6. Exegetical Commentary on John 3

OUTLINE:

[3 C To Jerusalem: the first Passover (2:13-3:36)]

[1 D Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple (2:13-22)]

[2 D A Public Response to Jesus: Trust without Trustworthiness (2:23-25)]

3 D A Personal Response to Jesus: Nicodemus comes by night (3:1-21)

4 D The final testimony of John the Baptist: “I was sent before him” (3:22-36)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Belleville, L. L., “Born of Water and Spirit: John 3:5,” Trinity Journal (1981): 125-41.

Borgen, P., “Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions as Background for Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel (Jn 3,13-14 and context),” in L’vangile de Jean: Sources, rdaction, thologie, ed. M. de Jonge (Louvain: University Press, 1977): 243-58.

Guthrie, D., “The Importance of Signs in the Fourth Gospel,” Vox evangelica 5 (1967): 72-83.

Hodges, Z. C., “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 3: Water and Spirit—John 3:5” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (1978): 206-20.

Jonge, M. de, “Nicodemus and Jesus: Some Observations on Misunderstanding and Understanding in the Fourth Gospel,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 53 (1971): 337-59.

Lindars, B., “Two Parables in John,” New Testament Studies 16 (1969/70): 318-24.

Moody, D., “‘God’s Only Son’: The Translation of John iii 16 in the RSV,” Journal of Bibilcal Liturature 72 (1953): 213-19.

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

3 D A Personal Response to Jesus: Nicodemus comes by night (3:1-21).

This is perhaps the most well-known incident in the Gospel, at least at the popular level.

3:1 Note the phrase in verse 1, a[nqrwpo" ejk tw'n Farisaivwn—stylistically the word a[nqrwpo" suggests a tie with 2:25. Jesus knew what was in a man (and what follows with Nicodemus is a specific example). It is also instructive for our understanding of the previous paragraph, 2:23-25, to note that Jesus did not fully entrust himself to Nicodemus, i.e., he did not openly reveal his true identity and mission (note in this regard especially 3:12).

Nicodemus appears only in John’s Gospel (see also 7:50, 19:39). The name is Greek. The use of the term a[rcwn (“ruler”) denotes a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council.

3:2 nuktov" Possibly Nicodemus came at night because was afraid of public association with Jesus, or he wanted a lengthy discussion without interruptions; no explanation for the timing of the interview is given by the Evangelist. But the timing is significant for John in terms of the light/darkness motif—compare 9:4, 11:10, 13:30 (especially), 19:39, and 21:3. Out of the darkness of his life and religiosity Nicodemus came to the Light of the World. John probably had multiple meanings or associations in mind here, as he often does.

oujdeiV" gaVr duvnatai tau'ta taV shmei'a a} suV poiei'" The reference to shmei'a forms an interesting link with 2:23-25. Those people in Jerusalem believed in Jesus because of the signs he performed. Nicodemus has apparently seen them too. But for Nicodemus all the signs have meant is that Jesus is a great teacher sent from God. His approach to Jesus is well-intentioned but theologically inadequate; he has failed to grasp the messianic implications of the sign-miracles.

3:3 Nicodemus’ greeting is answered by Jesus as if it were an inquiry about entering the kingdom of God. We may be dealing with an incomplete dialogue here (as in chapter 2 at Cana) but this does not have to be the case as suggested by Jesus’ reply introduced by ajpekrivqh.

a[nwqen The word has a double meaning, as pointed out by Z. C. Hodges.⁶⁵ The word may mean either “again” (in which case it is synonymous with palivn) or “from above” (s.v., BAGD). This is a favorite technique of the author of the Fourth Gospel, and it is lost in almost all translations at this point. Think of the effect on the contemporary evangelical terminology of being “born again”!

