the borders of the promised land. Both Saul and Jonathan meet their end on Mount Gilboa, and David sings songs that express his sadness over their deaths (1 Sam. 31–2 Sam. 1).

Even with Saul out of the way, David’s rise to kingship is not easy. He is immediately crowned king of Judah (2 Sam. 2:1–7), but the northern tribes choose to follow Ish-Bosheth, the son of Saul. War erupts between the two kingdoms. Eventually, though, the powerful general Abner abandons his support of Saul’s son, sealing the end of that dynasty. Ish-Bosheth is killed by his own men, and soon David becomes king over all Israel (5:1–5).

David’s kingship leads to significant victories that, in essence, complete the conquest of Canaan by finally subduing all the internal enemies. His men take the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and he makes it his capital (2 Sam. 5:6–16). He also defeats the Philistines, who have been a thorn in the side of Israel for years (2 Sam. 5:17–25; for other victories, see 8:1–14). In celebration, David brings the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6).

The David narrative reaches its apex when God enters into a covenant with him that establishes his dynasty (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). After David dies, his son will succeed him, and indeed his dynasty lasts for many hundreds of years (see below).

David is a good king, but not a perfect king. A turning point in his reign comes in 2 Sam. 11. Up to this point, David has been content with what God has given him. He does not grasp for anything that does not belong to him. However, when he sees the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he sends messengers to bring her to his house, where the two have sexual intercourse and she becomes pregnant. In an attempt to conceal this sin of adultery, he orders the death of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Thus, he adds the crime of murder to that of adultery.

David thinks that the sin is secret, but nothing is hidden from God, who sends his prophet Nathan to confront David (2 Sam. 12; cf. Ps. 51). The difference between Saul and David is not that the latter is perfect but rather that David, as opposed to Saul, repents when he sins. Thus, God allows his reign to continue. Even so, David feels the consequences of his sin. First, the son that Bathsheba bears from her illicit union with David is struck with illness and dies. And ever afterward, David’s family life is troubled, with great impact on the political life of Israel. Son is pitted against son (Amnon and Absalom [2 Sam. 13]), as well as son against father (Absalom and David [2 Sam. 15–18]). Absalom temporarily deposes his father from the throne, but David eventually regains the kingship, though at the cost of the heartbreaking loss of his son.

Even at the very end, there is conflict within David’s house. When David has grown old, another son, Adonijah, attempts to take the throne, with support from powerful people such as Joab and Abiathar. At the instigation of Bathsheba and Nathan, however, David places the son of his choosing, Solomon, on the throne (1 Kings 1). David then dies after a reign of forty-one years, seven in Hebron and the rest over all Israel (1 Kings 2:10–12).

David’s greatest legacy is the dynasty that bears his name. Beginning with Solomon, however, his successors do not continue his spiritual legacy. Although a number of kings do some good, only Hezekiah (r. 727–698 BC) and Josiah (r. 639–609 BC) are given unqualified approval. Eventually, the Davidic rule comes to an end in Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians (586 BC). But God is not done with his redemptive purposes, and his promise to David is that he will have a ruler on the throne “forever” (2 Sam. 7:16). The NT recognizes that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of this promise. He is the greater son of David, the one who is the Christ or Messiah, the anointed king. Jesus is the one who reigns forever in heaven. The life and the rule of David foreshadow the messianic rule of Jesus Christ.

Earth

Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12 13).

Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).

For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1 Kings 2:1–4). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).

Fall

“The fall” refers to the events of the first human couple’s sin in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2 3). Although the word “fall” does not occur in the account, Christians have used the term to describe it, taking their cues from Paul’s writings (esp. Rom. 5:12–21). The term is important because it reflects an interpretation that the events in the garden are the entrance of human sin and that the sin has universal effects on humankind.

Gilboa

A crescent-shaped hill at the northern end of the Israelite hill country where it borders the strategic and open Jezreel Valley. Gilboa’s location made it a natural staging ground for military action. Gideon brought his troops to the spring of Harod (Judg. 7:1) at the base of Gilboa before defeating the Midianites camped across the valley. Later, King Saul brought his troops to Gilboa to battle the Philistines camped across the valley, only to die with his sons on Gilboa (1 Sam. 28:4; 31:1, 8; 2 Sam. 1:6, 21).

Jonathan

(1) A priest who served the idolatrous shrine at Dan. According to the best textual traditions, he was a descendant of Moses, though the MT changes “Moses” to “Manasseh” out of embarrassment at the association (Judg. 18:30).

(2) The oldest son of Saul, the first king of Israel. As such, he would have been heir to the throne, but his father’s actions compromised the dynasty (1 Sam. 13:13 14). Jonathan’s great integrity throws into contrast his father’s meanness, particularly in regard to David. Jonathan’s military skill and bravery were notable. He led his father’s army in victory against the Philistine garrison at Geba (1 Sam. 13:1–7). Even though he was a loyal son, his paranoid father treated him poorly and even suspected him of collaborating with his enemy David (1 Sam. 20:30–33).

Although David and Jonathan were fast friends, they did not conspire against Saul, so Jonathan helped David escape his father’s murderous plans. Indeed, Jonathan expressed his deep love for David by handing over to him his robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt, a gift that may even have indicated his belief that David, not he, should be the next king (1 Sam. 18:4). Even so, Jonathan stayed with his father until the end. Jonathan died at his father’s side as they fought the Philistines at Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31:1–3). David deeply mourned the loss of his dear friend, whose love was “more wonderful than that of women” (2 Sam. 1:26).

(3) The son of Abiathar, who was high priest at the time of David. Jonathan functioned as a spy for David during the rebellion of Absalom (2 Sam. 15:27, 36; 17:17, 20). He and his father sided with the Adonijah faction, so when Solomon became king, they were disenfranchised from the high priesthood in favor of Zadok (1 Kings 1:42–45).

Pray

In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.

A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of the one praying.

The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.

Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19 20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26).

Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).

The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1 Cor. 14:15).

Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).

Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1 Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).

Saul

(1) The first king of Israel (1 Sam. 9:1 2 Sam. 1:27; 1 Chron. 9:35–10:14). Out of fear of their enemy the Philistines as well as displeasure over Samuel’s wicked sons, the people of Israel asked Samuel for a king like all the other nations had (1 Sam. 8). Though God and Samuel both expressed displeasure with the people’s request, God directed Samuel to anoint Saul as king. Saul’s initial reluctance to make his role public and also his hesitation to immediately confront the Philistines are not a sign of humility, but rather are an early example of the kind of disobedience to God and his prophet Samuel that eventually would bring God’s great anger against him.

Saul’s first significant failure, however, occurred before a battle with the Philistines, while he and his army were camped at Gilgal (1 Sam. 13). Before initiating battle, it was necessary to offer sacrifices. Samuel the priest, however, was late in arriving. Saul grew nervous because his troops were deserting, so he sacrificed the animals. When Samuel arrived, he confronted Saul. After all, with God on one’s side, large numbers of troops were unnecessary. Saul thus displayed a lack of confidence in God by his actions. For this, Samuel announced that he would not found a dynasty of kings (13:13–14).

Soon thereafter, Saul showed his disobedience in another important aspect of war. Upon victory, the king should immediately offer all the plunder to God. In addition, if the enemy came from within the land, all the captives were to be put to death (see Holy War). However, after defeating the hated Amalekites (cf. Exod. 17:8–16; Deut. 25:17–19), Saul kept the sheep and did not personally execute King Agag, their leader (1 Sam. 15). For this, Samuel announced God’s decision to remove him from the kingship and anoint another king (15:26).

At this time, Samuel anointed David, but David did not immediately become king (1 Sam. 16:1–13). For a period of time, David entered into Saul’s service (16:14–23). It was never David’s intention to forcibly remove Saul from the throne (1 Sam. 24; 26), but Saul grew intensely jealous of this popular young man. Indeed, Saul was a man deeply plagued by mental problems, perhaps depression and paranoia, even before the conflict with David. His jealousy also brought him into conflict with his own brave son, Jonathan, who had a deep friendship with David. Saul ejected David from the court and then spent much of his energy trying to track him down and kill him. He was, however, unsuccessful.

Eventually, God abandoned Saul. He was defeated and killed by the Philistines in the battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31), and David mourned his death and the death of his friend Jonathan (2 Sam. 1).

(2) Another name for the apostle Paul (see Paul).

Ziklag

A town in the Negev of Judah, originally given to the tribe of Simeon during the settlement of Canaan (Josh. 15:31; 19:5). This town subsequently was taken by the Philistines, only later to come into focus as the town given to David by Achish king of Gath (1 Sam. 27:6). David and his six hundred men stayed at Ziklag for a year and four months. During this time, David and his men joined Achish in battle against Saul. While David and his men were out with Achish, Ziklag was overrun, plundered, and burned by marauding Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:1). David quickly caught the Amalekites and saved Ziklag’s inhabitants. Ziklag is also the location where David received the news of Saul’s death (2 Sam. 1:1 4). Ziklag is said to have been resettled under Nehemiah after the Babylonian captivity (Neh. 11:28). Current archaeology has proposed several possible excavations of Ziklag, but none has been shown conclusively to be the biblical Ziklag.

Direct Matches

Armlet

A band worn around the upper arm. These bands were part of the spoil collected by the Israelites during their destruction of certain Midianites (Num. 31:50), and one was taken from Saul after his death by the Amalekite who killed him on Mount Gilboa (2 Sam. 1:10).

Crown

There are two important types of crowns in the OT: the priestly and the royal. A royal crown first appears with Saul (2 Sam. 1:10) and is worn by monarchs after him, including David (2 Sam. 12:30; 1 Chron. 20:2; see also Pss. 21:3; 132:18) and Joash (2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chron. 23:11). Jeremiah 13:18 warns of a day when the royal crowns of Judah will be taken away, signifying the monarchy’s fall from power. Esther wears a Persian royal crown (Esther 1:11; 2:17), as does Mordecai (8:15).

The book of Exodus depicts a crownlike turban to which is affixed a golden “sacred emblem” bearing the inscription “Holy to the Lord,” which is to be worn by the high priest (Exod. 28:36–37; 29:6; see also, e.g., 39:30; Lev. 8:9).

Crowns symbolize human honor (Ps. 8:5; Prov. 4:9; Heb. 2:7, 9) and kingly power (Ps. 89:39), as well as the loss of such glory (Job 19:9; Ezek. 21:26) and its ultimate renewal in eternal life (1 Pet. 5:4). Similarly, crowns often represent eternal salvation (Ps. 149:4; James 1:12; Rev. 2:10). Paul even calls his converts his “crown” (Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19). The figure of a crownlike garland, the prize for victory in Greco-Roman athletic games, signifies the Christian’s final enjoyment of eternal bliss (1 Cor. 9:25; 2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8). Crowns portray divine blessings, including joy (Isa. 35:10; 51:11), love (Ps. 103:4), and beauty, the last of which symbolizes divine restoration after judgment (Isa. 61:3). God is even portrayed as the crown of his people (Isa. 28:5). In addition, a crown stands for several human features, such as wealth (Prov. 14:24) and pride (Isa. 28:1, 3).

Dust

The primary term in Hebrew is ’apar (“loose earth, dust”), which is related to the Hebrew terms for cultivatable “soil” (’adamah [Gen. 3:19]) and “earth” (’erets [Gen. 13:16]). These terms are semantically close enough to be used interchangeably (cf. 1 Sam. 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2 with Josh. 7:6; Ezek. 27:30).

In the OT, the imagery of dust is used to illustrate notions of quantity and abundance (Num. 23:10; 2 Chron. 1:9; Job 27:16; Ps. 78:27; Isa. 40:12; Zech. 9:3). This stock of imagery is applied to annihilation (2 Sam. 22:43), worthlessness (Zeph. 1:17), humiliation (Isa. 25:12), and mourning (Isa. 2:10; Rev. 18:19). In the OT, ’apar alone is used figuratively over sixty times to refer to judgment. Thus, “to lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9) is a sign of subjugation. The opposite is “to shake off the dust,” a sign of repudiation (Isa. 52:2; Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). It is this figurative use of “dust” that facilitates the theological use of ’apar. Yahweh acts to humiliate, debase, destroy, and “cast down” into the dust (Isa. 25:12); and he also restores, “lifting up” to remove the shame (1 Kings 16:2; Ps. 113:7).

The significance of ’apar is powerfully portrayed in the creation of humans. Whereas animals are made from the “earth,” humankind emerges from more refined material, the dust (’apar [Gen. 2:7]). In an etymological pun, the “human” (’adam) rises from the “humus” (’adamah; cf. Ps. 103:14; Job 4:19). Death comes when God withdraws the human’s “breath of life” (cf. Gen. 2:7), causing the groundling to collapse back to the ground like “crushed dust” (cf. Pss. 90:3; 104:29; 146:4). Human life is fragile, dependent, and transitory. This is the teacher’s argument and also the reason that he stresses death as the inevitable end of both human and animal life (Eccles. 3:18–20). However, Daniel knows that “multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake” (Dan. 12:2).

Gilboa

Obeisance

Physical movement conveying deference, such as a bow, made to someone holding a position of higher authority. In the Bible, doing obeisance involves falling down and bowing one’s face to the ground (1 Sam. 24:8; 28:14; 2 Sam. 1:2; 14:4; 1 Chron. 21:21). Such action is deemed appropriate when coming into the presence of a king or one holding royal authority (Gen. 43:28; Esther 3:2–5), and it may be performed when accepting a royal gift (2 Sam. 16:4) or acknowledging a granted request (2 Sam. 14:22). Kings may do obeisance in the presence of one of higher authority, as when Saul bows before Samuel (1 Sam. 28:14).

Saul

(1) The first king of Israel (1 Sam. 9:1–2 Sam. 1:27; 1 Chron. 9:35–10:14). Out of fear of their enemy the Philistines as well as displeasure over Samuel’s wicked sons, the people of Israel asked Samuel for a king like all the other nations had (1 Sam. 8). Though God and Samuel both expressed displeasure with the people’s request, God directed Samuel to anoint Saul as king. Saul’s initial reluctance to make his role public and also his hesitation to immediately confront the Philistines are not a sign of humility, but rather are an early example of the kind of disobedience to God and his prophet Samuel that eventually would bring God’s great anger against him.

