JESUS: The Prince of the Second Week of Advent (Isaiah 9:6&7)

Introduction 

In 2020, NBC rebooted the game show The Weakest Link. If not familiar with the show, think Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? meets Survivor. Like Who Wants To be A Millionaire, contestants bank money by answering trivia questions. Like Survivor, at the end of every round, contestants vote on who they would like to see removed from the game. The contestant with the most votes indeed gets removed from the show, and the last player standing wins the money. Most of the questions are basic, common, general knowledge (assuming you are somewhat familiar with pop culture). I highly doubt that anybody has any problems with any questions, but when you ask a question about the biblical languages, you might have a Biblical studies PhD candidate and former quizzer contest.

In one of the reboot episodes, one of the questions asked, “What Hebrew word means hello, goodbye, and peace?” The answer they were looking for was “shalom.” I really wanted to stand and yell, “I contest!” The word’s definition does mean peace, but the word’s definition within itself does not mean “hello” or “goodbye.” Rather, peace became both a salutation and valediction. In Old Testament times, a Hebrew running into a stranger did not know whether the stranger was friend or foe. By shouting “Shalom!” or “Peace!” the stranger made sure his peaceful intentions were made known, putting his fellow Hebrew at ease. On the flipside, shalom or “peace” became well wishes in leaving, like “Have a good day!” or “Have a nice week!” One could say, “Have a peaceful day!” or “Have a peaceful week!” To summarize, the Hebrew word shalom itself only means “peace,” but it became a greeting for arriving and departing.

The game show did get something right, though. The Hebrew word shalom does means more than just “peace.” As anyone fluent in multiple languages will tell you, rarely do words between languages have a perfect one-to-one correspondence. Translators end up picking the best, closest translation, with the insinuation that it may lack in some certain areas. Likewise, “peace” is the best, closest translation for shalom, but recognize that “peace” is an incomplete definition, lacking in some areas. Therefore, shalom needs a fuller definition.

In 2005, MennoMedia, a media agency of Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada, created the Peace DVD, a DVD with 6-sessions of youth Bible study to encourage youth to think about how they could bring peace to the world. If you’re doing the math, yes, that was 2 years after the United States of America entered into war/conflict with Iraq, but no, all 6 sessions did not merely rant about the evils of war. As a matter of fact, the DVD did not even touch war until session 5 of 6. Sessions included peace with God, peace with the earth and people within the community. At the beginning of every session, the leaders of the video would start off with a definition of peace, which actually works well with shalom.

"Peace is when everything is the best it can be." -Peace DVD

Now my Sunday school leaders had the class memorize this definition on top of our Bible memory. I came close, but I could never say it right. Every time I tried, I would say, "Peace is when the world’s all as it should be." If you didn’t recognize it, my definition comes from the contemporary praise and worship song "Blessed be Your Name." But isn’t that the same thing? If the world’s all as it should be, as God intended it, without sin, then everything would be at the best. That's shalom, that’s “peace.” Shalom appears in the garden of Eden. The garden has shalom because the garden had everything God planned, nothing wrong or out of place. Adam and Eve walked with God. They had shalom with their maker, with each other and the earth on which they lived. When Satan came in and Eve fell to his temptation, that peace was gone. When God promised them a messiah, not only was he providing a way to get out of the sin, but a promise of restoring the peace. Genesis 3:15 implicitly says that the offspring would restore the shalom once found in the Garden, but Isaiah 9:6-7 explicitly speaks of a chosen child ruling with peace.

Isaiah 9:6

In the previous chapter, Isaiah 8, Yahweh, through Isaiah, has pronounced judgment upon the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Assyrian Empire would conquer and subdue the Northern Kingdom, until they are no more. While such news sounds like gloom to Israel, Isaiah actually prophesies glory for Israel in Isaiah 9! The Lord would save and deliver Israel from their oppressors, bringing glory to both God and Israel. This salvation would come from the Messiah. Perhaps Isaiah can see even further than it, seeing the eschaton, in which Israel would never ever have to worry about foreign oppressors because all people and all nations fall in subjugation to Yahweh and his Messiah.

While Jewish scholars acknowledge Isaiah speaks prophetically about the future, Jewish scholars have attempted to argue this prophesy has fulfillment in the immediate or near future, prophesying the birth of one of Isaiah’s sons or Ahaz’s sons (or descendant). Christian scholars, however, have proven none of those work, meaning it has to refer to the Messiah. At best, the Jewish scholars can argue that one of Isaiah’s or Ahaz’s son might have partially fulfilled the prophecy, but the prophecy will only have complete fulfillment in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 9:6 begins with “for” (כִּי, kî), the third of a chain of three. Primarily, the conjunction “for” links together Isaiah 9:6 all the way back Isaiah 9:3. Back in Isaiah 9:3, Isaiah declares that Yahweh has given the nation joy. The joy is possible because the Lord has freed the nation from oppressing. The freedom of oppression is possible because God brought an end to war. The end of war is possible because someone is coming to end it. Thus, the grand conclusion of all God’s plan for his people come down to not to a place, a thing, an event or an idea, but a person.

In this passage, the conjunction “for” has a secondary function of indicating a feature of salvation, so the chain of three “for”s marks three traits of salvation. From the third “for,” Isaiah 9:6 teaches that a part of salvation involves a coming chosen one, the Messiah. In the times of Isaiah, messianic hopes included that the Messiah would reunite the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Kingdom of Judah into one nation. The Messiah would rule over all the tribes, just like his ancestors David and Solomon did. Therefore, the “us” that follows the third “for” includes all the tribes of Israel. Some scholars, like Jameison, Fausset and Brown, notice Isaiah says “us” instead of “you,” as in his fellow Jew, so the “us” must refer to the Jews and Gentiles alike. Other scholars, like J.M. Roberts, take even a step further, claiming the “us” refers to all God’s creation, in heaven and in earth. The coming Messiah is the Messiah for all of humanity, both Jew and Gentiles, and all of creation, both in the heavens and on the earth!

This human God has in mind will not descend from the heavens as fully-grown adult. No, he will be a child, or more specifically, a son. For the two previous chapters, Isaiah has implied child, not adult. Now in this chapter, Isaiah emphasizes child, and he will do so again in the eleventh chapter. So much emphasis on a child, not an adult, has a two-fold meaning. First, the coming one is not solely divine. Rather, he is fully human, including experiencing birth and childhood. The coming one is both divine and human. Second, it reveals how the coming one will rescue the nation from oppression and war. If the coming one solely came as divine, he would simply overpower the oppressors, which could come off as making God look like the oppressor and the Warhawk. God’s way involves humility, submission and love, thus breaking the cycle of violence.

The verbs “is born” (ילד, yālǎḏ) and “is given” (נתן, nāṯǎn) may seem like a synonymous parallelism, but here it functions better as a synthetic parallelism. The second verb prophesies that the birth of the child is not a fluke, but rather, the son come from the Lord’s sovereign plan.

Isaiah 9:6 gives a clue to who or what type of person this may be. Notice all the political words throughout Isaiah 9:6&7 – government, prince, throne, kingdom (even “justice” could be considered a political term if “justice” is considered the job of the government). Interesting enough, the political term “king” seems absent. Some scholars, like Harrelson and Von Rad, believe that Isaiah sees the kings of Israel and Judah so wicked that for this person to share the same time as these evil men would be an insult!

The first of these political phrases announces this born child, this given son, will have the government upon his shoulders. The Hebrew term “government” (מִשְׂרָה, misrah) is actually a rare word in the Hebrew Old Testament, only appearing here in Isaiah 9:6 and next in Isaiah 9:7 verse out of the entire Hebrew Old Testament! Isaiah 9:6 uses this rare word in very poetic imagery of being or resting “upon the shoulders” (עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ, al shekem). Quite possibly, this poetic imagery comes from the king’s robe. A king’s robe, rested on the wearer’s shoulders, indicated that the wearer ruled over the nation. More likely, however, this poetic imagery paints the picture of a burden, like a yoke, placed on the shoulders. A king bears a burden to rule a people, like sustaining the nation and keeping the citizens safe and at peace, free from oppressors. How fitting that, instead of the king taking on the burden of protecting the people from foreign countries, the foreign nations have put on burden on Israel. The figurative language relays the message that this born child, this given son would be the true king of Israel. Again, whereas the wicked kings of Israel and Judah failed to reign as a godly king, this child would succeed as a good, godly king. He would throw off the oppressive burdens and give the people peace.