John uses the word 5 times, in 3:3, 7; 3:31; 19:11 and 23. In the latter 3 cases the context makes clear that it means “from above”. Here (3:3, 7) it could mean either but it seems that Hodges is right that the primary meaning intended by Jesus is “from above”. Nicodemus, it seems, understood it the other way, which explains his reply, “How can a man be born when he is old? He can’t enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” John the Evangelist often uses the technique of the “misunderstood question” to bring out a particularly important point: Jesus says something which is misunderstood by the disciples or (as here) someone else, which then gives Jesus the opportunity to explain more fully and in more detail what he really meant.

ouj duvnatai ijdei'n Jesus uses the term “see” in the sense of “experience, encounter, participate in”—e.g., “see death” (8:51), “see life” (3:36). Note also in v. 5 the use of eijselqei'n in reference to the kingdom of God, with the same meaning as the phrase here.

But what does Jesus’ statement about “seeing the kingdom of God” mean within the framework of John’s Gospel? John uses the word basileiva only 5 times—3:3, 5; 18:36 (3x). Only here is it qualified with the phrase tou' qeou'.

The fact that John does not stress the concept of the basileiva tou' qeou' does not mean it is absent from his theology, however. Remember the messianic implications found in chapter 2, both the wedding and miracle at Cana and the cleansing of the Temple.

For Nicodemus, the term must surely have brought to mind the messianic kingdom which Messiah was supposed to bring. But Nicodemus had missed precisely this point about who Jesus was! It was the Messiah himself with whom Nicodemus was speaking!

Whatever Nicodemus understood, it is clear (as I have already mentioned) that the point is this: he misunderstood Jesus’ words. He over-literalized them, and thought Jesus was talking about a second physical birth, when Jesus was in fact referring to new spiritual birth.

3:5 In reply, Jesus answers (verse 5): “Except one is begotten of water and wind [u{dato" kaiV pneuvmato"], he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.”

The concepts of water and wind are linked to a[nwqen (v.3), because water and wind come from above. Isa 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are pertinent examples of water and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among men. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic Kingdom! It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God.

Note that pneuvmato" is anarthrous in v. 5. We are not saying that pneuvmato" in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures which represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women, a truth pointed to by the OT passages mentioned above. These were passages which should have been familiar to Nicodemus as “the teacher of Israel” (cf. 3:10).

3:6 But lest Nicodemus misunderstand again and take the figure literally (!) Jesus adds v. 6 [toV gegennhmevnon ejk th'" sarkoV" savrx ejstin, kaiV toV gegennhmevnon ejk tou' pneuvmato" pneu'mav ejstin] to clarify that what he has been talking about is, again, not physical but spiritual (the figures of water and wind being indicative of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit).

What is born of physical heritage is physical. What is begotten by the Spirit is spiritual. (It is interesting to compare this terminology with that of the dialogue in chapter 4, especially 4:23, 24.)

For John the “flesh” (savrx) emphasizes merely the weakness and mortality of the creature—a neutral term, not necessarily sinful as in Paul. This is confirmed by the reference in John 1:14 to the Lovgo" becoming savrx. Certainly John would not associate sinfulness with the incarnate Christ.

3:7 mhV qaumavsh/" This is a rabbinic formula according to Bultmann (loc. cit.).

3:8 Again, the physical illustrates the spiritual (although the force is heightened by the world-play here on wind-spirit). By the final usage of 3:8, however, pneuvmato" is intended to refer to the Holy Spirit.

3:9 Here we have Nicodemus’ answer. It is clear that at this time he has still not grasped what Jesus is saying.

Note also that this is the last appearance of Nicodemus in the dialogue (!). Having served the purpose of the Evangelist, at this point he “ disappears” from the scene.

3:10 There is irony in Jesus’ question here: “you are the teacher of Israel (a spiritual leader) and don’t know these things?”

This carries the implication (at least) that Nicodemus had enough information at his disposal from the Old Testament Scriptures to have understood Jesus’ statements about the necessity of being born from above by the regenerating work of the Spirit.