Eventually, God abandoned Saul. He was defeated and killed by the Philistines in the battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. 31), and David mourned his death and the death of his friend Jonathan (2 Sam. 1).

(2) Another name for the apostle Paul (see Paul).

Ziklag

A town in the Negev of Judah, originally given to the tribe of Simeon during the settlement of Canaan (Josh. 15:31; 19:5). This town subsequently was taken by the Philistines, only later to come into focus as the town given to David by Achish king of Gath (1 Sam. 27:6). David and his six hundred men stayed at Ziklag for a year and four months. During this time, David and his men joined Achish in battle against Saul. While David and his men were out with Achish, Ziklag was overrun, plundered, and burned by marauding Amalekites (1 Sam. 30:1). David quickly caught the Amalekites and saved Ziklag’s inhabitants. Ziklag is also the location where David received the news of Saul’s death (2 Sam. 1:1–4). Ziklag is said to have been resettled under Nehemiah after the Babylonian captivity (Neh. 11:28). Current archaeology has proposed several possible excavations of Ziklag, but none has been shown conclusively to be the biblical Ziklag.

Secondary Matches

The following suggestions occured because 2 Samuel 1:1-16 is mentioned in the definition.

Abstinence

Abstinence refers to intentional restraint from participating in some activity.

One of the primary examples of abstinence throughout the Bible is fasting. People abstained from consuming food in times of seeking God’s intervention (Esther 4:16), repenting of some sin (Ezra 10:6), responding to a disaster (2 Sam. 1:12), or preparing for a new venture (Matt. 4:2). One plausible rationale for fasting is that it permits clarity of focus and expresses reliance upon God for sustenance (Ezra 8:23).

Other examples of abstinence in the OT might be expressed in matters of degrees. Food laws prevented some kinds of food from being consumed at all (Lev. 11), other types could not be consumed if found under certain conditions (Lev. 17:15; Deut. 14:21), and still others could not be consumed if prepared in certain ways (Exod. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). Such abstinence was for the expressed purpose of consecrating the people of Israel (Lev. 11:44). Similarly, abstinence from work on the Sabbath was for all the people of Israel (Exod. 20:8–11), while abstinence from fermented drink and any produce of the grapevine was reserved for those under the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:3–4) and demonstrated holiness. The corporate focus in these practices served as an impetus for reflections upon abstinence in the NT. Jesus insisted that fasting be accompanied by proper motives (Matt. 6:16–18), and Paul suggested that abstinence be practiced when an activity might cause another to stumble (1 Cor. 8). Sexual laws called for abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage. Paul even allowed for temporary periods of sexual abstinence within marriage so that the couple could devote themselves to prayer (1 Cor. 7:5–6).

Authority

The concept of authority in Scripture includes two distinct elements. First, a person has authority in various settings if he or she has the right to tell others what to do and decide how matters should be arranged. Second, a person has authority if he or she has not only the right to rule, as in the first case, but also the power to control, so that what this person decrees actually happens. When the angel of the Lord tells Hagar, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her,” he employs the first aspect of authority (Gen. 16:9). Hagar must do what Sarah tells her to do. The same sense of authority operates in Deut. 1:15, where Moses recalls, “So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you” (cf. Exod. 18:13–27). On the other hand, when Yahweh says of his word, “It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it,” the second sense of authority also plays a role (Isa. 55:11; cf. Heb. 4:12). Likewise regarding the one who “overcomes” in the book of Revelation: the Son gives the church authority, and its people rule the nations “with an iron scepter” (2:26–27). Both ideas—forensic right and power to effect—arise in that context.

The authority of Christ is a prominent theme of the Gospels, being evidence of his deity and messianic status. In Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with the crowd’s wonder that Jesus teaches “as one who had authority,” unlike the teachers of the law (7:28–29). Jesus then displays his authority over diseases (8:1–10), natural forces (8:26–27), and demonic entities (8:28–32), culminating in his authority to forgive sins (9:6) and resuscitate the dead (9:18–26). Mark and Luke also include parallel passages that emphasize the authority of Christ over similar domains. John’s Gospel highlights the authority of Jesus to judge (5:27), to lay down his life and take it up again (10:18), and to grant eternal life to those who abide in him (17:2). The authority of Christ over all events, even the worst of them, is the grand theme of the book of Revelation. Jesus has the right and power to rule for the sake of his church, overcoming all powers that usurp authority in opposition to him (Rev. 4–5; 13; 20). Finally, even the Great Commission proclaims the supreme authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18; cf. Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10). With God, we expect authority as right and as power always to coincide in the end.

On this same trajectory, the church must submit to authority, first to God and then to human rulers, in the latter case when it can be done in good conscience. Paul’s references to Jesus as “Lord” throughout the Corinthian letters highlight his authority over those whom he has “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:9–20). For his own part, Paul can implicitly “pull rank” on the Corinthians, citing his own God-given authority over them (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). No one should “lord it over” others (Luke 22:25–26), but even when they do, the servant must respect the master’s authority (1 Pet. 2:17–19). Wives must submit to the servant leadership of their husbands (Eph. 5:22), children must obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3), slaves must yield to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8), and laypersons must obey the church’s elders (Heb. 13:17).

Respect for authority also extends to secular governments, whatever the character of their leaders. Even though Saul had intended to kill David (1 Sam. 20:33), David is outraged that anyone would kill Saul (2 Sam. 1:14). The apostle Paul has many reasons to distrust secular governments and defy their authority; yet when he is subjected to official abuse, he respects Rome’s laws (Acts 16:16–40; 21–28). In Rom. 13:1–6 Paul commands the church to be subject to governing authorities, assuming that God has established them, so that “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted” (v. 2). In 1 Tim. 2:1–3 the church is called to prayer for secular rulers. These passages do not require obedience to human authority even when it conflicts with the will of God (Acts 5:29), but they do prevent the church from hindering the gospel with outbreaks of revolutionary enthusiasm.

Books of Samuel

The books of Samuel tell the story of how kingship began in Israel and was subsequently secured under David. Almost all of David’s own story is recounted in Samuel, including God’s promise to him of a dynasty. This promise became a key seedbed for the messianic hope within the OT, which finds its fulfillment in Jesus as David’s son (Matt. 1:1).

Genre and Purpose

Samuel is part of a block of texts running from Joshua through Kings (excluding Ruth), which is known in the Hebrew Bible as the Former Prophets. This block offers a more or less continuous account of Israel’s life in the land of promise from its entry under Joshua until the exile after Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25). Any assessment of the genre and purpose of Samuel must consider its relationship to these surrounding texts, though it should also recognize the distinctive elements of Samuel itself.

At its simplest, Samuel is a work of narrative prose that tells how kingship began in Israel and was secured under David after the failure of Saul, though it also contains a number of important poems. Although contemporary history writing would not be done in the same way, since Samuel points to the ways in which God is active throughout this time, Samuel certainly offers a testimony to this crucial period in Israel’s history. It is not the whole story of the period, as its testimony is concerned with a specific set of issues, and that testimony is related through God’s purposes for Samuel, Saul, and David. But this observation is vital for appreciating that Samuel is not just the story of how kingship came to Israel but is specifically a theological examination of it. It explores how God was at work, fulfilling the hope for kingship that had been expressed through Judg. 17–21, while also providing hope that the exile was not the end of his purposes for Israel as a whole and the kings of David’s line in particular. We should not think of this as a dry piece of history writing, for an important element is also that the telling of this story should entertain and grip those who either read or (perhaps more likely) heard it. Knowing that God had acted in the past for his people and that these actions continued to be important was not enough; the excitement that this should generate also needed to be apparent in the skill with which the story was told.

Outline

I. The Rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1–7)

II. The Birth of Monarchy (1 Sam. 8–12)

III. Saul’s Early Reign and Rejection (1 Sam. 13–15)

IV. Long Rivalry Narrative: David and Saul (1 Sam.16–2 Sam. 1)

A. David’s anointing and arrival at court (1 Sam. 16–17)

B. David within Saul’s court (1 Sam. 18–20)

C. David as an outlaw in Judah (1 Sam. 21–26)

D. David in Philistine territory and Saul’s death (1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1)

V. Short Rivalry Narrative: David and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:1–5:5)

VI. First Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 5:6–8:18)

VII. Narrative of David’s Court (2 Sam. 9–20)

A. David accepts Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9)

B. The war with Ammon and David’s sin (2 Sam. 10–12)

C. Long rebellion narrative: Absalom against David (2 Sam. 13–19)

D. Short rebellion narrative: Sheba against David (2 Sam. 20)

VIII. Second Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 21–24)

Composition

Authorship and sources. The books of Samuel are anonymous, and any assessment of their authorship needs to start with this basic fact. There is a tradition in the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b; 15a) that associates the book with Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, presumably concluding that the books of Samuel constitute the source mentioned by 1 Chron. 29:29. But this reference is only to information on David’s life and thus is unlikely to refer to the whole of Samuel. Since Samuel’s own death is recorded in 1 Sam. 25:1, the book’s title in our tradition (in the LXX the books of Samuel are the first two books of Kingdoms, which continue into Kings) is unlikely to refer to authorship. Rather, it is more likely that a later author has drawn together a range of source materials in order to offer a coherent testimony about the origins of kingship.

For some time, the main sources behind Samuel seemed to have been identified, and they included a series of Shiloh traditions concerning the end of the house of Eli and the rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1–4:1a), an ark narrative (2 Sam. 4:1b–7:1; 6), traditions concerning Saul and the origins of kingship (1 Sam. 7:2–15:35), a history of David’s rise (1 Sam. 16:1–2 Sam. 5:5), a succession narrative (2 Sam. 9–20), and a Samuel appendix (2 Sam. 21–24). Within this analysis, the place of 2 Sam. 5:6–25 and 2 Sam. 7:1–8:17 remained unclear, but the general thought was that the sources were more or less placed one after the other in their chronological sequence. But the probability of this conclusion has been challenged in recent times because the various sections of the books are clearly aware of information in other parts, so that the whole is actually well integrated. In addition, the actual boundaries of the sources remained unclear. An unfortunate effect of the source theories is that they tended to downplay some parts of the book, especially 2 Sam. 21–24, as being of less importance, whereas some recent studies have shown that they are closely integrated into the rest of the book, tying together themes developed elsewhere while also showing the structural integrity of the whole of Samuel.

Samuel is likely the end product of several stages of material collected together, rather than being the product of sources that are kept intact, but it is still a unified work. Possibly the oldest material is the collection of longer poems in 1 Sam. 2:1–10; 2 Sam. 1:17–27; 22:1–23:7, all of which draws on common themes and language and comments on the nature of kingship. The opening and closing blocks form the bookends, raising the hope of kingship (1 Sam. 2:1–10) and then commenting on how the king must submit to God’s reign (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7). In the central poem (2 Sam. 1:17–27) David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. It is likely that these poems were joined with the stories about Samuel, Saul, and David in the ninth century BC but were then carefully placed to comment on the stories and yet also be commented on by them. Further editing may have continued until the time of Hezekiah in the late eighth century BC. Later on, more or less the whole of Samuel as we know it was included in the Former Prophets, perhaps during the exile. The important point to note here is that Samuel is a carefully composed whole and not simply a collection of source materials.

Literary devices. Evidence for the nature of the book’s composition can be seen in how it employs certain literary devices throughout. Two that are worth noting are the way the text plays with narrative chronology and employs repetition in various forms. The play with narrative chronology means that although the movement of the book is broadly chronological (moving from the origins of the monarchy to the latter period of David’s reign), not every element is recorded in its actual chronological sequence, since at some points other factors were more important. Alternatively, at some points different narrative strands are brought into a chronological relationship with one another, most notably in comparing the locations of David and Saul in 1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1. A simple example of relating material outside its chronological sequence occurs in 1 Sam. 26:12, where it is said that God had caused Saul’s soldiers to sleep so that David could enter Saul’s camp only after David had reached Saul, though clearly the soldiers must already have been asleep.

At other points, the breaks with chronological sequence cover different stories about David. For example, in 2 Sam. 5:17–8:14 there are four accounts about David, two in which he overcomes enemies (5:17–25; 8:1–14) and two associated with events in Jerusalem and public worship (6:1–7:29). Since 7:1 tells us that David’s desire to build a temple came after God had delivered him from all his enemies, it follows that the events of chapter 7 must have come after those of 8:1–14. Here, arranging the material to highlight the theme of public worship was more important than placing it in chronological sequence.

This same section also demonstrates the use of repetition. Hence, 5:17–25 recounts two nearly identical defeats of the Philistines in which David must trust God, while the victories in 8:1–14 are twice said to come about because God gave David victory wherever he went (8:6, 14). Similarly, both 6:1–23 and 7:1–29 depend upon interest in the ark and thus mutually interpret each other. Other large-scale repetitions include two announcements of the coming of kingship (1 Sam. 2:10, 34), two announcements of the end of Eli and his family in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 3:10–14), and two times when David does not kill Saul (1 Sam. 24; 26). In an oral culture, such repetitions are not evidence of poor composition but rather are a crucial tool for emphasizing the central themes being developed. In addition, variations within each repetition are a tool for increasing the audience’s interest, showing that the authors of Samuel were interested in both giving historical testimony and entertaining their audience.

Text

It is generally agreed that the text of Samuel poses more than its fair share of difficulties, something that can be seen in the often significant differences between the received Hebrew text (MT) and the early translations, especially the main Greek translation (LXX). For example, in 1 Sam. 17 the best-regarded edition of the LXX lacks vv. 12–31, 50, 55–58, and even in shared material it is sometimes significantly shorter. It is generally agreed that the Greek version resolves a number of anomalies, but is this because the MT has been expanded or because the LXX has been abbreviated? In addition, three significant Samuel manuscripts were found at Qumran. Although two of these are only fragmentary, one covers significant portions of Samuel. Although the disputed portions of 1 Sam. 17 are absent from it, there are some points where it appears to support the LXX and others where it agrees with the MT while also introducing some other issues of its own.