At the end of Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah gives this coming child four titles. Some scholars, like Wilberger, attempt to parallel to the Egyptian coronation ceremony, in which the new king receive five titles to reflect five divine attributes. This parallel falls flat on a few factors. First, Egyptian kings received five titles, but Isaiah 9:6 only has four. Second, Isaiah announces a birth, not a coronation. Third, the five divine titles of the Egyptians recognized the new king as becoming divine, as the Jews would have seen this practice as blasphemy. Other scholars, like R.A. Carson, believe that these titles intend to mock the Assyrian kings, who would give themselves exaggerated titles. While more possible than the Egyptian titles, this option still seems less likely, as Israelite kings normally didn’t practice anything similar, knowing their God preferred humility in his kings. This part of Isaiah 9:6 hints at the divine nature of the coming son. If an Israelite king would not receive such titles, then the coming child must be greater than just a king, like God.

The first two titles define who this Messiah is, like his attributes, characteristics and personality. The last two describe what the Messiah will do, like how he will rules as a king. Now all four titles deserve attention on their own, so much so that each title deserves its own sermon! For the sake of the topic at hand, the second week of advent, let’s jump to the last title, the prince of peace.

The “prince of peace” (שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם, sar-shâlōm), a phrase combining peace with a political word, should come as no surprise. Any good king would want peace for his people. Kings would try to appeal to their people by promoting peace in their campaigns. At the surface level, peace means the opposite of war. Such thinking draws to the ancestors of the kingly line, David and Solomon. While a man of war, David secured solid borders for Israel, giving the Israelite people within those borders peace from oppressors or raiders. Solomon, a man of peace, achieved peace with the surrounding nation by entering into alliances and peace treaties with the rulers of the surrounding nations. The people of Isaiah’s time long for those times to return because, in their days, they constantly experienced oppressors and raiders. For this reason, the prophecy in Isaiah 9 cannot refer to a son of Isaiah or Ahaz, for  God had promised David in the Davidic covenant that the people under the Davidic would experience peace from their foes (see 2 Samuel 7:10&11). The true Messiah would have to champion peace for his people! He would have to remove anyone or anything that would threaten peace to truly bring peace on the earth, to his country and the surrounding nations.

Isaiah may have left the Prince of Peace for last on purpose. It works kind of climatically. This coming child will not become an oppressing king or a Warhawk king, like so many kings before him. He will turn into a peaceful ruler, bringing peace by means of peace, not of oppression or war. No one will defy him because his transparency and vulnerability will reveal him of innocent of any wrongdoing. In essence, the Prince of Peace has to be the personification of peace. Not only will he bring peace by ending oppression and war, he will bring peace by bring reconciliation between God and man through love. To simply limit the Prince of Peace as the Prince of the opposite of war, however, would do the prince a disservice. Peace means more than that. Peace means calmness and success. This prince’s reign will not only bring a calm to the land, the calm will allow the people to shift from surviving in a hostile world to thriving in a calm world. Again, the Prince of Peace has to become the champion of peace, a leader of spiritual peace and calmness.

Isaiah 9:7

It only makes sense that a Prince of Peace will establish a government of peace. Isaiah 9:7 reveals a few elements of this government of peace. Not only will the prince of peace create a government of peace, but he will establish it so that it increases into all of eternity. The kingdom will have limitless growth increase in quantity and in quality. It shall touch all the land on the earth, and it will last for all time into eternity. Earthly kingdoms come and go, but this kingdom, the kingdom of heaven on earth, will last forever. Again, this means that Isaiah cannot think of new or recent person, like Ahaz’s son or grandson, for this kingdom extends into the distant future. The prince of peace will the final king, not just final in the sense of last, but also final in the sense that he is the best. No other king will need to come because no greater king would come than the Prince of Peace. The Prince of Peace will become the ideal Davidic king Yahweh envisioned for Israel. While the Lord may have rejected the current kings, he had not rejected David or his descendants. As a matter of fact, God fulfilling his promise by having the Messiah come from David’s line proves that God still faithfully loves David and his descendants. Dynasties of the earthly kingdoms come and go, but the Davidic king will reign forever.

Unlike David, though, the Prince of Peace will not establish his government through brute strength, conquering, intimidation or bloodshed. Instead, the Prince of Peace will establish his throne through justice and through righteousness. “Justice” (מִשְׁפָּט, mishpât) and “righteousness” (צְדָקָה, tsedâkâh) will become anchors to this kingdom. Everything that the Prince of Peace orders for his kingdom and his people rest in justice and in righteousness. The Prince of Peace himself will live under those standards of justice and righteousness, too. Just as the kingdom itself will last for eternity, as just the Davidic king will last for eternity, so will its justice and righteousness last for eternity.

The final colon of Isaiah 9:7 explains how Yahweh will fulfill what Isaiah just prophesied. The Hebrew term קִנְאָה (qēnā̊́) gets translated into both “jealous” and “zeal.” If you think about it, both terms have the same denotation, but they have different connotations. Both terms connotate wanting a person’s affection and attention. Jealousy denotes a selfish desire, wanting to make others’ affection and attention centered around the self. Zeal denotes actively pursuing others for the benefit of the other person’s sake. The Lord loved his people passionately. This strong love for his people would drive God to make sure his people lived safe and peaceful lives. If only a Messiah could give his people the good life he wanted them to have, then God would see it through that the Messiah would establish a government of peace. God’s glory links to the fate of his people. When God’s people live in a peaceful kingdom, his glory will shine the brightest. No matter an Israelite in the Northern Kingdom of Israel or a Jew in the Southern Kingdom of Judah, all hoped for the Prince of Peace to establish his government of peace, and Yahweh’s zeal assured their faith. What blessed assurance that the fulfillment of the promise comes down to the Lord’s work, not Israel’s work. If dependent on Israel’s intercession, not God’s, the kingdom would never come. All Israel had to do was put their faith and hope in Yahweh.

Concluding the exegesis of Isaiah 9:6&7, the fact becomes evident that it was necessary for the Messiah to be a Prince of Peace. It was not optional, it was not voluntarily, it was not something the Messiah could do if he had extra time or when he got around to it. The Messiah must be a Prince of Peace. It was mandatory; it was required. Anyone who claims to be the Messiah but is not a Prince of Peace is a liar. He is a false messiah, an antichrist. As a Prince of Peace, the Messiah must reflect the embodiment of peace. He must become the best a peace, a champion of peace. He must demonstrate peace and lead by an example. He must also rule by peace, establishing a kingdom of peace. By doing so, the Messiah will return his people to the shalom that God intended the world to have, as seen in the Garden of Eden.

The New Testament

The New Testament apostles understood the importance of the Messiah as the Prince of Peace. Therefore, the New Testament authors made sure to portray Jesus as the Prince of Peace that he was. That is why Luke records the angels announcing at the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” The angels recognized that the coming of the Christ was the coming of the Prince of Peace, and they wanted the shepherds to realize this, too. One of my favorite Christmas carols, if not my absolute favorite Christmas carol, is “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” because Charles Wesley has packed it so full of theology. The hymn "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" rewords the words of Luke 2:14 when it says "Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconcile." Wesley has captured both what Luke 2:14 says and means. When God promised them a messiah, not only was he providing a way to get out of the sin, but a promise of restoring the shalom.

That is why John records Jesus declaring in John 16:33, “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” Jesus himself acknowledge the missing shalom on the earth, and he knew it would not get any better for disciples who decided to follow him. In exchange for the chaos and disruption the world would give them, Jesus offered them shalom, through him and through his kingdom. As crazy and as hectic as this world may get, shalom always existed within Jesus and within the kingdom of God.

That is why Peter proclaims to Cornelius and his family in Acts 10:36, “As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all).”  Notice how Peter adds peace to the good news or gospel. Cornelius would have known what gospel meant, so why bother to add peace to it? Peter wanted Cornelius, and Luke wanted the readers of Acts, to know the importance of peace to the gospel and that Jesus, as the Christ, was that Prince of Peace. That’s good news indeed!

That is why Paul says in Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Again, Paul tells the saints in Ephesus it in Ephesians 2:14, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.” This last one probably stands out the most of all these New Testament verses, for in this Ephesians 4 passage, Paul speaks of how Jesus removed the division between Jews and Gentiles. Connecting Isaiah 9:6 to Ephesians 2:14 solidifies that the “us” in Isaiah 9:6 cannot merely refer to the Jews. It must refer to at least all humanity and at most all of creation.

