Author: Christopher R Smith

The Rev. Dr. Christopher R. Smith is an an ordained minister, a writer, and a biblical scholar. He was active in parish and student ministry for twenty-five years. He was a consulting editor to the International Bible Society (now Biblica) for The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version (NIV) that presents the biblical books according to their natural literary outlines, without chapters and verses. His Understanding the Books of the Bible study guide series is keyed to this format. He was also a consultant to Tyndale House for the Immerse Bible, an edition of the New Living Translation (NLT) that similarly presents the Scriptures in their natural literary forms, without chapters and verses or section headings. He has a B.A. from Harvard in English and American Literature and Language, a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and a Ph.D. in the History of Christian Life and Thought, with a minor concentration in Bible, from Boston College, in the joint program with Andover Newton Theological School.

What were the names of Jesus’ sisters?

Q. What were the names of Jesus’ sisters? Or how many sisters did he have?

Matthew records in his gospel that when Jesus taught in the synagogue in his home town of Nazareth, the people there “were astonished, and said, ‘Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?’ And they took offense at him.”

Much could be said about this passage in confirmation of the statement that Jesus made at the time, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” But for our present purposes, the significant part of the passage to focus on is the statement by the people in Nazareth, “And are not all his sisters with us?” The language suggests that Jesus had at least three sisters. However, Matthew does not provide their names, as he does for the brothers, and the names are not given anywhere else in the Bible—perhaps.

There is a later Christian tradition that the names of two of Jesus’ sisters were either Mary and Salome or Anna and Salome. Some interpreters have identified this Salome with the woman whom Mark mentions in his gospel as an eyewitness of Jesus’ crucifixion and of his resurrection. So we have the very interesting possibility that at least one of Jesus’ sisters accompanied him from Galilee to Judea on the last trip he made there and was consequently a witness of his crucifixion and resurrection.

What makes this possibility even more intriguing is that as the various gospel writers describe the women who were at the cross and the empty tomb, they mention different women by name. Interpreters believe that this may be because the gospel writers name the women they knew personally and whose stories they heard and verified, or else because they name the women who would have been familiar to their audience. If the latter is the case, then this Salome, whoever she was, may have been known to Mark’s audience in Rome, suggesting that she could have had a wide ministry.

Nevertheless, we do not know for sure. The Bible does not tell us the names of Jesus’ sisters, or exactly how many sisters he had, and we do not know how reliable the later tradition is. We are left with what I find to be a historical puzzle that contains a very intriguing possibility.

What “glory” has Jesus given to believers?

Q. When Jesus prayed after the Last Supper, he said to God about his followers, “I have given them the glory that you gave me.” What did he mean by that?

I believe that in other parts of his prayer after the Last Supper, Jesus makes clear what he means by “glory” in the statement you are asking about. Toward the beginning of the prayer, Jesus says, “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Toward the end of the prayer, Jesus says similarly, “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.” So it seems to me that when Jesus says to God, in between these statements, that he has given believers “the glory that you gave me,” he means the same thing. He means the glory that he had in the presence of God the Father, as a member of the Trinity, before he came to earth as a human being.

Admittedly this is mind-blowing. Are we really partakers of what might be called the “inter-Trinitarian glory”? That would actually be consistent with other things that Jesus says in this prayer. He also says, for example, that he has given believers this glory “so that they may be one as we are one.” This suggests that we partake of the inter-Trinitarian unity, or at least of a unity of that same quality. Jesus also says to God about his followers, “You have loved them even as you have loved me.” That suggests that we partake of the inter-Trinitarian love!

Now I do think that when Jesus says he has given us this glory, he means that, on the one hand, it is already our possession, but on the other hand, it is something that we will need to grow into in this life, as individual believers and as a community of believers, and something that will ultimately come to full fruition only when God renews the entire creation.

Still, there’s no reason not to get started on it now. So what would that look like? I think we might be able to imagine what it would be like to partake of the inter-Trinitarian love. My late wife was very inspired by the idea that since we were both believers, our marriage could not only model the love of Christ for the church, it could also exhibit the same quality of love that the members of the Trinity have had for one another since all eternity. A very high ideal, admittedly, but one that was a delight to aspire to. Similarly, we may be able to imagine what it would be like to partake of the inter-Trinitarian unity. Even a small taste of that now would be like heaven on earth.