It is clear, therefore, that complex issues are involved in determining the text of Samuel, and one must avoid taking a doctrinaire position and allow each point to be resolved on its own merits. At the same time, the difficulties should not be magnified beyond reason, since large sections of the text can be established with reasonable certainty, and for all the problems, the MT remains a reliable guide. One might suggest in the case of 1 Sam. 17, for example, that the LXX text represents an early attempt to address apparent difficulties in the narrative (especially the question of when Saul met David) that nevertheless failed to realize that not everything in Samuel is narrated in exact chronological order. Nevertheless, anyone who compares different translations of Samuel (e.g., NIV and NRSV) will notice variants and should make use of good commentaries at that point.

Central Themes

The reign of God. Kingship lies at the heart of Samuel. But although it is concerned with the story of Israel’s first two kings (Abimelek in Judg. 9 is an aberration and probably only a local figure), it places their story within the framework of God’s reign. No matter what authority a king in Israel might claim, it was always subject to God’s greater authority. Indeed, Samuel makes clear that God did not need a king but rather chose the monarchy as the means by which his own reign might be demonstrated.

An important way in which God’s reign is demonstrated is through the motif of the reversal of fortunes, in which the powerful are brought down and the weak raised. This is announced in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:4–8) and is then demonstrated when God removed the corrupt family of Eli from their position of power in the sanctuary at Shiloh (2:27–36; 4:1–18). On the other hand, Samuel himself came to prominence even though he had no position of power. Saul, likewise, although a member of a relatively wealthy family (9:1–2), knew that he was not someone who had automatic power (9:21) but still was raised up to be king by God. Yet when he, like Eli before him, became corrupt and clung to power rather than submit to God, he too was removed so that he could be replaced (15:28–29).

David also came from a humble position as the youngest son in his family (1 Sam. 16:11), but unlike Eli and Saul, he would not grasp power for himself. Indeed, he twice refused to kill Saul when he had the chance (1 Sam. 24; 26) and punished those who claimed that they could exercise violence on his behalf (2 Sam. 1:11–16; 4:9–12). Even when it seemed that David had later lost all to Absalom, he held to the fact that he could reign only as long as he had God’s support (2 Sam. 15:25–26). This, in fact, is a central theme in 2 Sam. 7 when David wanted to build a temple for God, for there it is made clear that David cannot act without God’s authority, and that his descendants will have authority as long as they too submit to God (2 Sam. 7:11b–15). David’s closing songs (22:1–23:7) make clear that the king has no authority apart from God.

Kingship. Kingship in Israel is closely related to the theme of God’s reign. The possibility of kingship first arises in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:10) and is confirmed by the man of God who announces the judgment against Eli’s family (2:34). Both references occur before Israel’s elders requested a king because of the failure of Samuel’s sons (8:1–9), indicating that the request for a king did not take God by surprise. In addition, it indicates that authentic kingship in Israel could only be that which was initiated by God.

The story of Saul’s rise to the throne needs to be read in light of this. Although the human move to kingship stemmed from the request of the elders for a king (1 Sam. 8:4–9), it was still the case that Saul could become king only because of God’s decision. Although 1 Sam. 8–12 often has been broken down into supposedly conflicting sources, it is better to read it as a unified text but to note that the narrator’s voice is not equivalent to any of the characters that speak through it. When the text is understood in this way, it is possible to appreciate that kingship was part of God’s purposes for Israel, but it needed to follow his model. Kings in Israel could prosper only when they submitted to the greater reign of God. It was Saul’s mistake that he did not recognize this. David, although he made some terrible mistakes, always understood this truth, and his closing songs (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7) reflect on it. David learned what Saul never did: power is never something to be grasped; rather, it can only be accepted as a gracious gift from God to be used for his purposes.

New Testament Connections

The importance of the books of Samuel for the NT is far greater than its five direct citations there (Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:9; 2 Cor. 6:18 [2×]; Heb. 1:5) might indicate. The theme of kingship and the associated promise to David in 2 Sam. 7 are fundamental to the messianic hope throughout the OT and are picked up in the NT. Even when the NT cites other OT texts (such as Ps. 2) with reference to Jesus, it is still the books of Samuel that lie behind the citation. In addition, the NT frequently indicates that Jesus was a son of David (e.g., Matt. 1:1). Although such texts do not cite Samuel directly, they clearly allude to it because of God’s promise that David’s throne would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Jesus’ ministry transcends that of David in every way, but we cannot understand his ministry apart from David and God’s promise to him.

Conquest of Canaan

The Israelite conquest of the Promised Land is narrated in Numbers through 2 Samuel and includes key figures such as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Saul, and David, although the main events of the conquest are described in Joshua and Judges. There is considerable scholarly debate about the very complicated details of the conquest. Much of this debate centers on archaeology and the dating of sites and artifacts that have been excavated in the last century. Further complicating things is the fact that many of the events recorded in the Bible are not recorded anywhere else, making verification of events challenging.

Dating the conquest (using the destruction of Jericho as a fixed point) is notoriously difficult. Scholars who accept the biblical account as historically reliable tend to date the conquest of Jericho in the early twelfth century BC. This dating is based on the identification of the pharaoh in the exodus story as one of the Ramesses (who reigned in the Nineteenth or Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty, or roughly the thirteenth to tenth centuries BC). Some archaeologists, however, have argued that during this time Jericho was no more than a small, unwalled village with little or no military significance, thus making the story of Jericho’s destruction in the Bible impossible. Thus, other scholars have suggested a fifteenth- or sixteenth-century date for the conquest (when Jericho was known to be fortified). This solution, however, makes identification of the exodus pharaoh difficult and requires spreading out the events in Judges over four centuries instead of two. Both sides have different theories of how to accommodate the statement in 1 Kings 6:1 that it was 480 years after the exodus that Solomon began to build the temple. This controversy involving biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists promises to continue for many years to come.

The background for the Canaanite conquest is found in the Pentateuch narratives that describe the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt and their trek toward Palestine. Indeed, the conquest is anticipated already in God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants will become a mighty nation (Gen. 12:1–3; see also 15:16). The story describes God’s initial command to quickly conquer the land after meeting them on Mount Sinai (Num. 13), and the people’s rebellion caused by fear of the Canaanites, who are described as “giants in the land” (NLT). As a result, the Israelites are forced to wander in the Sinai wilderness until the entire generation dies (with the exception of Joshua and Caleb).

As narrated in the Bible, the conquest begins with defeat of the Midianites on the eastern side of the Jordan River under the leadership of Moses (Num. 31–32). Then, after Moses’ death, the Israelites cross the Jordan River to attack Jericho (Josh. 1–7). After the miraculous destruction of Jericho, the Israelites move to Ai and encounter initial defeat due to one man’s sin (Josh. 8). Later, after being tricked by the Gibeonites, the Israelites engage in battle with the five kings of the Amorites (Josh. 9–10). Finally, Josh. 11 describes the conquest of the northern part of the land and especially the military and strategically important city of Hazor.

The book of Judges relates fewer, more concentrated battles against different enemies, sometimes in offensive attacks and other times as defensive battles to preserve land control. The final stage of the conquest under David’s kingship is described in 2 Sam. 1–8. After Saul’s death, a short and violent confrontation takes place between Israelite forces still loyal to Saul’s family and those loyal to David. Political power is consolidated with a few key assassinations, rather than through full-fledged war, orchestrated by David’s men (there is some debate about how involved David was in these events). As a result, David, with the full support of the army (both the forces previously loyal to Saul and his own), takes the city of Jerusalem and then finally conquers the areas of the Philistines, the Ammonites, and the Moabites (areas that Saul had been unable to subdue). Thus, large-scale fighting for territory ends during David’s reign.

The tribal boundaries are described in Josh. 14–22. How closely these boundaries describe land actually conquered and how much of it was a territorial stake that required further warfare in order to be obtained are subject to intense debate. By the time of David, however, the allotment (described in Joshua) fairly closely reflects the largest reaches of the United Kingdom under David (described in 2 Samuel).

The descriptions of the Israelites’ total destruction of their enemies, often including women, children, and livestock, have created theological difficulties for interpreters trying to reconcile the seeming incongruity of God’s love for humankind, especially the innocent, and his commands to completely destroy these cultures. Some scholars have sought to justify these actions by describing the horrific religious practices of these people (such as child sacrifice and ritual sexual perversions), but there are questions about how widespread these practices actually were and doubt about how they would justify a response involving the death of innocents. Currently, there is no strong scholarly consensus on how to resolve this difficult theological issue.

Earrings

Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in the Bible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These precious stones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in the ancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.

Jewelry known in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everyday jewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among the people, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Fine jewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold or silver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn both by men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conserved wealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators of socioeconomic placing in society.

Most gold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal was shaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involved soldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form of decoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as a substitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry was inlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items. Engraving was likewise used for decoration.

Jewelry in Antiquity

Jewelry has been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC. Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in the city of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found in cemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Other specimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC. Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this period places such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athens produced beautiful gold work.

By the seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greek islands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to the goddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC, jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for the next 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold were cut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during the Classical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. Captured Persian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold and precious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks. Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenistic period. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry: carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls. Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelry came from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empire jewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. In general, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry was gold-plated and decorated with costly stones.

Certain writers in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry and precious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls as the “topmost rank among all things of price.” Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shape of hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets were made of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.

Jewelry in the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamental circlet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs was known as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occur in the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts in archaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everyday life in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments of relatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver, gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets, and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circlets with two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, often artistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those of serpents.

Rings likewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in the ears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popular during the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were worn on neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment but also were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn on clothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.

Amulets were common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection from harm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets often incorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods. Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide. Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christian amulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Many different items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings (Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11; Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12), rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30; Num. 31:50; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job 38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2), headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50; 2 Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18), and anklets (Isa. 3:20).

Various articles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mere aesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify the desire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servant discovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nose ring and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosen her (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over ten shekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servant indicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of the jewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.

Early in the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designated that the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain precious stones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majesty and holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod. 25:7; 35:9).

Lovers flattered one another by comparing physical features to articles of fine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’s people appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa. 49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels (61:10).

Biblical authors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry with admonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewels and jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15; 8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and a godly spouse far above jewels (31:10).

Similar to the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and other notable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like other kings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2 Sam. 1:10), which were intended to signify royalty and competence in military affairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denoted features of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior in Rev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatched power (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than seven diadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).

At times, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially when acquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as an object of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry that accompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lend credence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled with polytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideon made an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of the Midianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship for the Israelites and greatly offended God.

Kings had signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings. The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked the small semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, rings were used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11; 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to seal prophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16; Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in order to signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is the usage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. The ring was placed on the returning son’s finger to show the radical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to his son’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into the household.

In certain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselves with external jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3), as this was a sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear in John’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majestic beauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets of gold (21:18–21).

Gem

Jewelry in Antiquity

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Gestures

In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the body or items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body. For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures in relation to the different body parts that are identified with the gestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line on classifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described in Prov. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclear whether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether all signify different things or the same thing.

Head

Gestures that relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolent acts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting of one’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head in mourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery and derision (2 Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult (Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).

A common action is the shaving of the head, which can be for purification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all body hair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer. 41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden from shaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), while the high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificial duties (Exod. 29:6).

Anointing of the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7; Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing on a person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand on the head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod. 29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals is a symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:18, 22).

In the OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut. 21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be a cause for disgrace (1 Cor. 11:5–6).

Face. Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching or covering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6) or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh. 7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2 Chron. 20:18; Ps. 138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1 Sam. 20:41; 25:41; 28:14; 2 Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:23; 1 Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod. 3:6]).

The face can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev. 13:45), in grief/mourning (2 Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), in resignation (1 Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery (Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12). It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).

God can be described as hiding or turning away his face against wickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer. 33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholding blessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8; 59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment (Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1 Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of the Philistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant, apparently overpowered by Yahweh.

Acts of humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic. 5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shaming judgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone by the nose (2 Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek is humiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the other cheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29).

One can lift one’s face in worship (2 Kings 20:2; Job 22:26; Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it in shame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards in mourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37), the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).

Eyes. Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act (Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship and expectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).

Mouth. Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while a hand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5; 40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the desert tribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” in defeat.

Ears. An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his or her earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear for purification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), while supplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear (2 Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifies paying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20; 5:13).

Neck. The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor (Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched in arrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns against heaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put a yoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonian conquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in a yoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on the neck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation (Josh. 10:24).

Body

Nakedness in public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment (Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign of promiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a sign of mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 19:24). A certain kind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection (Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is an act of humiliation (2 Sam. 4:12).

Chest. In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning (Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts of sacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering” before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).

Hand, arm. Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship, clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth in awe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Kings 17:36; 2 Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21; Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is often used of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies and enemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act for the sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).

Since the right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the right hand indicates being favored (1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under the thigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen. 48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).

Clapping the hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse (25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job claps his hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission and repentance (Job 40:4–5).

Hands can be lifted in worship (1 Kings 8:22; 1 Tim. 2:8), to beseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath (Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1 Sam. 24:6, 10; 2 Sam.1:14; 18:12).

Pilate washes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:24), while 1 Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humble themselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that in due time they will be lifted up.

Buttocks. Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult and provocation, as happens to David’s men (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cushite captives (Isa. 20:4).

Leg. The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductive organs, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen. 24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animal thighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21; 10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery cause a guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).

The most common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship or reverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), in defeat (2 Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps. 57:6), or in respect (1 Kings 1:31). In what seems to be a somewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees in prayer (1 Kings 18:42).

Feet. Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures in the Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), or in supplication (1 Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as a blessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8; cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandals can be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace (Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplication before the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans can signal deception (Prov. 6:13).

Enemies can be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1 Kings 5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), have their feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15; 105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation and defeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).