Conclusion

Since Jesus is the Prince of Peace, people have a few ways they should respond. First, recall that Israel’s judgment, told in the previous chapter and some of the current chapter, came about because Israel refused to submit to Yahweh. Because Israel refused to submit to the Lord, the found themselves submitting to foreign powers. When Jesus comes again, he will ultimately bring peace by uniting the people, tribes and nations into his kingdom, the kingdom of God, under him. Those who refuse to surrender to Jesus are antagonists of the peace, and Jesus will not tolerate that in his kingdom. They will not experience the glory that Israel will experience in the future. They will experience the gloom Israel experienced in the past. Submit to King Jesus to experience his glory, or else you will experience gloom.

Second, a nation of peace and justice will never come about through a king, an emperor, a president or a prime minister. It will not come from any politician or any political party. A nation of peace, justice and righteousness will only come from Yahweh and his Anointed One, the Messiah,  Jesus Christ. That nation of peace, justice and righteousness must come about through God’s plans, not man’s plans. Only the foolish trust in politics, but the wise and mature Christian will trust in the Lord, not a man.

Third, remember that the Beatitudes in Matthew 6:9 reads, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” You know who else is a peacemaker and a Son of God (notice the capital S and capital G)? Jesus, the Prince of Peace! God has called all disciples of Jesus to reflect Jesus. In fact, the term Christian means “little Christian.” To call oneself a Christian, one must become a little prince of peace. To become a little prince of peace, Christians must become peacemakers. As the Peace DVD challenged Mennonite youth fellowships back in 2005, Christians should think about how they could bring peace to the world and then do it! David put it best when he penned in Psalm 34:14 “Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.” Peter found David’s words as such good advice that he wrote it again in 1 Peter 3:11.

Speaking of Peter, notice how Peter opens his second epistle in 2 Peter 1:2, “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,” and he closes his second epistle in 2 Peter 3:14, “Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.” Just like Peter, may peace be the first thought as you begin your days, and the last thought as you end your days. May you feel the peace of the Prince of Peace in your life, and may it encourage you to pass that peace to others.

Bibliography

Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016.

Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press, 2006.

Brooks, Keith. Summarized Bible: Complete Summary of the Old Testament. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

Cabal, Ted, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, and Doug Powell. The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.

Carter, James E., and Peter McLeod. “Isaiah.” The Teacher’s Bible Commentary. Edited by H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1972.

Chisholm, Robert B. “The Major Prophets.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Hughes, Robert B., and J. Carl Laney. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. The Tyndale reference library. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Martin, John A. “Isaiah.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

Kidner, F. Derek. “Isaiah.” Pages 629–70 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Longman, Tremper, III. “Isaiah.” Pages 1039–1136 in CSB Study Bible: Notes. Edited by Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017.

Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.

Richards, Lawrence O. The Bible Reader’s Companion. Electronic ed. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991.

Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 1–39. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. The New American Commentary. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007.

Smith, James E. The Major Prophets. Old Testament Survey Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. Isaiah. Vol. 1. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1910.

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Vol. 24. Revised Edition. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 2005.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Comforted. “Be” Commentary Series. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996.

Willmington, H. L. Willmington’s Bible Handbook. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1997.

Practicing the Positive Presence of People (Psalm 133)

Some people will erroneously attempt to put Christianity and Islam together, claiming Islam and Christianity are similar or the same religion. While numerous approaches can prove such a belief as completely false, one of those ways involves looking at the five pillars of Islam, the five basic yet mandatory acts required by all Muslims to be part of the Muslim religion. One of these pillars Muslim call the hajj, or “the pilgrimage.” Sometime during their lifetime, all Muslims have the requirement to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, and the “good” Muslims make this trip annually. Christianity has no equivalent on this and for good reason. Christians rightfully believes that our bodies are temples of God the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in essence, Christians do not have to go to God because God comes to them. While Christians could not relate at all to Muslims in regard to a pilgrimage, ironically, the ancient Jews could. A few of the Jewish holidays, like Passover and Pentecost, mandated all the Jews report before the Lord, whether at the tabernacle or at the temple. Therefore, the holiday became just as much a pilgrimage. Indeed, the Jews could truly say about these holidays that the journey had just as much importance as the destination.

An examination of Psalm 133 will reveal that the psalmist learned piece of a wisdom from his pilgrimage, which he willingly shares with anyone pursuing wisdom. Therefore, when observing Psalm 133, imagine an ancient Israel making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, like Passover or Pentecost. It will make Psalm 133 clearer.

In ancient times, the book of Psalms consisted of five scrolls or books. Psalm 133 lies within the fifth book or scroll. This fifth book or scroll has a group of psalms nicknamed Songs of Ascents. This group of psalms received its nickname because most, if not all, of the psalms in this section of the scroll were sung by pilgrims ascending Mount Zion to Jerusalem (hence the “Ascent” in “Songs of Ascents”) for those three holidays requiring pilgrimage. Psalm 133 joins Psalms 127 & 128 as one of three wisdom psalms in the fifth scroll commemorating the family unit and society. Indeed, this psalm falls under the category of a wisdom psalm, for this psalm aims more to teach about the Lord and less of adoration towards the Lord. One can see the psalm as an extended proverb, more specifically, an emblematic proverb. Some have even gone as far as suggesting this psalm as possible greeting for distant relatives joining up with the family. The psalm begins with piece a wisdom: the positive experience of dwelling with family. The middle of the psalm utilizes two metaphors which highlight the positivity. The psalm ends with another wise statement to tie together positive impact of family together under God. 

133:1. The psalmist begins by exclaiming “behold” to get the attention of the audience. He wants his audience to observe something carefully. He follows up with the adjectives “good” (טוֹב, tov) and “pleasant” (נָעִים, nāʿîm) , which should not come across as redundant. Each has its own meaning. The adjective “good” (טוֹב, tov) reminds the audience of the creation account in Genesis 1, in which God declares every aspect of his creation as “good.” The family and community are part of God’s good creation. The adjective “pleasant” (נָעִים, nāʿîm) comes from the root נעם, and from this root comes Hebrew words meaning “attractive,” “friendly,” “good,” “joyous” and “lovely.” It constantly pairs with “good” (טוֹב, tov) throughout the Old Testament. Therefore, the two adjectives do not come off as redundant, but rather, as emphasis. These two adjectives together declare something positive as something very positive. Then why not just say “very good” (ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד, tov meod)? When “good” (טוֹב, tov) and “pleasant” (נָעִים, nāʿîm) do distinguish in meaning, “good” (טוֹב, tov)  means positive in an objective way, and “pleasant” (נָעִים, nāʿîm)  means good in a subjective way. Family dwelling together is both objectively and subjectively positive, further cementing the very positive nature of family dwelling together.

In this case, the very positive thing would be brothers, or families, dwelling together. In ancient Israel, nuclear families would live together with their extended family. When sons married, the son would bring his newlywed wife back home to live with in his father’s house until the time of his father’s death, in which the eldest son would inherit the house, and the other sons would move away to build houses of their own. Daughters, when married, would move into their husband’s father’s house. Even when the father died, the oldest son inherited the house and the younger songs moved away, the younger brothers did not move far. Therefore, quite commonly, the family’s neighbors also shared a common ancestor with his neighbors. As seen in the first verse alone, the psalmist seems to praise this practice, both nuclear families continuing to live with extended family and communities consisting of related families. Not only did the people living in community have nationality ties, they also had blood ties. Soon, we will learn they had a third tie: religious ties.

See, keep in mind that, back in ancient times, no one could guarantee safe and secure long-distance travel. Therefore, when the holidays required pilgrimages to far off lands, no one left alone. The whole family unit, and sometimes the whole community, would travel together because traveling in numbers created safety and security. Again, the psalmist seems to praise such a practice because of unity it brings. Not only do these people have nationality ties and blood ties, they have religious ties because they all embark toward Jerusalem for the same cause: to worship the Lord. This imagery of people tied together in three aspects paints a picture of hope that a perfect peaceful unity can happen.

Concluding Psalm 133:1, imagine somebody, like the psalmist, traveling with his family and with his community up to Jerusalem for the holiday. Quite possibly, the stressors that happened in the ancient caravan match the same stressors that could happen in the modern-day Dodge Caravan. Babies crying. Children annoying and teasing one another. Slowing down for the elderly to allow them to catch up with the rest. Unexpected bathroom stops. While the psalmist probably experienced the like, he also observes, however, people helping each other. People protecting one another. People providing for one another. Therefore, he can confidently say, “What a wonderful time traveling with family and with community!”

