Photo by Dafna Gazit, Israel Antiquities Authority.
Archaeology has been able to document an increasing number of individuals mentioned in the pages of the Bible – including the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as King David, Hezekiah, and others (see the other posts in this category).
Most recently – just a few weeks ago – archaeologists officially announced the discovery of a 3,100-year-old inscription from the period of the biblical judges which may refer to Gideon, the Israelite warrior-leader famous for defeating the Midianite and Amalekite armies that invaded ancient Israel (Judges 6). While this inscription may not provide firm proof of Gideon, it is of great importance for a number of reasons.
For one thing, before its discovery there were practically no inscriptions of this time from the area of Israel in which it was found. Some had even argued that the alphabet was unknown in the region, that there were no scribes, and that the biblical accounts must therefore have been written much later. This find helps correct that view.
The inscription itself was found in excavations being conducted as a joint project of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Israel Antiquities Authority, and Macquarie University in Australia. It consists of the name Jerubbaal, known in the Bible as the nickname of the judge Gideon (Judges 6:31–32), written in ink on what remains of a pottery jar or jug. The preserved name probably identified the owner of the vessel, which may have held a precious liquid, such as perfume.
The Bible explains why the name Jerubbaal was given to Gideon: “because Gideon broke down Baal’s altar, they gave him the name Jerub-Baal that day, saying, “Let Baal contend with him” (Judges 6:32). Jerubbaal may also mean “May Ba‘al be great,” and while biblical writers often used the word ba‘al to refer to the pagan Canaanite god Ba‘al, the word could simply mean “lord,” as in the name of one of David’s heroes Baaliah (“Yah is Lord”) in 1 Chronicles 12:5 – so that the name Jerubbaal (“May the lord be great”) could also refer to Israel’s God Yahweh.
But one of the important aspects of the newly released inscription is that outside the Bible the name Jerubbaal is otherwise unknown in archaeological or historical contexts. Even if the new inscription does not refer to the Jerubbaal we know as Gideon, it shows that Jerubbaal was a name in use in exactly the time Gideon is said to have lived.
It is not known that the Jerubbaal inscription does not refer to the biblical Gideon in some way – especially as the name is otherwise unknown. The find was made at the site of Khirbet al-Ra‘i, thought by some to be the biblical Ziklag (1 Samuel 30, etc.), and petrographic analysis indicates it was locally made. Since the biblical Gideon lived in Oprah (Judges 6:11, 8:27), usually assumed to have been in the Jezreel Valley nearly a hundred miles away, it is thought that this inscription likely belonged to another Jerubbaal. However, the exact location of Oprah is unknown, and so original ownership by the biblical Gideon could still have been possible.
Interestingly, the related name Ishbaal (“Man of Baal/ the Lord”), which is only mentioned in the Bible during the time of King David, was found in stratum dated to that period at the site of Khirbat Qeiyafa in Israel, showing an emerging pattern of names previously only known from the Bible being attested archaeologically.
Ultimately, of course, we do not know if the Jerubbaal artifact was named for Gideon or some other Jerubbaal, but the fact that it demonstrates the actual use of the unusual name for the first time and that it dates to the time of the biblical Gideon makes it especially interesting. The artifact may not be proof of Gideon, but it certainly demonstrates the reality of an important aspect of the Gideon story – the name Jerubbaal itself.
The Bible is clear that we should confess our moral and spiritual failures, but the subject of confession can be confusing even for long-time Christians. Does the Bible teach that it is a public or a private thing? Should we confess all or just some of our faults to others? Do we need a priest or minister in order to confess? Understanding what the Bible teaches on this topic can help us answer these and other questions we may have on the subject.
There are actually a number of different words in the Bible that are translated “confess” or “confession” in English. In the Old Testament the most important word translated “confess” is the Hebrew word yada which can mean “to praise / give glory,” or “to confess an offence.” When Joshua tells the thief Achan “give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and honor him. Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me” (Joshua 7:19), he is using the word yada and we can see both senses of the word – to give praise or glory, and to confess – in this verse. When we confess our sins, we are acknowledging God is right and we are wrong, so we are praising or giving glory to God in addition to admitting our own faults.