Those overwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2 Kings 4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), while those emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2; 3:24; Dan. 8:18).

In the NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication of divine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying at a person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt. 15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37; 5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an act of love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared his body for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washes his disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood and discipleship (John 13:5–14).

Fingers, Toes. Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. A finger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of the right thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).

One wears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture of restoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motion in deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writes with his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture of indifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).

Clothes and Shoes

Garments. Garments attain significance as they are related to specific emotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen. 37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2 Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments in mourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6; 21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2 Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).

Ripping someone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2 Sam. 10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer. 13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’s clothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons with defiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing torn clothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).

By laying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may be acknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Sandals. A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10), while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicate giving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). A sandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast over a piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).

Prophetic Gestures

Prophetic gestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentance and approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiah puts a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekiel cooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah strips off his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries an unfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).

In the NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinks wine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46; 20:11; 27:35; 1 Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christian practices.

Jewelry

Jewelry in Antiquity

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Jewels

Jewelry in Antiquity

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Precious Stones

Jewelry in Antiquity

Although not often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelry item in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings, circlets, and so forth.

Jewelry in the Bible

Showing 1 to 50 of86 results

1. ARMOR - BEARER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Jeremiah 9:54 - "Then he called hastily to the young man his armorbearer, and said to him, ‘Draw your sword and kill me, lest men say of me, "A woman killed him." ’ And his young man thrust him through, and he died."

1 Samuel 14:7 - "And his armor-bearer said to him, ‘Do all that your mind inclines to; behold, I am with you; as is your mind, so is mine.’ "

2 Samuel 23:37 - "Zelek the Ammonite, Naharai of Beeroth, the armor-bearer of Joab the son of Zeruiah."

1 Chronicles 10:4 - "Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, ‘Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and make sport of me.’ But his armor-bearer would not; for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword, and fell upon it."

The armor-bearer in early times was the personal attendant of a warrior chieftain, just as today the aide-de-camp is an officer who is attached to the person of a general to assist him in his duties, transmit orders, and collect information. The armor-bearer of the Old Testament, however, had additional duties, rather more similar to those of an officer’s aid today, which including caring for his master’s weapons and other equipment. He also carried his master’s weapons and other equipment. He also carried his master’s weapons and fought along side him in battle.

Strangely enough, the armor-bearer is referred to only in early Old Testament times, as a servant of Abimelech, Jonathan, Saul, and J oab. As we can see by reading the material which includes our texts, both Abimelech and Saul ordered their armor-bearers to kill them so that they would not be captured by the enemy.

In the account in 1 Samuel, Jonathan’s armor-bearer is said to have killed those who had been bested by Jonathan. David himself served for a time as the armor-bearer of King Saul.

And how were these armor-bearers chosen? If we let our minds wander back to the period of chivalry, during the Middle Ages, we can recall the standards upon which selection for such high honor was based. This probably wasn’t so involved in the times of which we are speaking. Most likely the merits upon which the armor-bearer was chosen were bravery, loyalty, and skill in warfare.

We find this picked out for us by the third of our biblical texts. Joab’s armor-bearer, Haharai of Beeroth, was himself a mighty warrior, being one of the "Mighty Men" of David (cf. 2 Samuel 23:37; 1 Chronicles 11:39).

We see, then, that these men were heroes in their own right. And I think there is one further point that we should make. They were not only servants of their masters, but also personal friends as well. It may seem to us that a friend would never deliberately kill another, but if we consider the alternatives that were offered; if the enemy captured the master, I would say that friendship demanded the ultimate act. And so they reacted!

2. BODYGUARD

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

2 Samuel 23:23 - "... And David set him over his bodyguard."

2 Kings 25:8 - "In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month - which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuzaradan, the captain of the bodyguard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem."

The term "bodyguard" means exactly what it says. This is a person who is employed to "guard the body," that is, to protect another person, usually a sovereign, or, today, a head of state. However, very wealthy persons also employed bodyguards on occasion, just as today we can hire one if we wish.

Look in the yellow pages of your telephone directory, and you’ll find many listings for guards. You have your pick of residence security guards, sporting event guards, payroll escort guards, men in motorcycles, men in cars, men with dogs - you name it, you have it through making a simple telephone call.

Or, perhaps, you are more inclined to associate the bodyguard with the present-day Secret Service agent. And that fits too. I don’t suppose any of us will ever forget the pictures taken when President Kennedy was shot in Dallas. Remember the actions of the Secret Service man who made himself a target to prevent any more bullets from striking the Presidential party? That is truly being a bodyguard!

In biblical times, these men were usually soldiers, who were singled out because of their good height, great strength, agility, and/or military prowess.

Actually, scholars are not sure of the organization of the bodyguard during the monarchy, because it seems to have been a flexible affair. But Saul’s (and, later, David’s) personal bodyguard is called the mishma’ ath, meaning, literally, "those who obey, who answer the call." So it would seem to have been on a personal choice basis.

David himself was captain of Saul’s bodyguard, as well as being personal bodyguard to Achish, king of Gath. In 1 Chronicles 11:25 we read that Benaiah ben Jehoida was one of David’s thirty "mighty warriors" and head of his bodyguard. Potiphar was head of Pharaoh’s bodyguard, and, as our second text tells us, we have mention of Babylonian bodyguards.

In reading Jeremiah 32:2, we gather that Zedekiah had a special body- or palace-guard, in whose quarters Jeremiah was prisoned for a while.

So you see, while it is necessary for men to fear men, while violence and hatred exist in the world, it will be necessary for men to be protected. It isn’t always possible - the action of the Secret Service man was too late - but the necessity exists. How wonderful it would be to live in a world where bodyguards would be an anachronism!

3. SOLDIER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

1 Samuel 4:10 - "So the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and they fled, every man to his home; and there was a very great slaughter, for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers."

Acts 12:18 - "Now when day came, there was no small stir among the soldiers over what had become of Peter."

Before Saul there was no regular Israelite army, but, when a need arose, the tribes would gather together, each tribe with its own banner, and rally to the cause. And when the situation had been resolved, they would go back to their own homes. But with the establishment of the monarchy, a standing army became a necessity.

Saul started this army by choosing permanent warriors to serve him, and David later increased this force and began to pay the soldiers wages. Before this time, soldiers had lived off the land or were provided for by their families. Saul had also started the practice of recruiting mercenaries, from any tribe or people. Any likely looking man was a probable choice. Again, David followed in Saul’s footsteps and added more and more mercenaries to his army.

The Jewish soldiers were taught that they were engaged in a holy war and often the concept of "herem" - complete destruction of the enemy and his possessions - was required. During the Maccabean wars, charms were carried for protection by Jewish soldiers.

After a victory, unless it was a holy war with the herem imposed, the soldiers divided the booty, with special shares going to the officers. This was the most ancient of all customs connected with war. This is one of the more obvious advantages to being an officer!

Men from twenty to fifty were eligible to serve in the army, whose basic corps was the infantry. The military tactics employed included sieges, ambushes, raids, and surprise night attacks. In the actual battle, the first line of defense was a line of shield-bearing spearsmen. Behind this front line were archers who, besides carrying bows and arrows, carried a sword and buckler. Most battles resulted in hand-to-hand fighting. On campaign, the soldiers lived in camps and slept in tents.

Today’s soldier has more sophisticated weapons at his disposal, and his mode of transportation and communication are infinitely better, but in the ultimate moment, he is one with his soldier brothers of the past - the soldier faces death at every moment! And he must be prepared to accept that fact.

4. Good News, Bad News, Worse News

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Acting upon instructions, a man called his doctor to get the results of diagnostic tests which he had undergone. When the doctor answered, the patient identified himself. There was a hesitation on the doctor's end of the line. Finally, he said quietly, “There's bad news and worse news."

The patient gulped and said, "Might as well give me the bad news first."

“Well," said the doctor, "the tests indicate that you have 24 hours to live."

The patient gasped, "Oh, my god, what news could possibly be worse than that?"

Came the doctor's reply, "I tried to reach you yesterday."[1]

That's a take-off on the many bad news, good news stories that are going around. They are popular because life is a strange mixture of bad news and good news. It's that way because we persons are a strange mixture of good and evil. At times, we rise to the heights of angels, and then we do that which looks like the devil has control.

That's the tension -- to stay aware of the forces that battle for dominance in our lives, to choose the best, -- but above all, to know that god will empower us to be and do that we are created to be and do.

1. Donald Shelby, "one, two, three -- God", March 30, 1986

5. The Only Place We Have No Fear

Illustration

King Duncan

Pretend something like this happened for a moment: The angel Gabriel got back to heaven and rushed up to God and said, "I've got good news, and I've got bad news."

And God said, "Well, give me the good news first."

"The good news is," said the angel, "mission accomplished. I've visited those people you told me to visit. I told them what you told me to tell them. And it's all accomplished."

God said, "So what's the bad news?"

"The bad news," the angel said, "is that those people down there on earth are terrified of you. Every time I visited someone I had to start it off with 'fear not,' because they got so frightened that you were coming close."

God said to the angel, "That's the reason I have to carry out the plan I've made."

"You see," God said to the angel, "I need to go to earth because my people are so frightened. They are so full of fear that I've got to bring the message that they no longer need to be afraid."

The angel said, "And how are you going to do that, since they're so fearful?"

God said, "There's one place on earth that people are not afraid: that one remaining place is a little baby. My people on earth are not afraid of a baby. When a baby is born they rejoice and give thanks without fear because that's the only place left in their lives where they're not afraid. So I will go to earth. I will become a little baby, and they will receive me with no fear at all, because that's the one place my people have no fear."

God acted in the only way God could act without overwhelming us and taking away our freedom. God became a tiny babe. Christmas is an act of God. In Christmas God acted in the only way God could have acted.

6. What’s the Bad News

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

Good news-bad news jokes are somewhat passé. Even so there is one that makes a good point to introduce the sermon this morning. There were two fellows who lived and breathed baseball. They were professional players with the Atlanta Braves and you would think that playing for a living would be enough. But not so – these guys breathed, ate, and slept baseball. More than teammates, they were very close friends. So, they talked with each other about that mattered most in their lives. One of their big concerns was whether there would be baseball in heaven. They loved baseball so much that they were not sure at all they wanted to spend eternity in heaven unless they could play baseball.

They had an agreement that the first one who died would somehow get a message back to earth, letting the other know whether baseball was in heaven or not. Well, it happened. John died, and Jim grieved. He grieved for days - deeply saddened over his friend John's death. About two weeks went by, and then it happened. Jim was awakened in the middle of the night by the calling of his name, "Jim, Jim, Jim, wake up! This is John." "John, where are you?"

"I'm in heaven - and I have some good news and bad news. It's exciting, Jim. We do have baseball in heaven. It's great. We play every day and there are marvelous teams, and tough, exciting competition."
"That's great," said Jim. "But what's the bad news?"

"Well," said John, "You are scheduled to pitch next Tuesday."

7. Good News

Illustration

Rev. Dayle Casey

In an episode of the cartoon “Baby Blues,” five‑year‑old Zoe comes to her mother with a story about her little brother.

“Mom,” she announces, “I have good news and bad news.”

“What’s the bad news?” Zoe’s mom asks.

“The bad news,” Zoe says, “is that Hammie colored on the wall!”

“OK, Zoe, what’s the good news?” “Hammie colored on the wall, and I didn’t!” says Zoe.

8. AMBASSADOR

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Isaiah 18:2 - "which sends ambassadors by the Nile, in vessels of papyrus upon the waters! Go, you swift messengers, to a nation, tall and smooth, to a people feared near and far, a nation mighty and conquering, whose land the rivers divided."

Ezekiel 17:15 - "But he rebelled against him, by sending ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and a large army ..."

There are several ways in which we can translate the words used for "ambassador" in the Bible, but the most frequently used interpretation is that of messenger, from the Hebrew mal’ akh, or malach, which means messenger. This word has an interesting biblical history of its own. We are, of course, familiar with the Old Testament book of Malachi, and no doubt assumed that this was the author’s name. However, this was a clerical error at some time in the past, so that a word which meant "messenger" was wrongly given as the name of a man! We also find this as being used when referring to any supernatural messenger from God - an angel. Angels, then, can be considered ambassadors from God, carrying messages to men.

We can also use the Greek words in the New Testament, which translate into "to be older," or "aged, dignity," or "aged." This incorporates the idea of wisdom and experience, and certainly these were needed qualities, just as much as today. Why should this be so? Well, let’s consider the position of the ambassador.

These men were used to send congratulations, to make alliances, and to protest wrongs, among the more outstanding of their duties. Now, obviously, you can’t send just anyone on such missions. So, these men of wisdom, as we have said, and also men who possessed great education and ability. They were usually men of high rank, as Sennacherib’s chief-marshall, Tartan; chief eunuch, Rabsaris; and chief-officer, Rabshakey, met by Hezekiah’s house-master, scribe and recorder (2 Kings 18:17ff).

Today our ambassadors, our consuls, our emmisaries, and other statesmen who confer with heads of state of other nations, are representative of our government and its policies. Most of these positions are resident ones - that is, the individual is the personal representative of the President and Congress, living in a certain foreign land. He is a go-between in conveying messages from our nation to another. In that manner, his function is the same as his biblical predecessor’s. However, the concept of his actually living in another land is probably foreign to the biblical idea. An ambassador was sent out to wherever and whenever it was necessary, and then returned to home base.

In one other way, however, the ancient and the modern ambassadors share; that is, both had (and have) diplomatic immunity. We are sometimes upset because representatives of other nations violate our laws, and cannot be prosecuted. In just such a way 2 Samuel 10:4, did the poeple of Hunan violate the immunity of the ambassadors sent by David. There is really nothing new under the sun!

9. This God-Given Child

Illustration

A British factory worker and his wife were excited when, after many years of marriage, they discovered they were going to have their first child. According to author Jill Briscoe, who told this true story, the man eagerly relayed the good news to his fellow workers. He told them God had answered his prayers. But they made fun of him for asking God for a child.