When we ask what passages Nicodemus might have known which would have given him insight into Jesus’ words, we could return to Isa 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10. But even more astounding is the passage proposed by Z. C. Hodges as the “seed-bed” for the ideas in Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus: Prov 30:4-5.⁶⁶

“Who has ascended into heaven, and descended [John 3:13]? Who has gathered the wind [John 3:5, 8] in his fists? Who has wrapped the waters [John 3:5] in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, or his Son’s name [John 3:15-16]? Surely you know! Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who put their trust in him [John 3:15-16].”

3:11 “We speak what we know and we testify about what we have seen…” Note the remarkable similarity of Jesus’ words to the later testimony of the Apostle John himself in 1 John 1:2—”and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us”. It seems to me this is only one example of how thoroughly John’s own thoughts were saturated with the words of Jesus (and also how difficult it is to distinguish the words of Jesus from the words of the Evangelist in the Fourth Gospel!).

3:12 “If I speak to you the things of earth and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I speak to you the things of heaven?” Obviously, taV ejpivgeia and taV ejpouravnia are in contrast, but what is the contrast? What are the things of earth which Jesus has just spoken to Nicodemus? (And we might add, through him to others—this is not the first instance of the plural pronoun, see v. 7 above, uJma'". Since Nicodemus began with a plural (oi[damen, v.2) Jesus continues it, and through Nicodemus addresses a broader audience.)

It seems best to take this as a reference to the things Jesus has just said (and the things he is about to say, vss. 13ff.). If this is the case (and it seems the most natural explanation) then taV ejpivgeia are not necessarily strictly physical things, but are so called because they take place on earth, in contrast to things like v. 16, which take place in heaven.

Some have added the suggestion that the things are called ejpivgeia because physical analogies (birth, wind, water) are used to describe them. This is possible, but it seems more probable Jesus calls these things ejpivgeia because they happen on earth (even though they are spiritual things).

In the context, taking taV ejpivgeia as the words Jesus has just spoken fits with the fact that Nicodemus did not believe. And he would not, after hearing taV ejpouravnia, either, unless he first believed in taV ejpivgeia—which included the necessity of a regenerating work from above, by the Holy Spirit.

3:13 The major difficulty here is the perfect ajnabevbhken, which seems to look at a past, completed event. [Note: This is not as much of a problem for those who take Jesus’ words to end at v. 12, and these to be a comment by the Evangelist, looking back on the ascension.]

On the lips of Jesus, these words are a bit harder to explain. Note however, the lexical similarities with 1:51—”ascending,” “descending,” and “son of man”. Here, though, the ascent and descent is accomplished by the Son himself, not the angels as in 1:51. I see no need to limit this saying to the ascent following the resurrection, however; the point of the Jacob story (Gen 28) which seems to be the background for 1:51 is the freedom of communication and relationship between God and men [a major theme of the Gospel of John]. This communication comes through the angels in Gen 28 (and John 1:51); but here (most appropriately) it comes directly through the Son. Possibly Jesus could be referring to a prior ascent, after an appearance as the pre-incarnate Son of Man. More likely, he is simply pointing out that no one from earth has ever gone up to heaven and come down again; the Son, who has come down from heaven, is the only one who has been ‘up’ there. [In both Jewish intertestamental literature and later rabbinic accounts Moses is portrayed as ascending to heaven to receive the Torah and descending to distribute it to men (e.g. Targum Psalms 68:19). In contrast to these Jewish legends, the Son is the only one who has ever made the ascent and descent.]

The point is the heavenly origin of the Son of Man. And the descent, at least here, seems to refer to the incarnation (cf. 1:14).

3:14 uJywqh'nai dei' toVn uiJoVn tou' ajnqrwvtou This is ultimately a prediction of the crucifixion. Nicodemus could not have understood this in its full impact, but John’s readers, the audience for to whom the Gospel is addressed, certainly could have. This seems to constitute a basis for seeing the serpent as a type of Christ.