In the New Testament there are also several words translated “confess,” but the most important is homologeō which is a compound word meaning “to say the same.” Just like yada in the Old Testament, this Greek word can be used in the sense of praising God (acknowledging that God is God and that he is right) or confessing that we are sinful (acknowledging that God is right in his judgment).
This dual meaning of the biblical words translated confess is the reason why Bible verses seem to use the word in two very different ways – positively, to confess our faith, and negatively, to confess our faults. Thus, when the apostle Paul wrote “And every tongue [will] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11) and when Matthew tells us regarding the people who went to John the Baptist “Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River” (Matthew 3:60), they are using the same Greek word – homologeō.
But how exactly should we go about the kind of confession that involves admitting our faults and sins? Some biblical verses seem to speak of private confession to God (for example, David’s psalm of repentance, Psalm 51), while others speak of public confession (for example, Acts 19:18-19 which tells us “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.”
A good way to understand the way in which confession should be accomplished is found in the statement that our confession should usually be as wide as our sin. This means that if we have sinned secretly, in most cases we should confess the sin to God and we need not confess it to others (more on this later). However, if we have sinned against another person, we should usually confess the sin to God and to the individual we have wronged. Finally, if we have sinned in a way that affects many people, we should confess it to God and sometimes also in public.
Notice that in explaining this principle of confession we have used the words “usually” and “sometimes.” This is because there is no hard and fast rule given in the Bible or even that we can make ourselves. We may need to act differently according to different circumstances. For example, in the case of a secret, personal sin we might wish to ask our pastor or a trusted Christian friend to pray for us in dealing with the sin we are fighting. This is the principle of accountability which can be very helpful in some cases, but it is a principle that should always be applied with wisdom and care – we should never simply “unload” our sins and faults on another person simply because they are a Christian.
When we realize that circumstances affect how confession to others is managed (in every circumstance we should confess our sins to God, of course), we can better understand the apostle James’ words with which we began this short article. In context, James tells us: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:16). Here, we see that James is talking about confession to elders of the church (vs. 14) regarding sins that may have brought sickness upon us or prevented our healing (vss. 14-15). So this is not speaking of confession in all circumstances. Second, notice that James speaks of confessing our sins to “one another,” which indicates that in some circumstances confession should be mutual. Certainly, the New Testament shows us that it is Jesus Christ who is our true mediator and the one through whom we are forgiven (“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”– 1 John 1:9), so our attitude is never one of looking to others for forgiveness, but simply for help in fulfilling the responsibility of repentance and growth that we all share.
In summary, the Bible teaching on the matter of confession is not one in which there is one rule for every circumstance. We should always confess our faults to God, but we should use wisdom, care, and discretion in deciding how widely the confession of certain sins should be made to others.
Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36), and the New Testament stresses that his followers are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven (Philippians 3:20). But does this mean that as Christians we should not love and identify with our individual countries? Some feel that honoring a physical country is contrary to the understanding of Christian “citizenship” – what does the Bible teach on this?
It is certainly true that every Christian is called to a universal family in which there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile, male or female (Galatians 3:28 ) – or for that matter, Americans, English, French, Nigerians or citizens of any nation. But many scriptures show that as members of the family of God, we can still appreciate and celebrate our own individual cultural heritage or nationality.
A verse often used to help show that our identity with our own nation is acceptable is Jeremiah 29:7, where God’s people were encouraged to pray for their city (which was, at that time, Babylon!) and country. In a similar manner, we find Psalm 122:6 urging us to “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem” and many other psalms praying for, or encouraging others to pray for, the land and people of Israel.
So identity with and support of one’s nation is certainly found in the Old Testament, but what about the New Testament – did Christ’s teaching and the establishment of the Christian faith do away with love and concern for one’s country?