When the baby was born, he was diagnosed as having Down's syndrome. As the father made his way to work for the first time after the birth, he wondered how to face his co-workers. "God, please give me wisdom," he prayed. Just as he feared, some said mockingly, "So, God gave you this child!" The new father stood for a long time, silently asking God for help. At last he said, "I'm glad the Lord gave this child to me and not to you."

As this man accepted his disabled son as God's gift to him, so David was pleased to show kindness to Saul's son who was "lame in his feet" (2 Sam. 9:3). Some may have rejected Mephibosheth because he was lame, but David's action showed that he valued him greatly.

10. IRONSMITH

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Isaiah 44:12 - "The ironsmith fashions it and works it over the coals; he shapes it with hammers, and forges it with his strong arm; he becomes hungry and his strength fails, he drinks no water and is faint."

Tubal-cain, of the race of Cain, is described as "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron" (Genesis 4:22). It used to be thought that the use if iron was very late, but modern archaeology has found that there was a knowledge of iron as early as the third millenium B.C. Remains of an iron blade dating @2700 B.C. have been found at a site near Baghdad. A small steel ax from Ur and other early objects of iron have also been found. The fact that not more iron objects of an early period have been found is undoubtedly due to the fact that iron oxidized quickly.

The Taurus Mountains, the chief iron supply of Asia Minor, were for many years controlled by the Hittites. Iron began to come into general use in Palestine in the 13th century B.C. The Israelites in the period of the judges and the early monarchy envied and feared the iron furnaces of the Philistines, which gave the latter a tremendous superiority in arms. It was both inconvenient and expensive for the Israelites to go to Philistia to get iron tools made or repaired.

Lack of iron for farming implements, nails, and weapons for war kept the Isrealites comparatively poor during the period of the judges. They could not drive the Canaanites out of the plains because the latter had chariots and weapons of iron. Even in the time of Saul, his army had no swords or spears for battle, he and Jonathan alone possessing them. When the power of the Philistines was broken by Saul and David, the iron-smelting formula became public property, and the metal came to be widely used in Isreal.

Iron ore was brought in by Tyrian leaders, probably from Spain, although it was also found in the Lebanon range, and probably Egypt. The Jews probably learned the art of working in iron from the Phoenicians. The ore was reduced in furnaces built in stone; charcoal was used in them, and the fire was blown by bellows. Wrought iron, cast iron, and steel were made.

Iron was used in Bible times much as it is used today. It was used for axes and other implements, vessels, threshing instruments, harrows, fetters, armor, chariots, nails, weights, tools, prison bars; whatever men needed that could be reasonably made from iron. There is a description of a smith at work in Ecclesiasticus 38:28. We have added many more items today that we made use of in our daily lives, but the same ones that the ancients made are still used in most parts of the world.

11. SPY

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Genesis 42:11 - "We are all sons of one man, we are honest men, your servants are not spies."

1 Samuel 26:4 - "David sent out spies, and learned of a certainty that Saul had come."

With war going on simultaneously in all parts of the world, with border hostilities, with threats of disruption of our internal security being constantly dented into our ears, we are surely fully familiar with the concept of the spy. Espionage is big business. How many television and movie scripts have been based on spy stories; how many books have been written! And the story of espionage has remained virtually unchanged down through history.

Oh, of course, the methods are somewhat different. We now have all sorts of exotic devices to help us, and I don’t suppose that James Bond would have found it necessary to climb down from Rahab’s window - I’m sure he’d have dreamed up a much more dramatic exit! But, essentially, the same purpose for spying remains - to gather information on the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.

It was for this reason that Moses sent twelve spies into the Negeb and the hill country - they were to report on the fortification and terrain, as well as the productivity of the land. In the Jericho campaign, we are told that Joshua sent two spies in advance, presumably to assess the conditions in Canaan.

Spies also had another use, which today we can also appreciate. They were used to spread rumors to undermine the enemy’s morale. Read the story of Absalom’s revolt in 2 Samuel 15:10 for a fine example of this sort of activity. Maybe today we don’t think of the CIA or FBI or whatever as being rumor-mongers, and, as loyal citizens, we would have to say that this is never a prime purpose.

But there are many instances in which it is necessary to spread false rumors in order to flush out traitors and others who would like to see our institutions destroyed. So, in cases such as these, perhaps the end justifies the means.

Today, to qualify for espionage work, a man or woman must receive intensive training of all kinds. And this was probably true in biblical times too. After all, they were much more sophisticated than we generally credit them with being, and it wouldn’t have been any picnic to try to spy on them. So - forget about the ignorant, crude peasant types that we generally bring to mind, and think instead of a highly trained, knowledgable espionage expert. Max Smart wouldn’t have stood a chance!

12. How The Mighty Have Fallen!

Illustration

Richard A. Jensen

"How the mighty have fallen." King David of old once spoke those words concerning the death of King Saul. "How the mighty have fallen." These words have transcended the Bible and become the language of popular culture. A newspaper report a few years ago on some pastors who had fallen from grace used this biblical passage as its headline. The article was about two well-known television preachers -- Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker -- whose sins had been publicly exposed. "How the mighty have fallen" the newspaper headline gloated! Jimmy Swaggart is an interesting case in point.

Newsweek magazine once carried an article that featured this highly talented preacher. The article quoted one man as saying that Jimmy Swaggart was one of the most entertaining people on television in any field. The man didn't believe what Swaggart preached but he was dazzled by his entertainment and communication skills. "How the mighty have fallen!" Swaggart's sin seemed to be his fascination with pornography. One who knew him well over the years said: "His weakness for pornography finally beat him. He's fasted and prayed many times to overcome this weakness." Swaggart's weakness for pornography often led him to Louisiana brothels. It doesn't appear to be the case that Swaggart had sex with these women. He just asked them to pose for him in some suggestive ways. One night as he was leaving a brothel, however, someone who was out to expose him took some pictures. The pictures undid him. Scandal raged. Swaggart faced his congregation with tears running down his cheeks and remorse in his heart.

The response to Swaggart's fall was highly judgmental. People judged Swaggart harshly because he had been so judgmental in his preaching. In his judgments he came down on all sorts and varieties of people, including Christian people. Of the ministry of Jim Bakker, for example, Swaggart had said: "He's a cancer on the body of Christ that needs to be excised." Swaggart's preaching was judgmental indeed.

Swaggart was also judged harshly because of the peculiar nature of his message. Swaggart's message went beyond the proclamation of Jesus Christ to be a message fundamentally about the holiness work of the Holy Spirit. He proclaimed over and over again that through the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives we can overcome all sin. Thus he judged sinners. He invited sinners to be filled with the Holy Spirit in order to overcome all sin. Victory over sin would belong to all those who did business with the Holy Spirit.

What are we to think of this promise in light of Swaggart's own dark side? It's no wonder that some people relished the chance to defrock Swaggart in public. The mighty had fallen indeed. Hopefully he learned something from his trials. A hint of wisdom is evident in some of the things he says. For example, he said reflecting on his experiences: "I have seen that the gospel is perfect but its messengers are not." Jimmy Swaggart could now identify with Peter, who began his ministry with these words: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." Ministry always begins in confession!"

13. Never Give Up!

Illustration

Brett Blair

In the middle of WWII on October 29, 1941 Winston Churchill delivered a short address at the Harrow School. England had been through some of its darkest days. But Churchill was equal to the task. He said to the students:

"You cannot tell from appearances how things will go. Sometimes imagination makes things out far worse than they are; yet without imagination not much can be done. Those people who are imaginative see many more dangers than perhaps exist; certainly many more than will happen; but then they must also pray to be given that extra courage to carry this far-reaching imagination. But for everyone, surely, what we have gone through in this period - I am addressing myself to the School - surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. We stood all alone a year ago, and to many countries it seemed that our account was closed, we were finished. All this tradition of ours, our songs, our School history, this part of the history of this country, were gone and finished and liquidated.

[Churchill continues:] Very different is the mood today. Britain, other nations thought, had drawn a sponge across her slate. But instead our country stood in the gap. There was no flinching and no thought of giving in; and by what seemed almost a miracle to those outside these Islands, though we ourselves never doubted it, we now find ourselves in a position where I say that we can be sure that we have only to persevere to conquer."

The church at times forgets that this is also God's message. God has promised never to give up on us. Old Testament and New Testaments together, are a record of how God never, never, never, gave up.

Adam and Eve disobeyed the very First Rule. But God never gave up.
Abraham wandered, and Sarah laughed. But God never gave up.
Moses hid and shook with fear. But God never gave up.
Saul went insane. But God never gave up.
David plotted against Uriah. But God never gave up.
Ahaz sold out to Assyria. But God never gave up.
Israel fell into pieces. But God never gave up.
The Jewish people became exiles. But God never gave up.
John the Baptist was beheaded. But God never gave up.
Peter denied he even knew him. But God never gave up.
The disciples all ran away. But God never gave up.

God never, never, never gave up and he has not given up today!

14. He Already Owned It

Illustration

Maxie Dunnam

William Randolph Hurst, the famous newspaper owner and multimillionaire, once saw the print of a famous painting. He decided he wanted that painting. So he hired a detective to find the original.

Several months and several thousand dollars later, the detective returned with some good news and some bad news. The good news was that he had found the painting. The bad news was that he had found it in one of Mr. Hurst’s own warehouses. Hurst already owned it.

Most of us are somewhat dull, even blind, to what is already ours: love, friendship, good health, a free land in which to live. A word of caution is in order. Don’t go looking around for something you think will make you happy, before you pay attention to what you already have.

15. Lost in Translation

Illustration

B. and J. Leslie-Melville

Before movie companies were careful about translations assuming no one in the U.S. would understand a language like Swahili, directors would have someone write something that sounded like it fit the part of the scene. So, in one movie the director needed an African messenger who was to gasp out a sentence to the big chief. The messenger is to be collapsing as he delivers his message, because he had run for days with this vital news. A local Englishman who spoke Swahili was asked to write an urgent-sounding sentence in the language. He did, tongue in cheek. An American actor played the part beautifully. All went well until the movie was shown in Nairobi (where everyone spoke Swahili, of course). The drama of the moment was reduced to high comedy. What the messenger actually said as he threw himself, exhausted, before the chief was, "I do not think I am getting paid enough money for this part."

16. Learning Mercy

Illustration

J. Scott Miller

Some of us can learn mercy by reading about it in the Bible. Many more of us, however, learn mercy by taking the plunge and doing it.

Such was the case with Sister Helen Prejean. Her story is told in the book Dead Man Walking, which recently came out in film. Sister Helen hears one day of a correspondence program with prisoners on death row. She decides to participate and begins writing, even though she's been told not to expect to hear anything in return. Much to her surprise, though, one of the prisoners does respond and catches her completely off guard by asking her to be his spiritual guide. Apparently his execution date was fast approaching, and he wanted some representative of God to be there for support over the next several weeks.

Sister Helen hesitates. It is one thing to do charity long distance. It is quite another thing to do mercy face to face with a convicted murderer. Gary had been sentenced to death by lethal injection for participating in the brutal rape of a young woman and the subsequent murder of both her and her finance. Sister Helen recoils at the very thought of meeting this rapist and murderer, let alone ministering to him. But a voice deep inside of her tells her she must go. So she does. The first several meetings are difficult. Gary comes across a whole lot more cocky and arrogant in person than he did in his letters. He refuses to admit his guilt and insists that he is the innocent victim of a corrupt legal system.

To make matters worse, Sister Helen is despised and publicly villified by the victims' parents for even spending time with Gary. How could she, a deeply religious nun, befriend this cold-blooded murderer! They are horrified and let her know that every time they see her. And yet, despite these difficult barriers, Sister Helen risks her name, her reputation, her own safety, to reach across them and embrace Gary with the love of God. And the more she perseveres in loving him, the more his defenses begin to crumble. Finally on the night before his execution, Gary confesses to his crime and asks for God's forgiveness. In a flood of tears, he thanks Sister Helen for all her love and support. He then tries to send her home, insisting that her work with him is done and that he is now ready to meet his Maker.

"No, that's okay," she responds. "I'll stay through the execution."

"But why?" Gary wants to know. "I'm only getting what I deserve."

"Because," she replies, "the last face I want you to see before you die is not one of hatred and vengeance, but one of love and mercy."

The next morning, Gary is strapped into place while Sister Helen and the victims' parents watch through the window of an adjacent room. Within a matter of minutes, the last lethal dose is injected and Gary is pronounced dead. Most of the by-standers breathe a sigh of relief. Some even begin to applaud. But Sister Helen alone stands there - with arms reaching out to Gary and a look of pure mercy on her face.

Some of us learn mercy by reading about it in our Bibles. But most of us, like Sister Helen Prejean, learn mercy by just doing it to those who least deserve it - to those who are unclean, who are despised and rejected by society. Learning Mercy . . .

17. Challenge

Illustration

Traditional

The drill sergeant making his morning announcements to a group of newcomers in a training camp, stated: “Today, gentlemen, I have some good news and some bad news.

“First, the good, Private Peters will be setting the pace on our morning run.”

With this the platoon was overjoyed, as Private Peters was overweight and terribly slow.

But then the drill sergeant finished his statement: “Now for the bad news. Private Peters will be driving my Jeep.”

18. Bad News First

Illustration

A farmer went into his banker and announced that he had bad news and good news. "First, the bad news..."

"Well," said the farmer, "I can't make my mortgage payments. And that crop loan I've taken out for the past 10 years I can't pay that off, either. Not only that, I won't be able to pay you the couple of hundred thousand I still have outstanding on my tractors and other equipment. So I'm going to have to give up the farm and turn it all over to you for whatever you can salvage out of it."

Silence prevailed for a minute and then the banker said, "What's the good news?"

"The good news is that I'm going to keep on banking with you," said the farmer.