133:2. The Holy Land had an abundant amount of olive trees, so Israelites learned to utilize olives to their fullest capabilities. One of these uses involved mixing olive oil with scented spices, like calamus, cassia, cinnamon and myrrh, to create a lotion for body care, especially for hair and skin. In a way, it kind of acted as a shampoo to wash hair, and for men, beards. Therefore, when a guest visited a home, the host would follow up the washing of feet by washing with oil. More specifically to this case, anointing oil consecrated the high priest to serve as the high priest. Moses anointing Aaron as the first high priest (see Exodus 29:7 and Leviticus 8:10-12), and every high priest after him followed that law. Therefore, in this case, Aaron represents the high priest. Before the high priest would perform any important ritual on any of these significant holidays, he underwent consecration, including anointing by oil. This anointing in the presence of the people would remind the people that the Lord had established the priesthood as man’s arbiter to God. The consecration of the high priest demonstrated that the people had the utmost respect for God and entering his dwelling place, the temple. On the flip side of that, the priests anointing the high priest with oil represents Yahweh as a good host, taking care of his guest as he enters the house. Thus, the anointing of oil served as a two-fold reminder that the people of Israel dwelled in community with God himself, and they themselves, as a community, dwelled with God.

Twice Psalm 133:2 has the verb “going down” (יָרַד, yārǎḏ) to describe the flow of the oil. The verse ends with the oil reaching literally the “mouth of the robe,” in essence, the collar. If anointed with a healthy heaping of oil, which is probable, the oil would flow down to the breast place of the high priest, which had twelve gemstones representing the twelve tribes of Israel. If the case, connecting the imagery of anointing oil flowing down the high priest to brothers dwelling together makes clearer sense. It paints a picture of God’s blessing flowing down from heaven and touching the entire community, the entire nation.  Do not take for granted the direction of flow for the anointing oil. Obviously gravity will drag the oil down the head, over the face, down the beard and down to the collar. When the psalmist observed this very literal downward movement, he also saw it could have symbolic downward movement. Some have argued for a more social justice downward flow, as in the richer or older brother helping a poorer or younger brother. Other believe in a more spiritual downward, as in God from heaven pouring down blessing on the earth below.

Concluding Psalm 133:2, imagine someone, like the psalmist, has finally arrived in Jerusalem for festival. He or she find himself or herself in a large crowd gathered at the front of the temple to watch the high priest. The opening ceremonies begin the priests consecrating the high priest to begin the rituals and sacrifice, which would include anointing the priest with oil. Now remember, Leviticus 19:27 forbid shaving the corners of the beard. Sometimes priests so afraid of accidently snipping these corners would avoid shaving altogether. Thus, the high priest’s beard could grow quite long, rivaling that or a hippy or a civil war general. Therefore, imagine someone with the longest, most epic beard anointed with oil. The oil gushes down the head and over the face like a waterfall. Each drop of oil clings to every follicle of beard hair, sliding down drop by drop, until it reaches the collar. When the psalmist sees this in the crowd, so many thoughts go through his mind. He sees a priest honored to represent humanity before God, and he sees the Lord as hospitable host. He remembers the abundant blessings of Yahweh, like the abundant oil on the head of the high priest, whether the blessings directly from the Lord or indirectly through his family and through his community.

133:3a. For the second simile to illustrate the positive benefits, the psalmist utilizes dew on Mount Hermon as a simile. In between April and October, Mount Hermon had thick layers of dew, so thick a person wearing socks and shoes would still have wet feet walking through it. Mount Zion, however, usually experienced a dry spell during that same time period. Without a supply of moisture, Judah would experience deadly droughts.  If Mount Zion could somehow gain Mount Hermon’s dew, it would bring relief to Jerusalem. Mount Hermon, however, locates itself about 125 miles north of Mount Zion. Dew normally does not migrate, and even if it could, it would have a long distance to go. Some have proposed that טַל (tal) better translates to “light rain,” which makes slightly more sense. Rain on Mount Hermon would roll down into tributary rivers to the Sea of Galilee, which empties into the Jordan, which, through irrigation, would make its way to Jerusalem. Others suggest, however, that the psalmist sets up a hypothetical scenario to colorfully illustrate relief and refreshment, which seems more probable. Someone might assume the Lord would make his dwelling on a naturally blessed mountain (as some Canaanite associated Mount Hermon as Baal’s home), yet God made Mount Zion his home. Since Yahweh resided on Mount Zion, not Mount Hermon, Jerusalem, in reality, had the real blessing. Again, the Lord’s presence on Mount Zion compares to Mount Hebron’s dew suddenly ending up on Zion during its dry season. It paints a picture of refreshment. The psalmist uses this metaphor to argue brother dwelling in worship together bring the same refreshment and invigoration.

Again, imagine a pilgrim in Jerusalem for one of these Jewish festivals, like the psalmist. Quite possibly, the psalmist pilgrimed during the Judean summer, and in this year, Jerusalem suffers from drought. He feels hot and sweaty, yet he has a hard time securing water to think. He remembers Mount Hermon, whether he lives close to there or he just visited there one time, and he recalls how much dew gathers on the plants. He thinks to himself, “Man, if we could just take the dew on Mount Hermon and put it on Mount Zion, that would bring so much relief from this heat and drought. Then he remembers something, or rather someone, better dwells on Mount Zion: Yahweh. While hot and parched, he remembers he pilgrimed to Jerusalem to celebrate God’s blessing to the Israelites, like God blesses Mount Hermon with dew.

133:3b. From Zion, Yahweh dwelled. From there, the Lord would give blessing his people. The Hebrew noun “blessing” (בְּרָכָה, b^erāḵâ) reminds the audience of what God gave Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see Gen 12:3 & 32:29) and what God gave the Israelites when wandering in the desert (see Deut 2:7). The people of Israel have rightly communed in their desire for blessing. If the Israelites wanted blessing, it only made sense to go to the place where Yahweh resided.

Once again, imagine a pilgrim, like the psalmist on the long journey back home. Just like the journey up to Jerusalem, the family might have driven him crazy, especially traveling in close proximity. This time, however, the pilgrim sings Psalm 133. That person would have remembered that their family brought pleasantness to their lives. Even if that person couldn’t picture family as good and pleasing at the moment, the metaphors in Psalm 133 would remind them that just like oil is good, and dew on a dry land is good, so family is also good. The closing colon further teaches that tighter than blood relation, the community ties together under their God. As the family ascents toward Jerusalem to celebrate the holidays, they should celebrate the greatest blessing God has given them: their family and their community. God calls his people to come together for three festivals for a reason: to promote unity of family and community. These three holidays reminded those gathered in Jerusalem of the common unity of religion, nationality and blood, and this common unity made them a true community. On the next pilgrimage for a holiday, that person will remember to sing Psalm 133 to prepare his or her mind for worship when the family and the community arrives in Jerusalem.

To review, the psalm begins with piece a wisdom: the positive experience of dwelling with family. The middle of the psalm utilizes two metaphors which highlight the positivity. The psalm ends with another wise statement to tie together positive impact of family together under God. While structurally this forms a chiasm, logically it does not make sense. Typically, the main point falls in the middle of the chiasm, yet here, the middle of the chiasm has similes. Analogies usually support the main point. No way would typical secondary information become the primary information. Quite possibly, the psalmist anticipated that expectation, and he “tricks” the audience. He flips it around so that that outside pieces become the emphasis. The most important of the psalm lies within the outside points, not the inside points. That opening and closing colon, the brothers dwelling together and Yahweh’s blessings become the focal point. Then what does brothers dwelling together have to do with the blessing of Yahweh? They connection has to do with worship. Because the foundation of the psalm lies within that first verse and the last colon in the third verse, and because of the chiastic structure, the brothers dwelling together in one must specifically refer to brothers coming together to worship the Lord.

I have problem with Christians who view themselves as “Christian islands.” These Christians call themselves “non-practicing” Christian or “self-practicing” Christians. According to them, they can sign off on mentally agreeing with the doctrines of Christianity, but they don’t act out their faith, especially in terms of worshipping at a church. “Non-practicing” Christians or “self-practicing” Christians really throw off secular surveys. When secular surveys ask about religion, they mark down a person who says “Christian” as a Christian just because that person said “Christian” with no further qualifications needed. (Christian surveys typically fix this problem by requiring affirming certain beliefs to qualify as Christian.)