When we remember that Jesus wept over the fate of Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39, Luke 19:41-44) and the apostle Paul wrote that one of his chief desires was for his fellow Jews to be saved (Romans 10:1), we see the expression of a specific attitude. That attitude does not view the Israelites as being more important than other peoples (John 10:16; 1 Timothy 2:4), but it shows the importance of the welfare of one’s country and fellow citizens for both Jesus and Paul.
At the most basic level, the question “Is love of country biblical?” revolves around the concept of nations within the Bible. Are the nations themselves purely human constructs that somehow are in opposition to God’s will? The Scriptures give overwhelming evidence that this is not so. Abraham was told by God that all the nations of the world – not just the peoples – would be blessed through him (Genesis 22:18). Deuteronomy 32:8 tells us that God himself gave the nations their inheritance and set their boundaries, and we see the continuation of the individual nations in God’s plan for humanity throughout the books of the Bible.
Consider the many verses that show this in the Bible’s final book. The Book of Revelation tells us that those who overcome will rule over the nations (Revelation 2:26), and that all nations will eventually worship before God (Revelation 15:4). At its conclusion, in its description of the New Earth, Revelation stresses that the nations will walk according to God’s light (Revelation 21:24), that the glory and honor of the nations will be brought into the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:26), and that the tree of life will be there for the healing of the nations (Revelation 22:2).
So the Bible does not show that human nations are simply part of human government that will be superseded by the government of God – nations are clearly in existence in the Kingdom of God itself. We should never place our physical nation, like anything else, before our allegiance to God (Acts 5:29), but we are free to appreciate and support our individual nations and, like Jesus and Paul, to love them.
As Christians we know and understand that the Church is the “Body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27) – that it is a body of individual people who have become spiritually fused in him. Yet we must sometimes remind ourselves of what the Church is not.
Church is not a building you go to
William “Billy” Sunday’s famous line that “Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you an automobile” is still as true now as it was back in the early part of the Twentieth Century, and it is a principle with deep scriptural support. The Church is not the physical building, but the spiritual one.
The apostle Peter affirmed this in writing: “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house…” (1 Peter 2:5), and the author of the book of Hebrews likewise tells us: “But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory” (Hebrews 3:6).
Confusing the physical building with the spiritual building and its mission can lead to problems when resources and time are focused on the physical place we worship rather than the job the worship calls us to do. A church building may be a nice structure, with beautiful stained glass windows, but the Spirit of God does not work through buildings. A way to test our own relationship with that truth is to ask ourselves, rather than saying “Today is the day we go to church,” how natural is it to say “Today is the day the Church goes to our building.”
Church is not a denomination you join
The famous pastor and writer A. W. Tozer was fond of saying that “One hundred religious persons knit into a unity by careful organization do not constitute a church any more than eleven dead men make a football team.” We can apply this truth to the understanding that the Church of God is not a denomination – no matter how large (or exclusively small). We must frequently remind ourselves that not all Christians are in any one denomination, and not everyone in any denomination is a Christian.
We have only to read the book of Acts to see that even the earliest Church had “denominations” – we read of factions which required circumcision and those who did not, groups that taught all aspects of the law of Moses and those who did not – yet they are all said to have been part of the Church.
For most of us this may not be an issue. But many Christians do shy away from fellowship with those who do not agree with them on all points of doctrine. And sometimes the division is even within denominations. It is not entirely uncommon for congregations to sometimes focus on their own needs and programs rather than on the bigger picture of what is being done nationally and worldwide. In either case, it can be helpful for us all to think of the Church more broadly.
Church is not a social activity you participate in
In the famous words of American basketball player and coach John Wooden, we should “Never mistake activity for achievement,” and unless we see the Church as something very distinct from church activities, we can faithfully participate in socials, campouts, sing-alongs, movie nights and all kinds of other activities without ever having fulfilled the purpose of the Church in our lives. As Christian writer Thom Rainer puts it in an article discussing activity-driven churches: “Many churches are busy, probably too busy. Church calendars fill quickly with a myriad of programs and activities. While no individual activity may be problematic, the presence of so many options can be” (Seven Problems with an Activity Driven Church).