19. Master of My Fate; Captain of My Soul

Illustration

Years ago this country witnessed the execution of Timothy McVeigh, the man responsible for the worst act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. A USA Today poll taken in April showed that 81 percent of Americans wanted McVeigh to be executed -- and 28 percent of that support was from people who are normally against the death penalty. No matter where you stand on the issue of capital punishment, this particular execution has forced itself on our consciousness. One thing that particularly caught my attention was that in lieu of any verbal comment, McVeigh gave a handwritten statement to the warden, quoting a section of the poem "Invictus," which is Latin for "unconquered." That poem, by 19th-century British poet William Ernest Henley (1849-1903), reads in part "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul." In case you haven't heard the poem, it goes like this:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

From what we've learned of McVeigh's attitudes and opinions, those lines probably come as close as any to a philosophy of life for him. Even to the point of ending the appeals process, McVeigh sought to be the master of his fate. But of course he's not. And in a letter written just a day before his death, he demonstrated how little he understood that. He wrote that if it turned out that there was an afterlife, he would "improvise, adapt and overcome." As if he or any of us will have the ability to affect our environment after arrival in the world to come! Once we are at the judgment seat of God, none of us is any longer master of our fate.

It's worth noting that when the poet Henley wrote those words, he was not thinking of setting his own standard of morality, as McVeigh appears to have done. Far from claiming the right to be judge, jury and executioner of others, Henley was vocalizing his attitude toward the hurts and setbacks of life. At the age of 12, he developed tubercular arthritis, and his left foot was amputated in his teens. He had other health problems later on, and actually wrote "Invictus" while once again in the hospital, too ill to work. He was, as his poem says, "bloody, but unbowed." For Henley, "Invictus" was an expression of courage in the face of life's difficulties, not a license to kill.

McVeigh sounds an awful lot like the attitude of the legion of demons. The demons knew, once they saw Jesus’ boat land near their home town, that their days were numbered. So, they start bartering with Jesus. What are you doing here? What do you want with us? Please, don’t torture us. (There’s a hypocritical request if I ever heard one. They had been torturing this poor man for years and now they are begging for mercy.) Finally, knowing that they would have to leave their host they asked to be sent into a heard of nearby pigs. When this happens the pigs become disoriented and throw themselves along with the demons over the cliff and into the sea where they drown. McVeigh perhaps felt he could master his own fate even the fate that befalls us in the afterlife. Perhaps he will find what he is looking for but the demons did not; they bartered, got what they wanted, and lost!

The full sermon can be found on Sermons.com by doing a Scripture search for Luke 12, the sermon titled, "God, The Enemy."

20. Plutarch's Consolatory Letter to His Wife

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

The following is a letter Plutarch wrote to his wife on receiving news of the death of their daughter Timoxena, who died at the age of two:

The messenger you sent to tell me of the death of my little daughter missed his way. But I heard of it through another.

I pray you let all things be done without ceremony or timorous superstition. And let us bear our affliction with patience. I do know very well what a loss we have had; but, if you should grieve overmuch, it would trouble me still more. She was particularly dear to you; and when you call to mind how bright and innocent she was, how amiable and mild, then your grief must be particularly bitter. For not only was she kind and generous to other children, but even to her very playthings.

But should the sweet remembrance of those things which so delighted us when she was alive only afflict us now, when she is dead? Or is there danger that, if we cease to mourn, we shall forget her? But since she gave us so much pleasure while we had her, so ought we to cherish her memory, and make that memory a glad rather than a sorrowful one. And such reasons as we would use with others, let us try to make effective with ourselves. And as we put a limit to all riotous indulgence in our pleasures, so let us also check the excessive flow of our grief. It is well, both in action and dress, to shrink from an over-display of mourning, as well as to be modest and unassuming on festal occasions.

Let us call to mind the years before our little daughter was born. We are now in the same condition as then, except that the time she was with us is to be counted as an added blessing. Let us not ungratefully accuse Fortune for what was given us, because we could not also have all that we desired. What we had, and while we had it, was good, though now we have it no longer.

Remember also how much of good you still possess. Because one page of your book is blotted, do not forget all the other leaves whose reading is fair and whose pictures are beautiful. We should not be like misers, who never enjoy what they have, but only bewail what they lose.

And since she is gone where she feels no pain, let us not indulge in too much grief. The soul is incapable of death. And she, like a bird not long enough in her cage to become attached to it, is free to fly away to a purer air. For, when children die, their souls go at once to a better and a divine state. Since we cherish a trust like this, let our outward actions be in accord with it, and let us keep our hearts pure and our minds calm.

21. The Jester's Death Sentence

Illustration

Brett Blair

Triboulet was a jester for Louis XII, the King of France from 1498 to 1515. He is perhaps most famous for slapping the king on the butt. This act greatly angered the king, and he threatened to have Triboulet executed. After taking a moment to calm down, the king decided to spare Triboulet's life if he could think of an apology that was more offensive than what he had just done to the king.

Triboulet went on to say, "I'm so sorry, your majesty, that I didn't recognize you! I mistook you for the Queen!" While Triboulet's response was clever and indeed more offensive, it broke an order that prohibited anyone from making fun of the queen. The king decided to proceed with the execution but allowed Triboulet to choose how he would die. With his life on the line, Triboulet replied, "Good sire, for Saint Nitouche's and Saint Pansard's sake, patrons of insanity, I choose to die from old age."

The speechless king could do nothing but laugh. He canceled the execution and decided to banish Triboulet.

22. What Is Grief?

Illustration

Dr. Wright

Dr. Wright defines the following terms so we can get a grasp the nature and the impact of grief on our lives:

Grief is defined as Intense emotional suffering caused by loss, disaster, misfortune, etc. Acute sorrow - deep sadness. The word is derived from the Latin verb meaning to burden. Indeed, you do feel burdened. You are carrying a heavy load of feelings.

Mourn is defined as to feel or express sorrow. Mourning is the expression of grief. The word is derived from a Gothic verb meaning to be anxious, and it comes ultimately from an Indo-European base meaning to remember; to think of. Mourning involves remembering and thinking of the deceased, and this makes you feel anxious or uncomfortable.

23. Brave Enough to Take It

Illustration

Brett Blair

There is story told out of Persia about a General who had the strange custom of giving condemned criminals a choice between the firing squad and the big, black door. As the moment of execution draws near, the spies are brought to the Persian General, who asks the question, "What will it be: the firing squad or the big, black door?" One spy, faced with this dilemma, hesitated for a long time. It was a difficult decision. He chose the firing squad. Moments later shots rang out confirming his execution.

The General turned to his aide and said, "They always prefer the known way to the unknown. It is characteristic of people to be afraid of the undefined. Yet, we give them a choice."

The aide said, "What lies beyond the big door?"

"Freedom," replied the general, "I've known only a few brave enough to take it."

I want you to know that on the other side of that door we call Christ there is freedom. The freedom and forgiveness from your sins awaits. Be brave enough to take it!

24. Thine Messenger

Illustration

Warren Wiersbe

Early in his ministry, when he was pastor of the Congregational Church at Rugeley, Campbell Morgan studied hard and preached often. He was discovering and developing the gift of Bible exposition that later made him the prince of expositors. His preaching made him popular. One evening, as he sat in his study, he felt God saying to him, "What are you going to be, a preacher or My messenger?" As Morgan pondered the question, he realized that his desire to become a "great preacher" was hindering his work. For several hours Morgan sat there struggling with God's call and human ambition.

Finally he said, "Thy messenger, my Master Thine!" He took the precious outlines of his sermons, messages that he was proud of, and laid them in the fireplace where they burned to ashes. That was when the victory was won. As the outlines were burning, Morgan prayed: "If Thou wilt give me Thy words to speak, I will utter them from this day forward, adding nothing to them, taking naught away. Thine whole counsel I will declare, so help me God!"

25. The Glory Beyond

Illustration

On their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land, the people of Israel come to a wilderness. It was barren and forbidding there. But the Scripture says, "They looked beyond the wilderness and beheld the glory of God."

It is always good to look beyond whatever wilderness we may be in, and to see the glory that is there. In many ways in our time we live in a wilderness kind of world; there are many problems, there is a lot of trouble, there is much complexity and confusion, and a great deal of the news is bad.

Occasionally we need to lift our gaze and look beyond all this. And this is what we do on Sunday morning when we worship God: we look beyond to see the glory.

The central element of the Christian Faith is the Christian gospel - and the word "gospel" means "good news." Beyond all the bad news that's in the daily press is the good news of Christ, our deliverance and our hope. There may be a lot of gloom in the world around us, but think of it: there isn't a single pessimistic idea in the whole New Testament! Today, may we all together see the glory of this, the wonder of what lies beyond.

26. An Exercise in Awareness

Illustration

As I greet you this morning, I think of something the Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Rome: "I thank God for all of you." As I look about me here today, a swelling tide of gratitude rises within me, and I thank God for all of you.

You know the kind of world we live in; you know about the problems, the troubles, the conflicts and struggles; you know about the bad news we constantly read and hear, about the human tragedies that plague us in our society. We look upon all of this and we tremble almost.

Well, have you ever looked about you on Sunday morning? Really looked? With seeing eyes? Have you looked upon the faces of those who are with you in faith and fellowship? Who surround you in a community of caring? Who are with you, who will stand with you on your mountaintops and walk with you through your valleys?

It is an enormously enriching aspect of worship to reach out in grateful embrace of those who worship with you. Do it. Look around you. And from your heart say: I thank God for all of you.

27. Give Me the Good News

Illustration

Angela Akers

A doctor takes his patient into the examination room and says, “George, I have some good news and some bad news.”

George says, “Give me the good news.”

The doctor says, “They’re going to name a disease after you.”

28. We Have Work to Do

Illustration

King Duncan

God accepts us as His own beloved children for Christ's sake. We may not understand why it had to be this way. But we look at the cross and we see there an open door.

And thus we remember. We remember those who died that we may live in freedom. We remember those who died that we may live in faith. We remember Christ who died that we may live forever. That's the ultimate meaning of this Memorial Day weekend. It is a time to remember and it is a time to finish what they started.

They were shooting the movie "Yankee Doodle Dandy" on the day after Pearl Harbor. The cast listened as President Roosevelt announced on the radio that the United States was at war with Japan and Germany. At that point director Michael Curtiz came on the sound stage with Jimmy Cagney. They all listened in silence for the national anthem to finish. As the women dabbed tears from their eyes, and the men were deeply moved, Curtiz said in his best Hungarian accent:

"Now, boys and girls, we have work to do. We have bad news, but we have a wonderful story to tell the world. So let's put away sad things and begin."

29. The Promise of Being Met by Jesus

Illustration

Will Willimon

One night, in a college dormitory Bible study I presented this same story of Jesus and the rich man, just as I've presented it to you. I then asked the gathered students, "What do you make of this story?"

"Had Jesus ever met this man before?" asked one of the students?

"Why do you ask?" I asked.

"Because Jesus seems to have lots of faith in him. He demands something risky, radical of him. I wonder if Jesus knew this man had a gift for risky, radical response. In my experience, a professor only demands the best from students that the professor thinks are the smartest, best students. I wonder what there was about this man that made Jesus have so much faith he could really be a disciple."

Wow. Didn't think about that.

Another student said thoughtfully, "I wish Jesus would ask something like this of me. My parents totally control my life just because they are paying all my bills. And I complain about them calling the shots, but I am so tied to all this stuff I don't think I could ever break free. But maybe Jesus thinks otherwise."

Well, I was astounded. What I had heard as severe, demanding BAD news, these students heard as gracious, GOOD news.

Jesus invites people to be his disciples: Divest! Break free! Let go of your stuff! Follow me! I believe you can do it!

Such is the peril - and the promise - of being met by Jesus!

30. SHOUT: HE IS RISEN INDEED!

Illustration

John H. Krahn

An empty tomb greeted the women who came to anoint Jesus’ body that first Easter morning. What a surprise to find the huge stone rolled away ... no guards and most startling of all - no body. Suddenly two angels appeared to them and asked, "Why are you looking in a tomb for someone who is alive? He isn’t here! He has come back to life again!"

Who among us today would visit a cemetery to pay our respects to someone who is alive. Yet many Christians act as if Jesus were just another dead historical figure. But he lives! That’s the Easter message. In a world filled with so much bad news this is God’s good news for each of us.

Break out the smiles, for now there is hope for you and me. Christ not only overcame his death but overcame ours too. We need only believe in him. I haven’t the slightest doubt that the Lord is still in the resurrection business. Nothing in life is more important than our appointment with destiny - our date with death. When we know Jesus Christ and the power of his resurrection, we are prepared for even that.

The very earliest Easter greeting in the ancient church consisted of one person shouting to another, "The Lord is risen!" and the other shouting back, "He is risen indeed!" As you read this, let’s share the greeting with each other right now. Don’t be shy. I’m going to shout, "The Lord is risen!" And I want you to shout back at me with a big smile and all the breath you have, "He is risen indeed!" Now let’s see those smiles beginning. Ready! "THE LORD IS RISEN!" What is your reply?

31. The Lord's Calf

Illustration

Martyn Lloyd-Jones told a story about a farmer who went into the house one day to tell his wife and family some good news. "The cow just gave birth to twin calves, one red and one white," he said.

He continued, "We must dedicate one of these calves to the Lord. We will bring them up together, and when the time comes, we will sell one and keep the proceeds and we will sell the other and give the proceeds to the Lords work." His wife asked him which he was going to dedicate to the Lord. "There's no need to bother about that now," he replied, "we'll treat them both in the same way and when the time comes, we'll do as I say."

A few days later, he entered the kitchen looking unhappy. "What happened?" his wife asked. "I have bad news," he replied, "The Lords calf is dead." "Wait," said his wife, "you didn't decide which calf was the Lords." "Yes" he said," I decided it was the white one, and the white one died. The Lords calf is dead."

32. Three-in-one Oil

Illustration

Jef Olson

A faithful Christian couple had some bad news from their doctor. They couldn't have any children. On the way home from the doctor they went to see their pastor to ask for prayer. Being a small parish, and not well off, the pastor worked part time for the church and ran a car repair shop on the side, so they dropped by the shop. After they explained the situation, the pastor prayed for them on the spot. He looked around, grabbed a can of three-in-one oil and quickly blessed it to anoint them for healing.