See, I understand how Christianity got this point. Earlier in modern church history, some legitimately thought of themselves as good, born-again, saved Christians because they saw in the pew for an hour a week. Pastors had to do a lot of work to teach people that salvation comes by grace, through faith alone, and not by works (Eph 2:8-9), which includes going to church. Unfortunately, the pendulum swung to the other extreme. Some people conclude, “If I can become a saved, born-again Christian by grace through faith, and works does not save, why do works?” which would include going to church. Thus, church attendance dropped.

Psalm 133 reminds Christians of the importance of communal worship. First, God commands it. All the feasts and festivals in the Torah Yahweh mandates. A few of those holidays, like Passover and Pentecost, require the Israelites to assemble before the tabernacle or temple to properly celebrate them. Failing to assemble results in a failure to celebrate appropriately. With all the blessing the Lord gives humanity, from salvation to protection and provisions, God has the right to demand Christians to gather for worship. Second, worshipping in community builds unity. Remember the exegesis of Psalm 133 revealed that the pilgrimage strengthened the bonds of blood times, nationality ties and religious ties. No wonder the New Testament uses the same metaphors to describe the church! The New Testament calls Christians brothers and sisters and Christ to create “blood ties” or “family ties.” The New Testament calls Christians “fellow citizens” (Eph 2:19) of the kingdom of God, creating “national ties.” Christians who do not worship together do not build the religious ties God desires his people to have. Third, Psalm 133 also reveals that God has designated the church, the community of believers, as a blessing to Christians. Yes, part of the purpose of the church should involve blessing Christians. As a matter of fact, sometimes the Lord sends blessing to individual Christians by blessing the community of the church. Christians denying themselves church deny themselves God’s blessing!

These three points I can illustrate the best with a [heated] conversation I had with a Unitarian Universalist. Unitarian Universalists believe in universal salvation, meaning they believe God will ultimately save everybody in the universe in the end. In our [heated] discussion, I contested his claims by asking, “Well, if God will save everybody in the end, why bother becoming a Christian?” His rebuttal went along the lines of, “You sound like you’re selling spiritual fire insurance. Becoming a Christian should have more positive benefits than escaping hell and entering heaven. How about having a loving community to support you through the hardships of this life?” While I still ultimately disagree with universal salvation, this unitarian universalist did make a good point. Christianity should have more positive benefits than just escaping hell bound for heaven. As his example, he named the church as a loving and supporting community. Quite possibly, his example came from his experience. His Unitarian Universalist church loved and supported him. If the Unitarian Universalist church can promote this love and support, Christian churches of all denominations need to both speak of and act out this love and support. Again, Christians communing in worship both promotes unity and blesses the Christian, just like it blesses the Lord.

The Early Church understood the importance of community in celebrating the blessings of God. In the Early Church, Psalm 133 would circulate as one of the Eucharist readings because it brought together people in the family of Christ. Early Church Father St. Augustine used Psalm 133 as a defense of monasteries because monasteries developed brotherhoods that blessed the men who joined them. Do not think that this means the Early Church had the perfect churches, with no inner conflict. Trust me, the Early Church knew how conflicting the church could get. That same Early Church Father Augustine once blatantly put it, “The church is a whore, but she’s my mother.” Augustine knew that sometimes Christian in the church could struggle with sin, but also knew how much the church had taken care of him and blessed him. Christian philosopher and scholar Erasmus once put it more nicely when he said, “I put up with this church, in the hope that one day it will become better, just as it is constrained to put up with me in the hope that I will become better.” If I may paraphrase, Erasmus said, “I put up with the church because the church puts up with me.” People commonly will point out the faults in others, but they rarely will point out the faults in themselves. If Christians could focus less on how the congregation members upset them, frustrate them and disappoint them, and focus more on how they themselves have fallen short and work on that, Christians would more easily see themselves as that blessing of a loving and kind family.

Instead of a closing prayer, listen to this closing worship sons “Hineh Ma Tov (Psalm 133)” by Joshua Aaron. Some people call Joshua Aaron the modern-day Chris Tomlin, most likely to the fact he has translated many of Chris Tomlin’s songs to his native Hebrew tongue. More importantly, Joshua Aaron has put many psalms to music, using a combination of classic Hebrew music and modern Hebrew music because, honestly, discovering the original music may never happen. Indeed, Joshua Aaron has put Psalm 133 to music, and he did an excellent job, for the upbeat music captures the joy of the psalm. May the music also put you in a joyful mood to commune with your fellow believers.

Bibliography

Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101–150 (Revised). Vol. 21. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002.

DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. “The Songs of the Ascents: Psalms.” The Book of Psalms. Edited by E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014.

Garrett, Duane A. “The Poetic and Wisdom Books.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Motyer, J. A. “The Psalms.” Pages 485–583 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Ross, Allen P. “Psalms.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. Psalms. Vol. 3. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909.

The Joseph Rule: A Defense of the Billy Graham Rule (Genesis 39)

On February 21, 2018, the world lost a wonderful man. If you are familiar with that date or that man, you will know that I am referring to Billy Graham. In my first draft, I had the “the world lost a good man,” but I quickly changed it because I know, and anyone else who knows Billy Graham would know that Billy Graham would never allow anyone to call him good. He would probably quote back to the words of Jesus: “No one is good but the Father alone.” Therefore, I chose wonderful because Billy Graham deserves such a positive adjective for his role as evangelist. Now obviously the job of evangelist is not a new job. It’s been around for a long time. As a matter of fact, if you are familiar with either American history or church history, you may recall the First Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening. Both the First Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening were ushered in by evangelists. What set Billy Graham apart as deserving such as positive adjective as wonderful is what he did for evangelists. Now I do not just mean the fact that he filled arena and stadiums with people eager to hear the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. No, I literally mean what he did for the evangelists themselves.

As paradoxical as this may sound, by the time Billy Graham joined the ministry as an evangelist, evangelists had become quite immoral and quite corrupt. Some evangelists would pretty much get rich off their audiences, begging for money with strong emotion persuasion, only to waste all that money on worldly possessions. Some evangelists, traveling far away from wives and family, would have affairs with weak and vulnerable women looking toward a strong man for advice. Other evangelists became quite famous for their willingness to verbally insult and bad mouth other famous pastors and evangelists. Still other evangelists would spend most of their time behind the pulpit bragging about their fame and success, even exaggerating about their fame and success, so they could uplift themselves, which in turn, downplayed Jesus. No Christian should act like this! How much more for the evangelist!

Billy Graham knew of evangelists like this, and it disturbed him greatly. Therefore, he, with the help of 3 other evangelists, met in Modesto, California, to compose the Modesto Manifesto. This manifesto created 4 rules for the evangelist to live out while ministering to the people. First, operate with financial transparency. Second, avoid even the appearance of sexual immorality. Third, avoid criticizing other pastors and churches. Fourth, be painstakingly honest in all publicity. By golly, it worked! Evangelists now reflected the gospel message they preached.

With such great success, these principles designed for evangelists specifically broadened out to Christians in general. Now of course some of these guidelines could only apply to evangelists, but the ones that could be practiced among Christians would be practiced in the church. The most popular one was the second rule, the avoidance of the appearance of sexual immorality. It became so famous, it was simply known as “The Billy Graham Rule.” According to the Billy Graham Rule, whenever a pastor, evangelist or minister needed to minister to a woman, that pastor would bring in another person to join the counseling session. (To quickly clarify, like it or not Billy Graham came from a church background in which only men could serve as pastors, evangelists or any kind of minister, so typically a second man would join the meeting. As time went on and Billy Graham had more say in his ministry, they allowed women to take “minor ministry roles,” so the second person could also be a woman.) Again, by golly, it worked. Sexual immorality within the churched dropped, and now every Christian better reflected the Christ they worship.

So you can imagine my surprise (and it might surprise you, too!) when I found out that the Billy Graham Rule was under attack! Crazy, right? Well it’s about to crazier! Believe it or not, the Billy Graham Rule is under criticism by Christians! Yes, you heard me right, Christians! On the internet, you’ll find articles, from Christian blogs to Christian magazines complaining about the Billy Graham rule. No matter where you find it, the argument pretty much comes down to this: “Oh come on! Why does everything have to be about sex? Can’t a man and a woman just be friends? How much more for Christians, who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ! Can’t a man and woman just be brother and sister in Christ?”