But what would it be like to partake of the inter-Trinitarian glory? I don’t think it would mean to have the same infinite glory that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal God has. But it might mean to bask in the reflection of that glory and even to take some of it on, in the same way that a person seems to glow when he or she is in a wonderful relationship with another person. Beyond that, I think the glory of the members of the Trinity is the shimmering excellence and unaffected achievement of beings who know that they are infinitely, unconditionally, eternally loved and so become all that they can be, in the best of all possible ways, simply for the joy of it—for the joy that they themselves experience, and for the joy that they bring to those who love them in this way. This is admittedly another very high ideal. But it is also one that would be a delight to aspire to. And since Jesus has said that it is already true of us … let’s do it!

Why doesn’t everyone who prays receive power to resist sin?

Q. I think that King David is an example of how many believers obey God’s law … somewhat. They obey faithfully for a bit, then some temptation leads them astray and then they repent and walk the line again, then sin again, etc. If you are truly striving to follow God’s laws and fall into sin, then truly, wholeheartedly repent, trying not to sin again, wouldn’t God, through the blood of Jesus Christ, forgive over “seventy times seven”? It isn’t done on purpose, but man’s weakness in some often overpowers them, though prayer seems to hold them for a short time. I believe in the power of prayer, but sometimes wonder why it is answered toward some, giving strength to resist sin, and not toward others.

As a wise Christian I knew often used to say, “If you sin occasionally, you need forgiveness. If you sin continually, you need healing.”

A sin that a genuine, sincere believer simply can’t seem to stop committing is sometimes called a “besetting sin.” Its presence points to the fact is that there is some need in the believer’s life, some area of hurt, and the believer is trying to find relief through the sinful activity. So I would counsel anyone who is struggling with a sin that they just can’t seem to overcome to examine their lives, asking the Holy Spirit to reveal any past hurts that need healing. This can be a very painful exercise if it is done honestly, and so it is best done with the help of trusted advisors who love you, don’t judge you, and only want the best for you.

One good way to word the question is, “What are you feeding?” It may be food or some other substance that is being abused, or it may be some activity in life that is good within God-ordained limits but is being pushed far beyond those limits. “Feeding” is a figure of speech. But the idea is that the believer is “feeding” the need or hurt by committing the sin, as if the need or hurt were a hunger that needed to be satisfied, but actually can never be satisfied in that way. Instead, the hurt must be healed and the need must be met through God’s saving grace in our lives. I hope the analogy is helpful.

The good news is that I have seen many people find release from a besetting sin by receiving healing from God. I wish the same for all who read this post who are currently in the same struggle.

If faith is a gift from God, why would Jesus have to pray that Peter’s faith would not fail?

Q. I have a question regarding Jesus telling Peter in Luke 22:23 that he had prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail. If I understand correctly, faith is solely a gift from God. So if God had given Peter faith, why did Jesus pray it would not fail?

I think the answer to your question is that the Bible uses the word “faith” in more than one sense.

It is certainly true that saving faith is solely a gift from God. Our salvation is not the result of what we succeed in believing. Rather, God opens our eyes to recognize that we need a savior and that Jesus is the Savior we need.

But the Bible also describes faith as one of the character qualities that the Holy Spirit builds into our lives and which we, for our part, need to develop. The Bible lists faith as part of the “fruit of the Spirit,” and in that context it means both “faith” in the sense of trust in God and “faithfulness” in the sense of loyally and consistently obeying God and serving others.

The “fruit of the Spirit” also includes qualities such as patience. We can certainly see how a person’s patience might fail during trying times, even though the Holy Spirit was building patience into that person’s life. I think the same applies to faith. In trying times, a person might find it very challenging to continue to trust God, and a person might even be tempted to give up living a life of obedience and service. This could be true even though the Holy Spirit had been building the character quality of faith into that person.

So we see how appropriate it was for Jesus to pray that Peter’s faith would not fail. His prayers contributed to the influence of the Spirit encouraging Peter to have faith. While Peter denied and abandoned Jesus during his trial and execution, Peter eventually returned to a consistent life of faith in God and faithfulness in service to Jesus. In that sense, I think Jesus’ prayers were answered.