About 9 months later they had triplets! The couple once again showed up at the pastor's study and as soon as the woman saw the pastor she ran up to him, threw her arms around him and gave him the biggest hug.

"What was that all about?" He asked.

She replied, "I'm just glad you used three-in-one oil and not WD-40!"

Prayer and motherhood go together like bread and wine. They are a necessary combination for us to begin, live, and successfully complete life.

33. Everything Is Broken

Illustration

Michael D. Powell

We live in a broken world. The contemporary Jewish prophet, Robert Zimmerman, once detailed the list of things that were broken. Everything Is Broken, he said.

Broken bottles, broken plates,
broken switches, broken gates.
Broken dishes, broken parts,
streets are filled with broken hearts.
Broken words, never meant to be spoken,
everything is broken.

Broken bodies, broken bones,
broken voices on broken phones.
Take a deep breath, feel like you're chokin',
everything is broken.

Broken treaties, broken vows,
broken hands on broken plows.
Broken pipes, broken tools,
people bending broken rules.
Everything is broken.

Bob Dylan sang those words on an album appropriately entitled, O Mercy! We live in a broken society which exists in a broken world, which is part of the broken human condition. The bad news is that everything is broken. Lord have mercy!

34. Breaking the Bad News

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

A man was out of town on a trip and he asked his brother to take care of his cat for him while he was away. The cat was a beautiful Siamese and meant a great deal to the man, although the brother who was caring for the cat didn't like cats at all. When he got back from the trip he called his brother's house and asked about his cat. The brother was very curt, and replied, "Your cat died." And then he hung up. For days the man was inconsolable. Finally, he phoned his brother again to point out, "It was needlessly cruel and sadistic of you to tell me so bluntly that my poor cat had passed away." The brother demanded, "Well, what did you expect me to do?" He said, "Well, you could have broken the bad news to me gradually. First, you could have said the cat was playing on the roof. Later you could have called to say he fell off. The next morning you could have reported he had broken his leg. Then, when I came to get him, you could have told me he had passed away during the night. But you didn't have it in you to be that civilized. Now tell me, how's Mama?" The brother pondered momentarily, then announced, "She's playing on the roof."

35. Hymns at Midnight

Illustration

Larry Powell

Paul and Silas had been thrown into prison at Philippi because Paul had cast a demon from a slave girl. However, there were extenuating circumstances. It seems the slave girl allegedly had powers of divination which enabled her to engage in "fortune telling." Her owners had managed to turn her condition into a rather lucrative business. And, of course, when Paul removed the demon, he also eliminated the owner’s profit. Let’s think about that for a moment. Isn’t it fortunate that some people cannot receive the joy of a blessing because of a bitter spirit? A young girl, who is described by commentators as being mentally deranged, is healed! And yet all her owners could think about was the money her healing was going to cost them. I am reminded of the woman who went into the hospital for a physical examination without the knowledge of the minister or anyone else in the church. When her tests confirmed that she was in excellent health, she was dismissed to go home. A few days later, when the minister learned she had been in the hospital, he stopped by to see her. She proceeded to scold him because neither he nor anyone at the church had been to see her in the hospital (one and one-half days). She was sadly unable to enjoy the good news about her health because she had a bitterness in her spirit. It was the same kind of attitude that put Paul and Silas in prison.

Paul and Silas were singing hymns in the cell and, about midnight, there was a great earthquake. The foundations of the jail quivered and shook. The doors were flung open and the fetters of all the prisoners were unfastened. When the jailer saw that the doors were opened he supposed the prisoners had escaped. Knowing that he would be held accountable, he drew his sword and was about to take his own life when Paul said, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here" (v. 28). The jailer immediately fell to his knees before Paul and said, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." The jailer and his entire family were baptized and received into the fellowship of Christ. His life had been saved twice; once during the earthquake, and once from his own hand. Now he was saved for all eternity.

In all probability, the hymns which Paul and Silas were singing at midnight had little if anything to do with the Philippian jailer’s conversion. I would suspect that the eartquake stood him mentally erect, causing him to get in touch with the condition of his spirit. An earthquake can do that. So can foxholes, tornadoes, or a doctor saying to us, "I’m afraid I have some bad news." These and similar situations which you could name confront us with reality in a hurry. The earthquake made its impact on the jailer.

However, the fact that Paul and Silas did not attempt to escape from their cell also impacted the jailer. The coincidences were too numerous to ignore; the hymn singing, the earthquake, the cell being opened, the fetters on all the prisoners unfastened, and ... not the slightest attempt to escape. Something was going on here! The accumulation of events brought the jailer to his moment of conversion.

Let the record show that conversion may occur suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, or it may come upon us slowly, cumulatively, as the result of assorted experiences and reflections. And in the simple story of the Philippian jailer, we find the format for conversion in its simplest form (16:29-31), regardless of time, place, or manner.

36. News Is Coming Soon

Illustration

Staff

The following story is probably a myth as there are several versions of the dream and its timing. Take this as legend only:

One afternoon in 1865, President Lincoln's Cabinet entered a council room for a meeting and found the President seated at the head of the table, his face buried in his hands. Presently he raised his head. His face was grave and worn. "Gentlemen," he said, "before long you will have important news."

Someone inquired, "Have you bad news, Mr. President? Is it something serious?"

"I have heard nothing; I've had no news," he replied. "But last night I had a dream. I dreamed I was in a boat, alone. I had no oars, no rudder. I was helpless in a boundless ocean." There was silence for a moment. Then the President added: "I have had that dream many times during the war. And each time, some great battle came within a day or two. Yes, gentlemen, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps in just a few hours, you will have important news."

Five hours later, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.

37. Dry Inside

Illustration

Jef Olson

There is a powerful scene in the movie, The Godfather, where Don Corleone, is forced to visit the distinguished Cardinal Lamberto to tell him the bad news that a legitimate business deal involving the Vatican Bank has gone bad. The bank is run by the Archbishop and a coalition of Catholic businessmen. The Cardinal listens to the Godfather; then the Cardinal says something quite profound. He picks up a stone and says, "Look at this stone. It has been lying in the water for a very long time. The water has not penetrated it." Then he smashes the stone. "Look," he says peering at the smashed insides of the stone, "perfectly dry. The same thing," the Cardinal continues, "has happened to men in Europe. They have been surrounded by Christianity for centuries, but Christ does not live in their hearts."

This is what happened in the Temple in Jesus' time. There were people there who had been surrounded by the Temple for years, but the God of the Temple had not been allowed to enter their lives nor penetrate their hearts. As St. Paul once put it, "They had the form of godliness, but not the real thing." The hardest hearts in this world are not among the ungodly, but among the Godly.

38. Good News - Sermon Starter

Illustration

Brett Blair

The story is told of a Franciscan monk in Australia was assigned to be the guide and "gofer" to Mother Teresa when she visited New South Wales. Thrilled and excited at the prospect of being so close to this great woman, he dreamed of how much he would learn from her and what they would talk about. But during her visit, he became frustrated. Although he was constantly near her, the friar never had the opportunity to say one word to Mother Teresa. There were always other people for her to meet.

Finally, her tour was over, and she was due to fly to New Guinea. In desperation, the Franciscan friar spoke to Mother Teresa: If I pay my own fare to New Guinea, can I sit next to you on the plane so I can talk to you and learn from you? Mother Teresa looked at him. You have enough money to pay airfare to New Guinea? she asked.

Yes, he replied eagerly. “Then give that money to the poor,” she said. “You'll learn more from that than anything I can tell you.” Mother Teresa understood that Jesus’ ministry was to the poor and she made it hers as well. She knew that they more than anyone else needed good news.

On a Saturday morning, in Nazareth, the town gathered in the synagogue to listen to Jesus read and teach. It was no big surprise. He was well known in the area; it was his hometown. He was raised there. They wanted to learn from him. So when he read from the Isaiah scroll, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor” everyone understood these words to be the words of Isaiah. It is how that prophet from long ago defined his ministry.

When Jesus finished that reading he handed the scroll to the attendant and sat down. In that day you sat in the Moses Seat to teach to the people. Today preachers stand in a pulpit. So all eyes were on Jesus, waiting for him to begin his teaching. What would he say about this great prophet Isaiah? Would he emphasis the bad news? Israel had sinned and would be taken into captivity by the Babylonians. Or would he emphasis the good news? One day God would restore his people and bring them back from captivity. It was Israel’s ancient history but it still spoke volumes.

Now here’s the wonderful twist, the thing that catches everyone off guard that Saturday morning in Nazareth. Jesus does neither. He doesn’t emphasize those things past. He focuses on the present. He doesn’t lift up Isaiah as the great role model; Jesus lifts up himself. This is the pertinent point. It’s what upsets everybody at the synagogue. It’s why everybody was furious with him and drove him out of town. They were going to kill him. He dared to say that these great words of Isaiah were really about himself. “Today,” he said, “this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Why does Jesus describe himself as the new Isaiah? How is it that he is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words? Let’s take a look at…

1. The captivity and restoration of Israel under Isaiah’s ministry.
2. The captivity of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.
3. The restoration of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.

39. The Namless Last Student

Illustration

Staff

The setting is Ohio State University about six or seven years ago in a huge lecture hall (approximately 1000 students) for a Calculus final.

Apparently this particular calculus teacher wasn't very well liked. He was one of those guys who would stand at the front of the class and yell out how much time was remaining before the end of a test, a real charmer. Since he was so busy gallivanting around the room making sure that nobody cheated and that everyone was aware of how much time they had left before their failure on the test was complete, he had the students stack the completed tests on the huge podium at the front of the room. This made for quite a mess, remember there were 1000 students in the class.

During this particular final, one guy entered the test needing a decent grade to pass the class. His only problem with Calculus was that he did poorly when rushed, and this guy standing in the front of the room barking out how much time was left before the tests had to be handed in didn't help him at all. He figured he wanted to assure himself of a good grade, so he hardly flinched when the professor said "pencils down and submit your scantron sheets and work to piles at the front of the room". Five minutes turned into ten, ten into twenty, twenty into forty...almost an hour after the test was "officially over", our friend finally put down his pencil, gathered up his work, and headed to the front of the hall to submit his final. The whole time, the professor sat at the front of the room, strangely waiting for the student to complete his exam.

"What do you think you're doing?" the professor asked as the student stood in front of him about to put down his exam on one of the neatly stacked piles of exams (the professor had plenty of time to stack the mountain of papers while he waited) It was clear that the professor had waited only to give the student a hard time.

"Turning in my exam," retorted the student confidently. "I'm afraid I have some bad news for you," the professor gloated, "Your exam is an hour late. You've failed it and, consequently, I'll see you next term when you repeat my course."

The student smiled slyly and asked the professor "Do you know who I am?"

"What?" replied the professor gruffly, annoyed that the student showed no sign of emotion.

The student rephrased the question mockingly, "Do you know what my name is?"

"No", snarled the professor.

The student looked the professor dead in the eyes and said slowly, "I didn't think so", as he lifted up one of the stacks half way, shoved his test neatly into the center of the stack, let the stack fall burying his test in the middle, turned around, and walked casually out of the huge lecture hall.

40. Faith and Power

Illustration

Larry Powell

Mark 4:37-41 is one of the many passages in the Bible which has been set to music. "Master, the tempest is raging! The billows are tossing high! The sky is o’er shadowed with blackness ..." You recognize it. From childhood, we have sung the words to "Peace Be Still" and have loved to lift the refrain which concludes, "they all shall sweetly obey thy will ..." Two primary elements are underscored in both the scripture and the hymn: the power of Christ and faith in Christ.

The Gospel according to Mark characterizes the ministry of Jesus as being a succession of "mighty works," indicative of his Sonship. Actually, the stilling of the storm is only the beginning of a series of incidents portraying the power of Christ. After the storm experience on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus and the disciples came to the other side of the sea into the country of the Gerasenes. Here they encountered a man who lived among the tombs, crying out in travail both day and night, inflicting injury upon himself and striking fear into the hearts of all who chance to see him. Frequently, he had been subdued and bound with chains, but such was his deranged agony that he tore away the fetters and ran about the tombs as a wild man. In a great display of power, Jesus freed the man from his torment (5:13) and "all marveled. Then, crossing to the other side of the sea, Jesus encountered a certain Janus, a ruler of the synagogue, who prevailed upon him to accompany him to his home and heal his daughter" (5:23). On the way to the home of Janus Jesus was "touched" by a desperate woman who had hemorraged for twelve years and, according to Mark 5:29, so great was the power of Jesus that the woman was immediately healed simply by touching his clothing. Not to be minimized here is Jesus’ statement to the woman; "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed from your disease" (5:34). Now the word comes that during the interval, Janus’ daughter has died. Reassuring Janus, Jesus said, "Do not fear, only believe." Approaching the house Jesus observed a gathering of people loudly mourning the death of the girl. Everyone was asked to wait outside the house save the little girl’s parents and the disciples who had been selected to accompany Jesus to the house, Peter, James, and John. "Taking her by the hand, he said to her, ‘Talitha cumi’ which means ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise.’ And immediately the girl got up and walked" (5:41-42).

Power! That is the theme of Mark’s section dealing with three successive miracles of Jesus. Read again the refrain of "Peace, Be Still" and see how it applied to each of the three incidents. See also the summons for faith. The disciples were scolded for their lack of faith, the woman with the issue of blood was rewarded because of her faith, and Janus was encouraged to intensify the faith he already had exhibited by falling at the feet of Jesus. Desperation characterizes all three encounters, and all three contain the enacted teaching that the power of Christ is but half of the whole; the other half, which taps this power, is faith. Ironically, it would appear that we, too, learn the lesson best in times of desperation.

