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.

Did Boaz attend Ruth’s first wedding?

Q. Since it says Boaz was a family member of Ruth’s husband, would he have attended their wedding? I thought in Jewish culture the weddings were huge things, would they have met previous to when the Bible story started?

If Mahlon had married Ruth in Bethlehem, I think Boaz would most likely have been present, as a close relative of his mother. But Mahlon met and married Ruth in Moab, and I don’t think that extended family members would have traveled there for the wedding. However, I am not an expert in the ancient culture, and if others know more I hope they will comment.

Why does Peter say that Lot was righteous like Noah?

Q. In his second epistle, Peter refers to Lot as a righteous man, and he ranks him alongside Noah. But it is recorded in Genesis that Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men of Sodom (though fortunately they were spared that fate). What has Peter overlooked, or what was his insight, that inspired him to credit Lot with righteousness at par with Noah?

The similarity that Peter sees between Noah and Lot is that God rescued each of them when he sent general punishment on the places where they were living. Peter writes that God “brought the flood on the ancient world” and “condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes,” but he “protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness,” and he “rescued Lot, a righteous man.” Peter’s overall conclusion from this is that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment.” The implication for his readers is that they should stay faithful during the trials they’re experiencing at the hands of the unrighteous, who will receive God’s justice in the end.

But for Peter to make this argument, Lot has to have been “righteous” at least by comparison with those around him—though not necessarily to the same standard as Noah, who was “a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, who walked faithfully with God.” Peter observes that Lot was “tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard.” So he didn’t approve of the wrong things that the others around him were doing, and he didn’t join in with them. On that basis Peter considers him to have been righteous.

However, when we put Peter’s observations into conversation with other parts of Scripture that talk about Lot, especially the account in Genesis, we get a further lesson, beyond the one about God preserving faithful people through trials. We see what a perilous position it puts us in if we continue to live right in the midst of people who are doing things that are so bad that they torment our souls. Like Lot, we may end up absorbing some of the beliefs and practices of those people without realizing it. I think this is the explanation for why Lot offered his daughters to the mob: Everything he saw and heard around him had “normalized” exposing people to abuse in that way. One take-home is that we need to be very careful about the various media—songs, Internet programming, movies,  television shows, etc.—that we let into our lives. They can normalize things that are contrary to God’s ways and destructive to ourselves and those around us.

So to complement what Peter says here, we should also stress the warning that Paul gives in his second epistle to the Corinthians: “What do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?  … Therefore, ‘Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.'”

We need to be in the world to have an influence on the world. But if we start to become of the world, then we need to think more carefully about boundaries and safeguards for our hearts and minds. How close is too close? One good question to ask is, “In what direction is the influence flowing?” While Lot seems to have been trying to safeguard his mind (he reflected on what he saw around him, and he was horrified), he also seems to have been influenced by his surroundings to such an extent that he no longer even protected his family from the worst kinds of abuse.

How were there multiple languages in Genesis 10 when Genesis 11 says the whole earth had one language?

Q. Been doing an in depth study on the Bible. Came across a series of questions from Genesis. Genesis 10:5 says there are multiple clans with multiple languages, but Genesis 11:1 says the whole earth had 1 language. Could you clear this up?

Genesis 11 picks up the biblical narrative where Genesis 9 leaves off. Genesis 10 is an insertion, a genealogy, that describes the descendants of Noah’s sons before the narrative moves on from Noah and his family. So when Genesis 10 describes various languages, this means the languages that those descendants came to speak after the Tower of Babel episode, which follows the genealogy in the book but not in time.

How is receiving “what is due for the things done while in the body” consistent with salvation by faith?

Q. Faith vs. works has always been a troublesome topic for me. I have read all of your posts on this topic. (Thank you so much for the “Categories” listing. It is a wonderful resource.) I have found that James, in particular, has made a lot of sense to me.

But recently I came across 2 Corinthians 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” I find that hard to square with salvation based on faith, even when taking into account understandings such as in James’s.

When confused with Scripture, I often find it useful to read the same passage in The Message. It says, “We will appear before Christ and take what’s coming to us as a result of our actions, either good or bad.” That version hasn’t helped me any. 

I find that Paul writes the words you are asking about solidly within the context of salvation by faith. Shortly afterwards, summing up the discussion, Paul says, “Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all” and “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Beforehand, Paul talks about how God as “has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.” So there is no notion here of conditional salvation, dependent on works.

I would therefore say that when Paul speaks of us receiving “what is due us for the things done while in the body,” he is speaking not of salvation but of rewards. That is a topic about which the Bible does not tell us as much as we might like. But Paul told those same Corinthians, in his first letter, “No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.”

Paul does not tell us what these rewards are, and we don’t find a description of them anywhere else in the Bible. But it is clear that they are not “earned salvation.” Paul says that the only foundation is Jesus Christ, meaning his saving work for us on the cross. Rather, these rewards are some special blessing from God in acknowledgment of faithful service on earth. Certainly they are an incentive to obedience. But we should not obey God in order to get the rewards. We ought to obey God out of joy-filled love and devotion.