And the application for all of us is that we should pray that our own faith, and the faith of others, would be strengthened. That is one good way in which we can cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s influence that is already leading us into stronger faith.

Was it fair for God to punish Saul for something that was Samuel’s fault?

 Q. In one of your articles, you explain why Saul was punished when he offered sacrifices himself after Samuel told him to wait seven days.

But Saul, did wait for seven days. Samuel did not do what Samuel was supposed to do by arriving on the seventh day. Saul was, therefore, left wondering where in the world Samuel was and why he was not keeping his end of the deal.

Then Saul’s army scattered. It was a dire situation.

Then Samuel finally shows up and all the punishment goes on Saul.

I am having a hard time seeing how all this is just and right. However, I know that God is perfectly just, so there’s obviously something I’m not understanding. Can you help me understand this situation better?

Thank you for your question. Here is how I understand what happened in the passage you are asking about.

Samuel told Saul to “wait seven days” until he was able to come to the Israelite military camp at Gilgal and offer sacrifices in order to seek God’s favor in the fight against the Philistines. On the seventh day, the day by which Samuel said he would arrive, Saul decided that Samuel actually was not coming and so he offered the sacrifices himself. In the post you mention, I explain how this violated God’s design to separate the kingship from the priesthood in Israel and how it made Saul more of a Canaanite-style priest-king.

But this bad outcome was completely avoidable. Samuel actually did arrive on that seventh day. When the Bible says that Saul “waited seven days,” this does not mean that he waited seven whole days, Samuel did not come, and on the eighth day Saul offered the sacrifices. Rather, Samuel came on the seventh day itself. In fact, he arrived just as Saul was finishing offering the sacrifices. In other words, if Saul had waited only a little while longer, Samuel could have offered the sacrifices and, as he told Saul, “the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel permanently.”

So why didn’t Saul wait? Impatience. And a lack of faith in God. But we ourselves are in no position to judge Saul for these things, since we too often exhibit them ourselves. However, we can at least seek to learn from Saul’s unfortunate example. Many times, if we would just wait a little longer and trust God just a little bit more, we would see God bring help and deliverance in situations in which we feel just as desperate as Saul did.

Was Jesus “betrayed” or “delivered” to be crucified?

Q. In Matthew 26:2, Jesus says, “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified.” Does the word translated “betrayed” actually mean “betray,” or does it just mean “deliver”? Because to betray someone means a cunning malicious wicked action against someone who is ignorant of what is going on, while Jesus knew that He would be arrested with the help of Judas and He did not mind or resist that. What do you think?

I hear both a linguistic question and a theological question in what you are asking.

To take up the linguistic question first, the word that the King James Version translates as “betrayed” does mean simply “hand over” or “deliver.” It is the same word that Paul uses, for example, when he says about the Lord’s Supper tradition, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” So the idea of malicious deception of an innocent, trusting individual is not implicit in the Greek verb. That would have to be inferred from the context. Because the notion of betrayal is not implicit in the verb, many modern translations do not use the word “betrayed” in the passage you are asking about. The NIV says, for example, “the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” The ESV says “the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

But if we do translate the word with its basic meaning, is it still appropriate for us to make the further inference that in this context, Jesus is talking about an actual betrayal? That is the theological question. It has two parts, based on two things you assert in your inquiry: (1) Was Jesus ignorant of what was going on? (2) Did Jesus mind that Judas enabled the authorities to find him and arrest him and demand his execution? I believe that the premise behind your inquiry is that if the answer to both of these questions is no, then it would not be accurate to say that Judas betrayed Jesus. We shall have to investigate that premise as well.

(1) Certainly by the time Judas actually led the authorities to Jesus, Jesus knew that he was going to do that. Jesus said as much at the Last Supper. Now personally I do not believe that Jesus recruited Judas to be a disciple with the direct knowledge that Judas was going to betray him. I don’t think it would have been fair to Judas for Jesus to give him the impression that he sincerely wanted him to be his disciple when all along Jesus was just looking for someone to betray him. Rather, I think that Jesus knew generally that one of his disciples would eventually betray him, and that one turned out to be Judas. Jesus described in the Parable of the Sower how some people “receive the word” but are then “scandalized” when the experience of living according to the word turns out not to be what they expected. That was what happened to Judas, and this was not a surprise to Jesus.