Now the rhetorical questions they ask in their argument deserve answers, and I will get to them by the end. Before I do, however, may I propose that Christian attacking the Billy Graham Rule feel like they can criticize it because they see it as a human invention. Invented by a wonderful Christian man, but human nonetheless. What if I told you, though, that the Billy Graham is not of man, but of God, coming from his Word, the Scriptures, the Holy Bible? If you don’t believe me, I invite you to turn Genesis 39.

As you turn to Genesis 39, let me give you some context. Genesis 39 is an episode in the story of Joseph. Joseph’s story actually begins in Genesis 37. From Genesis 37, the reader learns Joseph is Jacob’s favorite son, for a number of reasons. First, he is the firstborn of Jacob’s favorite wife Rachel. Second, he does not fear giving a brutally honest bad report of his brothers’ work. Because of these two factors, Jacob clearly treats Joseph as the favorite son. For example, Jacob makes Joseph a special robe, which, according to the Septuagint and Vulgate, has many colors, according to the Peshitta has long sleeves or, according to Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, is a technicolor coat. Between Jacob’s favoritism and Joseph’s bad reports, Joseph’s brothers hate Joseph. Then Joseph starts having dreams that represent Joseph’s brothers’ bowing down to Joseph, and they hate him all the more! So one day when Jacob sends Joseph to report back on his brothers, Joseph’s brothers are ready to kill him! Reuben, as the firstborn over all of Jacob’s sons, knows that is Joseph dies, it will be on his head. Therefore, Reuben pretty much says to his brothers (this is my paraphrase), “Let’s not kill him, but let’s throw into the pit and let fate decide,” and all the while he plans to come back at a later time to grab him out of the pit, maybe threaten him to shape up or he will be left for dead next time, and then bring him back to his father. There’s a gap in the text here because Reuben must have left, for in the next paragraph, Judah, one of the brothers, sees a caravan of traders, and he pretty much says to the rest of the brothers (my paraphrase again): “A dead Joseph is good, but a Joseph sold into slavery is better! Not only do we get Joseph out of our hair, we make money off of it!” Judah and the rest of Joseph’s brothers sell Joseph for twenty pieces of silver. Genesis 37 concludes with Joseph’s brothers returning to Jacob with a fictionalized story about Joseph’s fake death, which puts Jacob into deep mourning, and Joseph sold into slavery in Egypt.

In the next chapter, Genesis 38, the story of Joseph pauses to tell a story about Judah. More specifically, it tell the story of Judah and Tamar. To give a quick summary, Judah’s son has married this Canaanite woman named Tamar. Tamar seems to be a “black widow” of sorts, for each son of Judah that marries her ends up dying and having no child. Judah, afraid to lose any more sons, tries to send her back to family without a kid, a big no-no in that culture. In order to get her due justice, she has to dress up like a prostitute, so that her father-in-law Judah will buy her services and impregnate her. Tamar’s plan works, as her father-in-law impregnates her, and she will give birth to twin sons. Now while it is highly debated among the scholars why this pericope of Judah and Tamar interrupt the Joseph narrative, one of the very plausible theories is that it display Judah sexually failing twice. First, he sexually fails by having sex with a prostitute. Second he sexually fails because he fails to provide a son who will impregnate Tamar and give her an heir. Clearly, Judah has sexually failed. The theory goes that this sexual failure is to be contrasted with success to abstain from sex in the next account, so keep an eye out for that.

39:1. Genesis 39 picks up the Genesis 37 left off, but it changes the perspective. Genesis 37 ends with the Joseph’s brothers selling Joseph to the traders, but Genesis 39 begins with Joseph purchased by Potiphar. In the former, the emphasis lies on Joseph’s brothers releasing Joseph from their captivity, but in the latter, the emphasis lies on Potiphar receiving Joseph in his custody. The rest of the opening verse of Genesis 39 introduces the reader to Potiphar. First, Potiphar is an officer of Pharaoh. To give him a modern-day equivalent, Potiphar is part of Pharaoh’s cabinet or board of advisors. Second, Potiphar is the captain of the guard. You can take that as literally as possible. If something needs guarding, Potiphar is the captain of it. Do borders need guarding from foreigners? Potiphar is the captain of it. Does Pharaoh needing guarding while in his own palace? Potiphar is the captain of it. Does the jail need guards to keep the prisoners from escaping? Potiphar is the captain of that, too. (Remember that one, for it will become important later on in the story!) Third, Potiphar is labeled an Egyptian. This one is a little more confusing, as it seems to state the obvious. Some scholars think it’s a mere wordplay because the Hebrew term Egyptian or “man of Egypt” (אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י,ʾîš miṣrî) sounds like the Hebrew phrase “man of success” (אִ֣ישׁ מַצְלִ֑יחַ,ʾîš maṣlîaḥ), used in the next verse. Other scholars claim that it’s to remind the Israelites later on that their forefather was a slave to an Egyptian, just like they are. I personally prefer the latter because it has the best explanation, a theological explanation, on why to state the obvious.

39:2. The second verse of Genesis 39 relieves the audience. Somebody listening or reading this story may think that the story of Joseph’s blessings stop when Joseph’s brother sell him into slavery. Not so. Genesis 39:2 reassures the reader that Joseph’s loss of family and loss of homeland does not equate to loss of blessing. Yahweh does not need Joseph in a certain land or among his family to bless him. God can bless Joseph wherever or with whoever. As a matter of fact, the divine name of Yahweh only appears in this chapter in the entire Joseph account. Genesis wants the listener or reader to know about Yahweh’s active presence in Joseph’s life while a slave in the house of Potiphar. While Joseph’s brothers may have abandoned Joseph, Yahweh has not abandoned Joseph. Yahweh is with Joseph, and Yahweh is blessing Joseph, as seen in his success. It just goes to show you that the Lord can bless you anywhere, even if it’s not where you want to be, and God can bless you with anyone, even if it’s not the people that you want surrounding you.

39:3. As if the second verses of Genesis 39 did not explicitly state enough about Yahweh’s presence in Joseph’s life as a slave, the third verse of Genesis 39 gives a witness. It is interesting to note that Genesis 39:3 notes that Potiphar, an Egyptian who probably did not worship Yahweh “saw that Yahweh was with him,” him being Joseph. The text does not reveal the exact details on how Potiphar witnessed it, but most likely, it has to be the results, the blessing. It just goes to show you that sometimes the only proof of God the atheist might see is your blessing, so testify to it!

39:4. Because of the blessing, Joseph wins over Potiphar, and Potiphar promotes him from “slave” (עבד, eved) to “overseer of his house” (וַיַּפְקִדֵ֨הוּ֙ עַל־בֵּיתֹ֔ו, yafqidē ʿal-bêṯô). Such a huge promotion. Joseph has gone from working general labor for Potiphar to personally administering the household right alongside Potiphar. As a matter of fact, the Hebrew verb for “attend” (שׁרת,shāret) describes what Joshua does for Moses and what Elisha does for Elijah. Potiphar truly treats Joseph as his right-hand-man.

39:5. As seen throughout the whole book of Genesis, Yahweh’s blessing of the chosen patriarch overflows to those around him. In this case, the Lord’s blessing on Joseph overflows to Potiphar. Indeed, this theme carries throughout Genesis. Remember in Genesis 12:3 Yahweh pronounces that the Lord will bless those who bless Abraham and curses those who curse Abraham. With God renewing this covenant with every descendant of Abraham, the promise still remains. In this case, Yahweh blesses Potiphar because Potiphar blessed Joseph with a promotion. It generates this image of an overflowing cup. Yahweh’s blessing of Joseph has overflowed onto Potiphar.

39:6a. Potiphar feels so blessed in Joseph and confident in Joseph that, little by little, Potiphar hand over more control to Joseph, until Joseph has everything under the control of his hand, literally. Genesis 39:6 in the Hebrew text literally reads that Potiphar left everything in Joseph’s hand. This will become quite ironic when Joseph leaves his garment in Potiphar’s wife’s hand. The text goes on to explain that because of Potiphar’s great confidence in Joseph, he concerned himself with nothing around the house except the food that he ate. Scholarship divides on what this means. Some have argued for a literal reading. Later on in Genesis 43:32, we will learn that Egyptians do not eat with foreigners out of cultural taboo (some have argued that the cultural taboo is out of a lack of trust, while others believe the cultural taboo equates to religious uncleanliness). With in mind, Potiphar did not want Joseph over the food that he ate because that too would violate the cultural taboo. Others believe that the phrase is an idiom meaning “everything except that which closest and personal to Potiphar.” In essence, Potiphar takes care of the personal aspects of his life, but for the business aspects, he lets Joseph handle it. Still yet others, including rabbis of old, actually consider the phrase to be a euphemism (a polite way of talking about something uncomfortable) referring to his wife. This would set up the next scene very well. Even if not euphemism, the phrase sets up the following conflict anyway. Potiphar has put Joseph in charge of everything, including overseeing the care of his wife.