We all understand that fellowship is an integral part of what the Church is all about, but an endless stream of activities replaces real fellowship with activities having their own focus, and that can be self-defeating for any congregation. Among his seven points Rainer reminds us that activity is not biblical purpose, that busyness can take us away from connecting with other believers and non-believers. A congregation that is too busy can hurt families, and an activity-driven church often has no real presence in the community.
These are all things we should think about at times. It is vital that every Christian understand that activities are not really church any more than buildings or individual denominations are. We are called to a community that far exceeds any and all of these things.
There are many lessons to be learned from the book of Job, and among them are important lessons we can learn from his friends. Despite their lack of understanding regarding Job’s situation and the errors they made in what they said in that regard, Job’s friends got some things right and their story can teach us worthwhile lessons in helping those who are suffering:
1. They were attentive.
Although Job and his friends were separated by considerable distances, they obviously stayed in touch to the extent that they knew that Job was suffering and could use their encouragement. We cannot help others if we fail to stay connected and are not attentive to their needs – whether they are friends, co-workers, aged family members, or others. Job’s friends were not so wrapped up in their own lives that they were disconnected from his; they were not too busy to stay in touch and see when he needed them.
2. They got involved.
When they became aware of Job’s situation, his friends acted on the knowledge. They did not simply pray for Job – right and proper as that would be – they got involved to do what they could do directly. The friends doubtless sacrificed considerable time and energy in traveling to Job from other lands, and they apparently came at once rather than waiting for a convenient time, after the harvest, after the summer heat, or whatever.
3. They coordinated.
Job 2:11 tells us that Job’s friends: “met together to go and sympathize with Job and comfort him,” or, as the ESV translates this verse: “They made an appointment together to come to show him sympathy and comfort him.” The three friends clearly coordinated with each other to help Job. We can learn from this by seeing the value of reaching out to let others know of a person’s need and by helping to coordinate visits or help for the individual from different people at different times.
4. They reacted appropriately.
The Bible tells us to “Mourn with those who mourn” (Romans 12:15), and we are told that when Job’s friends saw him “they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads” (Job 2:12). Tearing one’s clothes and throwing dust or ashes on oneself was a sign of mourning in the ancient world, and this is what Job himself had done (Job 2:8). Jobs’ friends grieved deeply for him and they expressed their emotions in clear but appropriate ways that helped Job see they identified with him and his suffering.
5. They did best when they said less.
The friends said nothing for seven days (2:13), and while they commiserated in silence the friends did no wrong. It was only once they began to comment on the situation that their mistaken assumptions of Job’s guilt made him even more miserable and eventually earned a rebuke from God himself. The friends’ statements about children who do wrong or who suffer for their parents’ wrongdoing (Job 5:4; 8:4; 21:19; etc.) were doubtless especially painful to Job who had just lost his own children (Job 1:5). Often, when people are suffering, we may try to say something to make the situation better or to offer encouragement – but what we say at such times can inadvertently appear to be arguing with the sufferer or hurt in other ways (Job 16:4; 19:2). Job’s friends showed there are times when it is better to say less and allow our physical presence to do most of the talking.
6. They stayed with Job.
Despite their failings with words, Job’s friends stayed with him for at least seven days – it was no quick visit just to offer condolences. We may not always be able to give up extended periods of time to help others, but the principle of staying with the sufferer means doing things such as continuing to contact them, to see if they need help and to give them an opportunity to talk about their situation. We should notice that even when the friends stopped trying to speak to Job (Job 32:1), they did not leave for home – they stayed and continued sitting with him for some time.
These six lessons are simple enough, but applying them in our interaction with those who are suffering can make a great deal of difference.
Recent Comments