(2) However, when that happened, Judas could simply have walked away from Jesus, as others did. Instead, Judas seems to have wanted to “cash in” on Jesus by selling him out to the authorities. If, given the realities of human nature and spiritual conflict, it was inevitable that some of Jesus’ followers would turn away from him, it was still not necessary for any of them to sell him out to his enemies. As Jesus said in another context, “It is necessary that scandals come, but woe to the person through whom they come.” So I don’t think it was all right with Jesus that Judas led the authorities him in exchange for money.

But let us assume, in order to address the premise behind your question, that Jesus ultimately realized it was necessary for someone to tell the authorities where he was in order for him to be arrested and executed, and so, all things considered, he accepted what Judas did. Since Jesus knew it was going to happen, and if he accepted it, would be accurate to call it a betrayal?

I would still say yes. Right up until the last moment, Judas pretended that he was Jesus’ friend. When he led the authorities to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, he didn’t point Jesus out from a distance and say, “That’s the man you want!” Instead, he walked over to him and kissed him on the cheek, which is how, in this culture, one man would greet another man who was his friend. At this, even though Jesus knew that Judas was going to lead the authorities to him, he said (I think with some incredulity), “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” Here Jesus uses the same verb as in Matthew 26:2, but now the NIV (which I quote here) and the ESV, like the KJV, translate it as “betray.” And I think the context justifies that translation. Pretending to be a friend when you are really an enemy is a betrayal, no matter how much idea the person you are betraying has of what you might actually be up to. Indeed, this action of greeting Jesus with a kiss illustrates how Judas went about the entire process of handing Jesus over. He acted all along as if he were deceiving an innocent, trusting individual, because that was what he believed he was doing. And in that sense, from the perspective of Judas’s own moral responsibility, he certainly did betray Jesus.

Why did John the Baptist later question whether Jesus was the Messiah?

Q. Why did John the Baptist later question whether Jesus was the Messiah?

God seems to have revealed very clearly to John the Baptist that Jesus was the Messiah. The apostle John says this in his gospel about John the Baptist:

John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”

However, while John knew that Jesus was the Messiah, he seems not to have understood originally what kind of Messiah Jesus was. John seems to have expected that the Messiah would imminently bring God’s judgment against all who disobeyed God. John challenged some of the people who came to him for baptism, asking, “Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. … The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

However, John was arrested and imprisoned by the ruler of the Jews, King Herod, when he challenged Herod himself. John did not expect that God would allow anything like that to happen at all, not with the Messiah on the earth, and he no doubt expected that even if it did happen, the Messiah would come to his rescue and punish or even destroy Herod for resisting what God was doing. Instead, John languished in prison.

So he sent messengers to ask Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” The implication seems to be, “If you really are the Messiah, get me out of here!” But in response, Jesus told the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.”

The word “stumble” is a metaphor. Jesus is speaking as if John had tripped and fallen. What he means is that John was scandalized when what he expected to happen didn’t happen. Jesus is offering John both encouragement and challenge. In response to John’s question about whether Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus directs John’s attention to what kind of Messiah he is—not one who is immediately bringing judgment and punishment against God’s enemies, but one who is bringing God’s healing, help, and restoration to those in need, showing the ultimately gracious character of God’s kingdom. Jesus then challenges John to critique his own expectations of what the Messiah would do when he came. He wants John to critique them in light of what he, the Messiah, actually is doing, having come.

I think there is an application for all of us in John’s experience. We may expect that if we follow Jesus faithfully, everything will go well. If things don’t go well, we may be scandalized because what we were expecting to happen didn’t happen. But based on what Jesus told John, if this happens, we should seek to appreciate how God wants to bring a gracious way of life to earth and how our own suffering can play a part in that. Then we will be among those who are blessed because we do not stumble on account of Jesus.

Does the Bible hold women and men to different standards regarding sex and marriage?

Q. Why are women more restricted about sex and marrying multiple men in the Bible? It seems women are 2nd class and held to different standards.

The Bible actually holds men and women to exactly the same standard regarding sex. It teaches that neither men nor women are to have sex outside of marriage. So in that sense, it does not restrict women more than it restricts men.