39:6b. To set the scene for the conflict, Genesis 39:6 also comments that Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. Interesting enough, the only other person with a similar description in Genesis is Rachel in Genesis 29:17. It is almost like the text is telling the listener or reader that Joseph has his mother’s good looks. This short description in Genesis 39:6b connects 39:6a to 39:7. Potiphar has put everything under Joseph’s charge, including care of his wife. Joseph is handsome in form and features. Potiphar probably knows this; he is not stupid. It takes a lot of trust for a husband to put his wife under the care of a very attractive man and not worry that anything will become of it. Potiphar is confident that Joseph will neither force himself on his wife or flirt with his wife. Talk about trust! This blessing of good looks, however, foreshadows the conflict ahead.

39:7. Potiphar’s wife also observes Joseph’s handsome forms and features. The idea of “casting eyes” equates to the modern-day idiom of “checking him out.” Her request of him is short, only the two Hebrew words שִׁכְבָ֥ה עִמִּֽי (šiḵ^eḇá ʿimmî), which translates into “Lie with me.”

39:8&9. Whereas Potiphar’s wife has a short request, Joseph has a long refute. Joseph’s refute deserves praise not only for his quantity of words, but also, for his quality of words. It deserves a second look. “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me…” Pause right there. Now I will admit, I noticed to stop here because of my ESV Audio Bible Dramatized. See, in my ESV Audio Bible Dramatized, the man who plays Joseph in the Old Testament also plays Jesus in the New Testament. The first time I heard this man’s voice read these words, I thought to myself, “That does sound like something Jesus would say. (Don’t take that too far!) I want us to pause for another reason, though. Up to this point, Joseph’s argument against going to bed with Potiphar’s wife comes down to common sense. Joseph knows he has it good here. If we had to put a number behind it, Joseph has 99% of the house under his charge. He does not need 100% under his charge. For him, Joseph does want to risk that 99% to get just 1% more. Like I said, pure common sense, and it all comes from humility. Do you see the humility in his words? His first concern is the operation of the house, and alongside that, the well-being of his master Potiphar. Joseph’s last concern is about himself. Again, this too is an appeal to common sense. But then Joseph throws in this line: “How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” Now the listener and reader sees Joseph’s real priority: his God. If I may paraphrase, it is almost like Joseph is saying, “Even if my master Potiphar did give me permission, I still would not because how much it would offend God.” Interesting enough, note that Joseph uses the generic term “God” instead of the Lord’s name “Yahweh.” Possibly, Joseph kept it generic on purpose, so Potiphar’s wife could apply it to herself. Again, if I may paraphrase, it is like Joseph is subtly saying, “Even according to your religion, your gods would frown upon it.” Indeed, archaeologists have found Egyptian writings, from laws to stories, that demonstrate Egyptians abhorred extramarital affairs, too.

Put together the commonsense argument and the appeal towards God, Joseph has successfully repelled falling into sin, and with that, and some obvious connection can be made with the other stories in the the book of Genesis. In the previous chapter, Genesis 38, Judah sexually fails twice by having sex with a prostitute and not providing a reproducing son. In this chapter, Genesis 39, Joseph sexually succeeds, staying pure from the sexual advances of another man’s wife. Not only does Genesis 39 parallel the previous chapter, it also parallels to another event way earlier in the book of Genesis. Where else does the book of Genesis have someone tempted (that verb is a hint) to risk the 99% to go after the 1% so they can have 100%? That’s Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden! They had 99% of the trees as food, but they had 1 tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, from which they could not eat. The serpent comes in, tempting them to take the fruit from that 1 tree, so they can experience 100% of the fruit trees. The only difference between Genesis 3 and Genesis 39 is that Adam and Eve fail, but Joseph succeeds!

39:10. The tenth verse of Genesis 39 informs the listener or reader that Potiphar’s wife comes to Joseph daily with the request to lie with her. What’s Joseph to do? Follow the so-called “Billy Graham Rule”! Notice how the text says he refuses to both “lie beside her or be with her.” The fact that the text has two actions, with the conjunction “or” separating the two, means that they both cannot be a euphemism for sex. If “lie beside her” is the euphemism for sex, then “be with her” has to mean something else. Upon further investigation of the text, however, lie beside him may not even be the euphemism for sex. Notice how verse 10 adds the preposition “beside.” Potiphar’s wife asks for Joseph to lie with her, but narrator tells the listener or reader that Joseph won’t even lie beside her. In other words, Joseph will not put himself in a position where things could escalate. If Joseph worked in the living room, and Potiphar’s wife sat on the couch, Joseph would never sit next to her. If Joseph worked in the master bedroom, and Potiphar’s wife, reclining on the bed, says, “Joseph, you’ve been on your feet all day, you should sit down,” as she pats the edge of the bed, he would refuse. It even gets so bad, he refuses to be in her company, or the same room as her. I could even imagine if Potiphar’s wife called for service in an empty room, Joseph, as an administration, would send someone else. Looks like Joseph is following the Billy Graham rule before even Billy Graham, hence why I call it the Joseph Rule.

39:11. The conflict escalates in the eleventh verse of Genesis 39. The phrase “one day” (כְּהַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה, k^ehayyôm hazzeh) makes it seem like an ordinary day, when Joseph carried on his daily duties as expected to him. You can almost imagine the scene. Joseph is on high alert for Potiphar’s wife. He peers into the next room where he has to do his next task. He notices none of the household servants or slaves are in there, which he typically avoids in case of a confrontation with Potiphar’s wife. He wants to avoid it, in fear of Potiphar’s wife, but his master asked him to do something, and he wants to please his master. He may have concluded, “Well, nobody else is here, but at least she’s not here…” so he enters and goes about his business. When all of a sudden…

39:12. The twelfth verse of Genesis 39 states that Potiphar’s wife grabbed him by the garment. Now many English translations will say “caught,” but “grabbed” fits better for the Hebrew verb תפשׂ (tāp̄ǎś) because the verb implies violently grabbing. It almost seems like Potiphar’s wife now attempts to force herself on him. Therefore, when she says, “Lie with me” this time, it is less of a request and more of a demand. Joseph’s only possible response this time to “flee” (נוס, nûs) which in the rest of the Old Testament refers an army retreating in battle or an exile looking for sanctuary, somebody escaping for their life. Joseph flees for his life!

39:13-15. If Potiphar’s wife cannot coax or force Joseph into sex, then Joseph will be punished as if he did. She screams for her nearest servants, which she must have done loudly because verse 11 says that no household slave or servant was present, so she can accuse Joseph of rape. Potiphar’s wife’s account of the events deserve examination detail. First, she refers to the master of house, not as “Potiphar” or “my husband,” but simply “he.” By doing so, she sides with the servants and against Potiphar. She portrays Potiphar as a master who does not care about his slaves, like she does. She partially blames Potiphar because he put Joseph in such a high position. Second, notice how racist her accusation gets. “This Hebrew” clearly points out Joseph’s different race or ethnicity. Again, Potiphar’s wife, an Egyptian, sides with the Egyptian servants against a Hebrew servant. Scholars have highly debates what Potiphar’s wife meant when she said that Joseph “laughs” (צחק, ṣāḥaq). Some have suggested an idiom meaning “make a mockery,” while other propose another euphemism to mean have sex. It actually may serve as a double entendre here. If I may paraphrase, Potiphar’s wife’s accusation so far sounds like, “It’s already insulting that a Hebrew slave runs this house, but now this Hebrew slave thinks can just have sex with anyone he wants!” Now that Potiphar’s wife has the opportunity to testify, she orders the events backwards. In her account, Joseph approaches Potiphar’s wife, not Potiphar’s wife approaching Joseph. In her story, Joseph disrobes for her, where in reality, Potiphar disrobes Joseph for him. In her testimony, she screams before anything happens, when in reality, she screams after everything has happened. Her words, next to the narration, exposes Potiphar’s wife as a blatant liar! Genesis 39 does not record if the other servants and slaves had a reply. Most likely, Potiphar’s wife probably reported to the servants and slaves, so she could have witnesses. If Potiphar asked any servant or slave about what happened, that servant or slave could reply, “Well, I didn’t see anything, but I heard…”