I think that if God simply said, “Well done, good and faithful servant,” that would be enough of a reward to satisfy for all eternity.

Why didn’t David repent of polygamy if he was a “man after God’s own heart”?

Q. David, a “man after God’s own heart,” had concubines, plus many wives. How? Was it said of him that he was a “man after God’s heart” before he took these women, possibly for sexual pleasure? Was it sin to have these concubines and wives … of course, right? Did David write his psalms before he lived like this? I’m struggling to read the Psalms as I did before I had these questions. In church, David is like a hero. He’s called a “man after God’s own heart.” He’s described as “repentant.” Yet he never repented of his polygamy. I was raised in church all my life. It’s always talked up how great David was, but his polygamy is never discussed. Why not? Why didn’t Nathan the prophet point out that ongoing sinful lifestyle he was living out? Ugh.

Thank you for your question. I can certainly appreciate the difficulty you are having reconciling what you have been told all your life about David—that he was just the kind of man God wants men to be—with the impression that David used multiple women for sexual pleasure in an ongoing way.

Let me assure you, first of all, that this is not what God wants men to be. The consistent teaching of the Bible is that men should treat women with honor and respect, not as sexual objects, but as persons of dignity, as joint heirs of the grace of life. Jesus warned men not even to look at women lustfully; he told them it would be better to pluck their eyes out than to keep doing that. Paul wrote to Timothy, his younger protege, “Treat … older women as mothers and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.”

So how, then, is David called a “man after God’s own heart”? I think the problem is with the way that phrase is being understood and taught. This is one of those phrases that has been lifted out of the King James Version and given a life of its own with a changed meaning. In contemporary American culture, “a person after my own heart” means “just the kind of person I like best.” But that is not what the phrase means in the Bible. It does not refer to David’s character. It refers to his will.

In the context of the phrase, the “heart” stands for the desires, for what a person wants. There is a similar use in 1 Samuel 14:7, only a short time in the biblical narrative after Samuel applies the phrase to David. Saul’s son Jonathan, the crown prince of Israel, wants to attack the Philistines. His armor bearer says to him, “Do all that is in your heart, I am with you according to your heart.” In other words, “Do everything that you want to do, because I will do what you want to do.”

So when Samuel tells Saul in 1 Samuel 13:14, “The Lord has sought for himself a man according to his heart … because you have not obeyed what the Lord commanded you,” this actually means, “The Lord has sought for himself a man who will do what he wants him to do, because you have not done what the Lord wanted you to do.” Paul brought out this meaning when he alluded to this statement in his sermon in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch: “God testified concerning him, ‘I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.'”

So, as I said, the phrase applies not to David’s character but to David’s will. God meant that when he gave David commands regarding what he should do as king in specific situations, David would obey them. We see this illustrated, for example, in 2 Samuel 5:17–25, where God gives David one set of instructions about how to defeat the Philistines and then, when the same circumstances arise, David goes back to God for instructions, God tells him to do something different, David obeys, and once again he defeats his enemies.

So this, I hope, will at least address the concern about David. We do not need to look to him as an example of everything that God wants a man to be. We simply need to see him as a mostly consistent example of obeying direct commands that he received from God.

But I imagine that this leaves you with another concern—about God. If David would indeed obey direct commands from God, then why didn’t God command David not to keep practicing polygamy?

Actually, God did. God commanded through Moses that future Israelite kings were not to have many wives. God also commanded the king to have a copy of the law of Moses and “read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees.” David, in effect, should have known better. And it seems that he did pay a great price for not following this law. He married one of his wives, Maakah, the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, in order to make an alliance with that king. Maakah’s firstborn son, Absalom, eventually led a bloody revolt to try to take the throne away from his father David. Absalom failed and was killed, but this tore the kingdom apart and left David heartbroken for the rest of his life.

We may add that in addition to forming marriage alliances with other kingdoms, kings married multiple wives in order to have many children and ensure that they would have a successor on the throne. David outlived his three oldest sons, so we see why this was a concern. But it must also be acknowledged that having many wives and concubines was an ungodly expression of royal entitlement. We may well wonder whether David not having to practice sexual restraint by remaining faithful to one wife contributed to a sense that he could have any woman he wanted, helping lead to his grievous sin against Bathsheba and Uriah.

So why, indeed, did God not command David directly to repent of polygamy? This is a legitimate concern, and it should be acknowledged as such in church—in preaching. We don’t have to understand everything in the Bible to our satisfaction; I don’t think we ever will in this life. But we should acknowledge that there are things in the Bible that are troubling even for Christians of good will who are committed to the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures. I would hope that this issue would be acknowledged in that way.

If I had to try to answer the question of why God did not directly command David to repent of polygamy, I would say that it seems that, for reasons we do not understand fully, God accommodated certain cultural practices as his redemptive plan unfolded, knowing that the unfolding of the plan would itself ultimately bring these practices to an end among the community of believers and, from there, throughout the world. I have discussed this more fully in the following post, which I invite you to read: What does allowing polygamy say about the character of God?

I hope all of this has been helpful to you. You have a legitimate concern that should be acknowledged.

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.