There is an interesting midrash on Num 21:9 ff in Wisdom of Solomon 16:6-7 (Compare with this John 12:32):

They were troubled for a little while as a warning, and had a symbol of salvation to remind them of the precept of your Law. For he who turned to it was saved, not by what he saw, but by you, the Savior of all.

3:15 The reading eij" aujton has somewhat better support. See the critical apparatus in Nestle-Aland 26th ed. or UBS 3rd ed.)

Compare Num 21:8—”that he who looks on it (the serpent) shall live”.

Note: This is the first use of the term zwhVn aijwvnion in the Gospel (although zwhv in chapter 1 is to be understood in the same way without the qualifying aijwvnio").

In these verses (14-15) Jesus really answers Nicodemus’ question of verse 9, “How can these things come about?” A person’s regeneration by the Holy Spirit (which enables that individual to enter the kingdom) can come about only through the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of the Son of Man.

The “lifting up” (uJywqh'nai), while it specifically refers to Jesus’ death on the cross, can also include the ascension. (This verb is used in Acts 2:33, 5:31 for the ascension of Jesus.)

A Note on the Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema:

In John, being “lifted up” refers to one continuous action of ascent, beginning with the cross but ending at the right hand of the Father. Step 1 is Jesus’ death; step 2 is his resurrection; and step 3 is the ascension back to heaven. It is the upward swing of the “pendulum” which began with the incarnation, the descent of the Word become flesh from heaven to earth (cf. Paul in Phil 2:5-11).

3:16 This is supposedly the most well-known verse in the Bible.

Compare Isaiah 53:12 (LXX):”He was given up (paradidonai) for their sins.”

Note: Here we have another typical Johannine double meaning: God “gave” the Son by sending him into the world, but also “gave” him on the cross.

Kovsmo" must, in context, refer to the entire world. Compare also 1 John 2:2.

The alternatives presented are only two [again, it is typical of Johannine thought for this to be presented in terms of polar opposites]: ajpovlhtai or e[ch/ zwhVn aijwvnion. In John the word ajpovllumi seems to mean either (1) to be lost (2) to perish or be destroyed, depending on the context.

3:17 ajpevsteilen corresponds to e[dwken in v. 16. Jesus did not come of himself; he was sent, by the Father, on a mission. This mission was the salvation of the world.

Compare vss. 16-19 with John 12:46-48 for similar words and phrases.

This paragraph provides an introduction to the (so-called) “realized” eschatology of the Fourth Gospel: judgment has come; eternal life may be possessed now, in the present life, as well as in the future.

A Note on Realized Eschatology and the Gospel of John:

The terminology “realized eschatology” was originally coined by E. Haenchen and used by J. Jeremias in discussion with C. H. Dodd, but is now characteristically used to describe Dodd’s own formulation.⁶⁷

R. Brown summarizes the realized eschatology of the Gospel of John as follows:

In many ways John is the best example in the NT of realized eschatology. God has revealed Himself in Jesus in a definitive form, and seemingly no more can be asked. If one points to OT passages that seem to imply a coming of God in glory, the Prologue (i 14) answers, ‘We have seen his glory.’ If one asks where is the judgment that marks God’s final intervention, John iii 19 answers: ‘Now the judgment is this: the light has come into the world.’ In a figurative way Matt xxv 31 ff. describes the apocalyptic Son of Man coming in glory and sitting on the throne of judgment to separate the good and the bad. But for John the presence of Jesus in the world as the light separates men into those who are sons of darkness, hating the light, and those who come to the light. All through the Gospel Jesus provokes self-judgment as men line up for or against him; truly his coming is a crisis in the root sense of that word, where it reflects the Gr. krisis or “judgment.” Those who refuse to believe are already condemned (iii 18), while those who have faith do not come under condemnation (v 24…). Even the reward is realized. For the Synoptics “eternal life” is something that one receives at the final judgment or in a future age (Mark x 30, Matt xviii 8-9), but for John it is a present possibility for men: ‘The man who hears my words and has faith in Him who sent me possesses eternal life…he has passed from death to life’ (v 24). For Luke (vi 35, xx 36) divine sonship is a reward of the future life; for John (i 12) it is a gift granted here on earth.⁶⁸