39:16-18. The story does not tell how much time passed, but Potiphar’s wife prepared for it because she kept the garment close to her at all times! When Potiphar finally comes home, she repeats her account of the events, with some slight altercations. Just like before, Potiphar’s wife calls Joseph a Hebrew, point out his race for racist reasons. This time, however, she also labels him a slave, further demeaning him (obviously, she would not negatively call Joseph a slave in front of other slaves, lest she insult them). She still ultimately blames her husband for Joseph’s presence in the first place, but she does it in a softer manner, so she may ultimately have him side with her. Again, the verb “laughs” (צחק, ṣāḥaq) appears in this story, but this time, the direct object is Potiphar’s wife, not the whole Egyptian household. Potiphar’s wife makes herself the sole victim because Potiphar would care more about her and less about slaves. When it comes time to testify about the events, Potiphar uses the more generic verb בוא (bo) meaning “to go or “to come.” If taken literally in this context, it means Joseph approached Potiphar’s wife, but figuratively, it turns into another euphemism for having sex. Potiphar’s wife purposely uses vague language to let her husband’s mind fill in the blanks.

39:19&20. At first glance, it seems as if Potiphar’s accepted his wife testimony as true and declared him as guilty, but the response seems contradictory to the point. Not only did rapists received the death penalty, but even disobedient slaves could receive death. Potiphar could have executed Joseph on the spot, and nobody would have batted an eye. Instead, Potiphar has Joseph thrown into prison. The judgment does not match the sentence. Perhaps Potiphar trusted Joseph just as much as his wife. Maybe Potiphar trusted Joseph more. Poor Potiphar must have felt divided. Joseph has only blessed him, never doing anything that would curse, so his wife’s story does not sound like something Joseph would do. At the same time, however, his wife has a very detailed retelling of events, and the garment in her hands seems to prove her testimony. Part of Potiphar wants to side with Joseph, so he can continue receiving blessing after blessing, but the other part of Potiphar knows that if he sides with Joseph over his wife, he will set a precedent that any slave or servant can mistreat his wife or even rape her. Therefore, it would seem Potiphar internally compromises by punishing Joseph, but Potiphar punishes Joseph with a less harsh sentence. He merely serves life in prison instead of the death penalty.

39:21-23. The remaining three verses of Genesis 39 form an inclusio, which means the story stops the same way it started. Not only does this signify the full completion of the story, it will also highlights important themes and messages the author wants his audience to take home from the story. Indeed, anyone listening or reading the story will notice parallels between the start and the finish of Genesis 39. First, both declare God is with Joseph. No matter where Joseph goes, the Lord is with him. Second, the Lord shows love to Joseph and blesses him. Similar to the previous points, no matter where Joseph goes, there is not a place that God cannot bless him. Wherever Joseph is, he gets blessed. Third, just like Joseph gained favor in the sight of Potiphar (39:4), Joseph gains favor in the sight of jailer. Remember how I said remember that Potiphar is captain of all things needing guarding, including the prison? Potiphar is probably the jailer’s boss. Imagine Potiphar handing Joseph over to his jailer, saying, “Hey, keep an eye on this guy. He’s good.” While Potiphar can’t use Joseph in his house, he can sure use Joseph in his job as captain of the guard. Fourth, Joseph ends as an overseer again. For Potiphar, Joseph managed the house, but for the jailer, Joseph oversees the prisoners. Fifth, just like Potiphar, the jailer stops directly supervising Joseph because he has that much trust over Joseph. Sixth, the blessing in Joseph’s life overflows into the prison, just like it did in Potiphar’s house.

As we have observed, the Billy Graham Rule should actually be renamed the Joseph Rule, for Joseph practices it before Billy Graham practices it. When Joseph faces sexual temptation from Potiphar’s wife, he flees from it, both literally and figuratively. Not only does he run when backed in a corner, he drowns out her pleas and he refuses to keep her company when alone. As these actions come sandwiched in the middle of a passage bookended with verses that clearly state God’s presence with Joseph and God’s blessing of Joseph, this confirms that the Lord approves of Joseph’s actions, which means such actions deserve copying. Therefore, the Billy Graham Rule, or rather, Joseph Rule, is ordained by God in His Word, the Scriptures, the Bible.

Despite knowing that the Bible establishes this rule, some people will still object, “Why does everything have to be about sex? Can’t a man and a woman just be friends? How much more for Christians, who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ! Can’t a man and woman just be brother and sister in Christ?” They will insist, “Potiphar’s wife is in the minority, a rare exception. Not every human, male or female, is begging for sex, and not every person, male or female, will easily give into sexual advances.” This argument is understandable, but such an argument comes with a heavy assumption. It assumes every person, especially Christians can and will shrug off sexual temptation. While the Christian undergoes the process of sanctification, thanks to the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the Christian has not yet reached perfect glorification, meaning the Christian can still fall into sin. While indeed the Holy Spirit has equipped every Christian to fight off sin, the Christian still needs to reject the sin by his or her own free will. That means Christians still susceptible to sin. The best way to fight off sin is to avoid temptation, and the best way to avoid temptation is accountability, even it means going to extremes. Accountability needs to be extreme because sin is extreme, with extreme consequences, so it should not be messed with. New Testament scholar D.A. Carson puts it best when he says, “We are to deal drastically with sin. We must not pamper it, flirt with it, enjoy nibbling a little of it around the edges. We are to hate it, crush it, dig it out…sin leads to hell. And that is the ultimate reason why sin must be taken seriously.” A quote from Puritan pastor and theologian follows up well, which says, “Be killing of sin, or it will be killing you!”  James 2:10 states a person guilty of one sin can be guilty of all sins. Christians must take that seriously, and they must never assume they cannot fall into a certain sin.

Others will argue that the Billy Graham rule…sorry, Joseph rule…is sexist. When this rule is applied, every case involves men applying it to a woman. Men never apply it to men. This indirectly prevents women from working their way up the leadership ladder (if the church allows it), so even if the woman wants to apply the rule, she cannot. Again, they will insist that Potiphar’s wife is in the minority, and Potiphar’s wife unjustly makes all women look like the sexual tempter, from whom innocent men need protection. To an extent, I would agree. Yes, the problem with the rule is that it can have sexist leanings. The solution, however, does not involve abolishing the rule totally. The solution lies in an egalitarian application of the rule. In the Old Testament, when Yahweh establishes a court system for this new nation of Israel, Deuteronomy 19:15-21 says that every court case must have 2 or 3 witnesses. In the New Testament, when Jesus establishes church discipline, Matthew 18:15-19 states that any accusation must have 2 or 3 witnesses moving forward, reiterating Deuteronomy 19:15-21. From both these Old and New Testament Scriptures, ministering should not happen on the individual level, not even one-on-one, for there you have two individuals meeting. Ministering needs to happen on the communal level, even if on the small group of a couple or a few, which can be any combination of men and women. When accountability, church discipline, church decisions, and even simple discipleship and ministering, happens on a communal level, the church thwarts Satan’s evil. One of Satan’s greatest deceptions is convincing Christians that they cannot sin or cannot commit a certain sin. Therefore, when a Christian faces the temptation to that sin, it cannot be wrong, for the Christian commit [that] sin. Similarly, even if the Christian will admit that he or she sinned, Satan deceives them by convincing him or her that he or she is the only Christian who has ever committed that sin, thus creating secrecy out of embarrassment. If the church can get pass that embarrassment to create a culture of open accountability, the church will see less sin and more morality.

In a world of the #MeToo Movement, the world cannot afford to cancel the Joseph/Billy Graham Rule. As a matter of fact, the world needs to embrace the Joseph/Billy Graham for the sake of the #MeToo Movement. There needs to be a third man or woman in there to say “He/She was not flirting with you. You need to back off from him/her.” There needs to be a third person in there to say, “You’re a married man/woman. Keep the relationship platonic.” While not every man or woman begs for sex or falls into sexual temptation, the church cannot risk it. The church must always keep an accountable eye out for sin and temptation. If Christians praised the rule instead of criticizing it, if the church accepted the rule instead of rejecting it, Christians could see immorality in the church drop once more.

Bibliography

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18–50. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50. Vol. 2. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1994.