41. Chickens For World Leaders

Illustration

Brett Blair

Organizers for the dinner party that opened the celebration of the 50th birthday of the United Nations faced an almost impossible task: preparing a meal for sixty-five heads of state and their entourages that was fitting for a dignitary, and non-offensive to all cultures represented. This meant no shellfish, no pork, no beef and no sauces that involved alcohol. It also meant no white flowers on the tables, because some Asian cultures associate white flowers with mourning. They could not afford for a dignitary to take religious or cultural offense at an ingredient in an hors d'oeuvre. They couldn't take the chance that one dignitary might be served his wild-rice-and-wheatberry pilaf before another and perceive it as an insult.

The caterer had to make sure there were as many as three waiters for each of the 61 tables, so that every head of state could be served at exactly the same time. So, what did the caterer end up serving? What do you serve when you don't want to offend anyone? Chicken.

This banquet pales by comparison to the one Jesus proposes in Luke 14. The United Nations exist for the establishment of justice and peace in our world. It is - as law governing bodies ought to be - there to protect the weak and disenfranchised. One has to wonder just how far its leaders allow it to drift from time to time from its main objectives.

42. Meet in the Middle

Illustration

Tim Kimmel

Shortly after the turn of the century, Japan invaded, conquered, and occupied Korea. Of all of their oppressors, Japan was the most ruthless. They overwhelmed the Koreans with a brutality that would sicken the strongest of stomachs. Their crimes against women and children were inhuman. Many Koreans live today with the physical and emotional scars from the Japanese occupation.

One group singled out for concentrated oppression was the Christians. When the Japanese army overpowered Korea one of the first things they did was board up the evangelical churches and eject most foreign missionaries. It has always fascinated me how people fail to learn from history. Conquering nations have consistently felt that shutting up churches would shut down Christianity. It didn't work in Rome when the church was established, and it hasn't worked since. Yet somehow the Japanese thought they would have a different success record.

The conquerors started by refusing to allow churches to meet and jailing many of the key Christian spokesmen. The oppression intensified as the Japanese military increased its profile in the South Pacific. The "Land of the Rising Sum" spread its influence through a reign of savage brutality. Anguish filled the hearts of the oppressed and kindled hatred deep in their souls.

One pastor persistently entreated his local Japanese police chief for permission to meet for services. His nagging was finally accommodated, and the police chief offered to unlock his church ... for one meeting. It didn't take long for word to travel. Committed Christians starving for an opportunity for unhindered worship quickly made their plans. Long before dawn on that promised Sunday, Korean families throughout a wide area made their way to the church. They passed the staring eyes of their Japanese captors, but nothing was going to steal their joy. As they closed the doors behind them they shut out the cares of oppression and shut in a burning spirit anxious to glorify their Lord.

The Korean church has always had a reputation as a singing church. Their voices of praise could not be concealed inside the little wooden frame sanctuary. Song after song rang through the open windows into the bright Sunday morning. For a handful of peasants listening nearby, the last two songs this congregation sang seemed suspended in time. It was during a stanza of "Nearer My God to Thee" that the Japanese police chief waiting outside gave the orders. The people toward the back of the church could hear them when they barricaded the doors, but no one realized that they had doused the church with kerosene until they smelled the smoke. The dried wooden skin of the small church quickly ignited. Fumes filled the structure as tongues of flame began to lick the baseboard on the interior walls. There was an immediate rush for the windows. But momentary hope recoiled in horror as the men climbing out the windows came crashing back in their bodies ripped by a hail of bullets.

The good pastor knew it was the end. With a calm that comes from confidence, he led his congregation in a hymn whose words served as a fitting farewell to earth and a loving salutation to heaven. The first few words were all the prompting the terrified worshipers needed. With smoke burning their eyes, they instantly joined as one to sing their hope and leave their legacy. Their song became a serenade to the horrified and helpless witnesses outside. Their words also tugged at the hearts of the cruel men who oversaw this flaming execution of the innocent.

Alas! and did my Savior bleed?
and did my Sovereign die?
Would he devote that sacred head
for such a worm as I?
Just before the roof collapsed they sang the last verse,
their words an eternal testimony to their faith.
But drops of grief can ne'er repay
the debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give myself away
'Tis all that I can do!
At the cross, at the cross
Where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away
It was there by faith I received my sight,
And now I am happy all the day.

The strains of music and wails of children were lost in a roar of flames. The elements that once formed bone and flesh mixed with the smoke and dissipated into the air. The bodies that once housed life fused with the charred rubble of a building that once housed a church. But the souls who left singing finished their chorus in the throne room of God. Clearing the incinerated remains was the easy part. Erasing the hate would take decades. For some of the relatives of the victims, this carnage was too much. Evil had stooped to a new low, and there seemed to be no way to curb their bitter loathing of the Japanese.

In the decades that followed, that bitterness was passed on to a new generation. The Japanese, although conquered, remained a hated enemy. The monument the Koreans built at the location of the fire not only memorialized the people who died, but stood as a mute reminder of their pain.

Inner rest? How could rest coexist with a bitterness deep as marrow in the bones? Suffering, of course, is a part of life. People hurt people. Almost all of us have experienced it at some time. Maybe you felt it when you came home to find that your spouse had abandoned you, or when your integrity was destroyed by a series of well-timed lies, or when your company was bled dry by a partner. It kills you inside. Bitterness clamps down on your soul like iron shackles.

The Korean people who found it too hard to forgive could not enjoy the "peace that passes all understanding." Hatred choked their joy.

It wasn't until 1972 that any hope came. A group of Japanese pastors traveling through Korea came upon the memorial. When they read the details of the tragedy and the names of the spiritual brothers and sisters who had perished, they were overcome with shame. Their country had sinned, and even though none of them were personally involved (some were not even born at the time of the tragedy), they still felt a national guilt that could not be excused. They returned to Japan committed to right a wrong. There was an immediate outpouring of love from their fellow believers. They raised ten million yen ($25,000). The money was transferred through proper channels and a beautiful white church building was erected on the sight of the tragedy. When the dedication service for the new building was held, a delegation from Japan joined the relatives and special guests.

Although their generosity was acknowledged and their attempts at making peace appreciated, the memories were still there. Hatred preserves pain. It keeps the wounds open and the hurts fresh. The Koreans' bitterness had festered for decades. Christian brothers or not, these Japanese were descendants of a ruthless enemy. The speeches were made, the details of the tragedy recalled, and the names of the dead honored. It was time to bring the service to a close. Someone in charge of the agenda thought it would be appropriate to conclude with the same two songs that were sung the day the church was burned. The song leader began the words to "Nearer My God to Thee."

But something remarkable happened as the voices mingled on the familiar melody. As the memories of the past mixed with the truth of the song, resistance started to melt. The inspiration that gave hope to a doomed collection of churchgoers in a past generation gave hope once more. The song leader closed the service with the hymn "At the Cross." The normally stoic Japanese could not contain themselves. The tears that began to fill their eyes during the song suddenly gushed from deep inside. They turned to their Korean spiritual relatives and begged them to forgive. The guarded, calloused hearts of the Koreans were not quick to surrender. But the love of the Japanese believers not intimidated by decades of hatred tore at the Koreans' emotions.

At the cross, at the cross
Where I first saw the light,
And the burden of my heart rolled away ...

One Korean turned toward a Japanese brother. Then another. And then the floodgates holding back a wave of emotion let go. The Koreans met their new Japanese friends in the middle. They clung to each other and wept. Japanese tears of repentance and Korean tears of forgiveness intermingled to bathe the site of an old nightmare. Heaven had sent the gift of reconciliation to a little white church in Korea.

43. Keep You Mouth Shut

Illustration

Staff

Kondraty Ryleyev was sentenced to be hanged for his part in an unsuccessful uprising against the Russian czar Nicholas I in December 1825. But the rope broke and Ryleyev, bruised and battered, fell to the ground, got up, and said, "In Russia they do not know how to do anything properly, not even how to make a rope." An accident of this sort usually resulted in a pardon, so a messenger was sent to the czar to know his pleasure. Nicholas asked, "What did he say?"

"Sire, he said that in Russia they do not even know how to make a rope properly."

"Well, let the contrary be proved," said the czar.

44. The Price of Mourning

Illustration

Henry Simon

The home of Paul Laurence Dunbar, noted poet, is open to the public in Dayton, Ohio. When Dunbar died, his mother left his room exactly as it was on the day of his death. At the desk of this brilliant man was his final poem, handwritten on a pad.

After his mother died, her friends discovered that Paul Laurence Dunbar's last poem had been lost forever. Because his mother had made his room into a shrine and not moved anything, the sun had bleached the ink in which the poem was written until it was invisible. The poem was gone.

If we stay in mourning, we lose much of life.

45. Let Us Work

Illustration

Martin Fletcher

There are many churches today that are "out to lunch" when it comes to reaching out to change the world. But fortunately, there are many other churches and many church members who are seeking the best they are able, to make a difference in the world. Let me give you one example of a follower of Christ who gives us a reason to believe in the future.

His name is Burl Cain and he is the warden at The Louisiana State Penitentiary, commonly known as Angola. This institution used to be one of the nation's bloodiest and most brutal prisons. Then, in the early '80s, Burl Cain became the new warden at Angola. Cain is a devout Christian; he put his beliefs into action in reforming the prison. He established literacy classes throughout the prison, even on Death Row. He increased the number of prison chaplains. He also allowed a local seminary to teach Bible studies at Angola. He also insisted that the guards treat inmates with respect. Consequently, incidents of violence have plummeted, and more prisoners are enrolling in education courses.

Warden Cain was particularly instrumental in the life of one inmate, Antonio James. James was a convicted killer who spent about sixteen years on Death Row. The night before his execution, Antonio James asked Cain to eat his last meal with him. Cain had counseled James in the past and introduced him to Christ. Now James wanted to know what it would be like to die. Cain assured him that angels would come to take him to heaven. As Antonio James prepared for his lethal injection, Burl Cain held his hand and spoke to him about God. James' last words to Cain were, "Bless you."

As long as there are disciples of Christ like Burl Cain, there is hope for the world. The question you and I need to ask ourselves is, are we doing our part? This is a crazy world, but it is also a God-invaded world. "The Word has become flesh and dwelt among us . . ." Christ has redeemed us that we might work in his behalf to redeem the world.

46. Are You Afraid to Meet God?

Illustration

One time many years ago, the king of Hungary found himself depressed and unhappy. He sent for his brother, a good-natured but rather indifferent prince. The king said to him, "I am a great sinner; I fear to meet God." But the prince only laughed at him. This didn't help the king's disposition any. Though he was a believer, the king had gotten a glimpse of his guilt for the way he'd been living lately, and he seriously wanted help.

In those days it was customary if the executioner sounded a trumpet before a man's door at any hour, it was a signal that he was to be led to his execution. The king sent the executioner in the dead of night to sound the fateful blast at his brother's door. The prince realized with horror what was happening. Quickly dressing, he stepped to the door and was seized by the executioner, and dragged pale and trembling into the king's presence.

In an agony of terror he fell on his knees before his brother and begged to know how he had offended him. "My brother," answered the king, "if the sight of a human executioner is so terrible to you, shall not I, having grievously offended God, fear to be brought before the judgment seat of Christ?"

47. God Cannot Die

Illustration

Ray C. Stedman

Martin Luther once spent three days in a black depression over something that had gone wrong. On the third day his wife came downstairs dressed in mourning clothes. "Who's dead?" he asked her.

"God," she replied.

Luther rebuked her, saying, "What do you mean, God is dead? God cannot die."

"Well," she replied, "the way you've been acting I was sure He had!"

Many of us have been caught in that trap. This is also what had happened to Mary.

48. JAILER

Illustration

Stephen Stewart

Acts 16:27 - "When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped."

As a legal punishment, imprisonment is not found in ancient law, and it does not appear in the Bible until the Persian period. Of course, now we are talking about prisons such as we know them today. To a degree, we can say that the forced-labor camps to which the Israelites were sent by the Egyptian rulers, or those of Solomon, were prisons, and that, therefore, the overseers of these camps would correspond to the jailer.

But, in general, if a man were detained on any charge, he would have what we would consider to be "house arrest," that is, he was confined to a specified area beyond which he might not go. And if you’re thinking that this shows a remarkable degree of leniency, you are quite wrong. Prisons were seldom needed because justice was executed on the spot - and execute is the right word for what frequently happened.

However, by New Testament times, prisons are mentioned as holding persons who are awaiting trial or execution, and also as punishment by itself. In these cases, when there was a considerable number of prisoners, one of the jailers served as a warden. He either combined the duties of guard and warden, or he served in only a supervisory role. In either case, he was responsible for the prisoners, as we see from our text. Because he thought his prisoners had escaped, the jailer was about to kill himself, rather than stand trial for negligence.

The comparison to today is obvious - the jailer or prison guard or warden of our modern penal institutions. And to an extent, this could also include others on the staff of these institutions who are responsible for punishing the guilty, and, hopefully, rehabilitating them into good citizens. Incarceration has been man’s only recourse from the criminal for many centuries now, and still human nature hasn’t changed. Perhaps there is a better way!

49. Translated Last Words

Illustration

Brett Blair

William Tyndale, first translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English, making a Bible for the common people. In 1535 he was betrayed by a friend, taken prisoner to the castle of Vilford, but continued to work on his translation during his year of imprisonment. He was unable to finish last part of the Bible because he was sentenced to die a heretic's death: Strangulation and burning at the stake. Just before his execution on October 6, 1536 his last words spoken were: "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."

Tyndale's prayerful last words were heard and answered. Within four years, four English translations of the Bible were published in England at the King's request, including Henry's official Great Bible. All were based on Tyndale's work.

50. Let Loose

Illustration

Editor James S. Hewett

In the drama The Trial of Jesus, John Masefield has the centurion Longinus report to Pilate after the crucifixion of Jesus. Longinus had been the officer in charge of the execution, and after his official report, Procula, Pilate's wife calls the centurion to come and tell her how the prisoner had died. Once the account is given, she asks, "Do you think he is dead?"

Longinus answers, "No, lady, I don't."

"Then, where is he?" asks Procula.

Longinus replies, "Let loose in the world, lady, where neither Roman nor Jew can stop his truth."

Showing 1 to 50 of 86 results