Regarding marriage itself, I discuss your concern at more length in this post: Is it a sin for a man to be married to more than one woman? The Old Testament speaks into a culture that practiced polygamy (more than one spouse) and specifically polygyny (men having more than one wife). The Bible regulates the practice in order to prevent abuses, for example, a less-favored wife being denied food, clothing, and the opportunity to have children.

However, it does not specifically approve of the practice. Rather, as I say in the post linked above, “At the very beginning of the Bible, God institutes marriage between the first man and the first woman and ordains that ‘the two be united into one.’  As the Bible continues, polygamy enters human history during the inexorable course of its drift away from God after the fall.” So while the Old Testament speaks into a situation of polygamy in order to ensure fairness within it, it is not explicitly giving men, but not women, the right to have more than one spouse.

The New Testament may actually restore the ideal of monogamy. According to one way of understanding the Greek text, it says that a male church leader must be “the husband of one wife,” presumably meaning not married to more than one woman. Another way to understand the Greek is “faithful to his wife,” but that seems to have similar implications.

So I think that the way the Old Testament regulates men having more than one wife while saying nothing about women having more than one husband reflects the characteristics of the culture into which it speaks. God encounters human cultures where they are and works within them to bring them towards his intentions. And personally I think that the Bible indicates that God’s intentions are for a man who is married to have one wife and for a woman who is married to have one husband.

Where can I get an authentic Bible without chapters and verses?

Q. Where can I get an authentic Bible without chapters and verses?

I would recommend Immerse, an edition of the New Living Translation that has no chapter or verse numbers or section headings. It does include book and section introductions. It presents the entire Bible in six volumes. You can order a copy at this link. (Full disclosure: I was a consulting editor for this publication. I receive no royalties or commission or other compensation from sales.)

This is certainly an “authentic” Bible. The New Living Translation is a leading and well-respected English version. Immerse was named Bible of the Year by the 2022 ECPA Christian Book Awards. I hope you enjoy reading it!

(In earlier posts on this blog, I discuss The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version that similarly does not have chapters and verses or section headings. Unfortunately it appears that the publishers have not been keeping this edition in stock. However, it seems that you can still order it, in four volumes, through Christian Book Distributors at this link. I was also a consulting editor for this NIV edition, and similarly I do not receive any compensation from sales. I think you would have a good experience with this Bible as well!)

Were Abraham and Ephron negotiating the price of the burial cave?

Q. I have always believed that Abraham and Ephron played out a typical bargaining/price haggling over Sarah’s burial cave—something that happened all the time in the ancient world:
“Please, take it for free.”
“Oh, I couldn’t possibly.”
It seems that they did a little dance until they agreed on a price. I haven’t found anything written to corroborate or refute my idea. Do you have a thought?

I agree with your understanding of this passage. It actually gives us a fascinating window into the practices of the ancient world.

Abraham starts by humbly and diplomatically describing himself to the Hittites as “a foreigner and stranger among you” who needs to buy a burial cave. The Hittites call him in response, just as diplomatically, “a mighty prince among us,” and they tell him that he can ask any of them to sell him a cave.

Abraham then asks the community to speak with Ephron on his behalf (the rules of the game seem to dictate that he cannot speak to Ephron directly at this point), and Ephron, who is listening, says he will give Abraham the cave.

Abraham knows that this is actually further diplomatic language, and he responds by asking Ephron please to accept the price of the cave from him. That is Ephron’s signal, apparently, to name a price, but to do so without specifically asking for it: “The land is worth four hundred shekels of silver, but what is that between you and me?” This seems to be a fair price, since there is no further negotiation; Abraham weighs out the shekels with the other Hittites watching to certify the transaction.

Sometimes people from other cultures can appreciate this kind of ancient diplomacy more naturally than people can who have been raised in contemporary American culture. I was once leading a Bible study on Judges and we were discussing the passage in which a man named Othniel captures a city and wins Aksah, the daughter of the clan leader Caleb, as his bride. However, the couple then found that their land lacked water, and it was Aksah who approached Caleb to ask for some further land that had springs on it. Someone in the study asked why Othniel hadn’t done this himself, and another person in the study, who was from another culture, answered, “He didn’t have the standing to approach Caleb.” Contemporary American culture might see Othniel as a hero who had achieved status through his exploits, but apparently in his culture he was still the son-in-law who needed to show due deference to the clan leader. But the leader’s daughter could approach him.