Especially important to note is the element of choice portrayed in John’s Gospel. If there is a twofold reaction to Jesus in John’s Gospel, it should be emphasized that that reaction is very much dependent on man’s choice, a choice that is influenced by his way of life, whether his deeds are wicked or are done in God (vss. 20-21). For John there is virtually no trace of determinism at the surface. Only when one looks beneath the surface does one find statements like “no one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:33).

4 D The final testimony of John the Baptist: “I was sent before him” (3:22-36)

3:22 This section is related loosely to the preceding by metaV tau'ta. This constitutes an indefinite temporal reference; the intervening time is not specified.

eij" thVn =Ioudaivan gh'n In the narrative Jesus has already been in Judean territory, in Jerusalem. In the context Bultmann (loc. cit.) argues that the meaning is that Jesus went out from the city into the country districts of Judea. This seems plausible because there is no real indication of longer amounts of elapsed time, or a departure from Judea back to Galilee followed by a return. It should be remembered, however, that this only a possibility, since the phrase metaV tau'ta specifies an indefinite amount of time.

3:23 Aijnwvn, Saleivm The precise locations of these places are unknown.

Three possibilities are suggested:

(1) In Perea, which is in Transjordan (cf. 1:28). Perea is just across the river from Judea.

(2) In the northern Jordan Valley, on the west bank some 8 miles [13 km] south of Scythopolis. But with the Jordan River so close, the reference to abundant water (3:23) seems superfluous.

(3) Thus Samaria has been suggested. 4 miles [6.6 km] east of Shechem is a town called Slim, and 8 miles [13 km] northeast of Slim lies modern inn. In the general vicinity are many springs.

Because of the meanings of the names [Aijnwvn = “springs” (Aramaic) and Saleivm = Salem, “peace”], some have attempted to allegorize here that John the Baptist is near salvation (!). Obviously there is no need for this. It is far more probable that the Evangelist has in mind real places, even if we cannot be absolutely sure of their locations.

3:24 ou[pw gaVr h beblhmevno" eij" thVn fulakhVn oJ =Iwavnnh" It seems best to understand this as a parenthetical note by the Evanglist.

3:25 First, there is a textual problem here: was the dispute between the Baptist’s disciples and an individual Jew (=Ioudaivou) or representatives of the Jewish authorities (=Ioudaivwn)? While Nestle-Aland 27th ed. and UBS 4th ed. opt for the singular =Ioudaivou as the more difficult reading, there is good external support for the plural =Ioudaivwn [66, a*, Q, 1, 13, 565, it, vg, and others]. In the final analysis it does not make a great deal of difference whether the dispute arose between the Baptist’s disciples and a single representative of the authorities or several.

More of a problem is that again we have incomplete information concerning the event. What was the controversy between John’s disciples and the Jewish authorities? It is not clear. Some have suggested that it was over the relative merits of the baptism of Jesus and John. But what about the “cleansing”?

There are so many unanswered questions here that even R. Brown (who does not usually resort to dislocations in the text as a solution to difficulties) proposes that this dialogue originally took place immediately after 1:19-34 and before the wedding at Cana. (Why else the puzzled hostility of the disciples over the crowds coming to Jesus?) Also, the synoptics imply John was imprisoned before Jesus began his Galilean ministry.

At any rate, I see no reason to rearrange the material here—I think it occurs in this place for a very good reason. As far as the Evangelist is concerned, it serves as a further continuation of the point made to Nicodemus, that is, the necessity of being born “from above”. Note that John the Baptist describes Jesus as “he who comes from above” [a[nwqen] (v. 31).

There is another lexical tie to preceding material: kaqarismou' (3:25)—the subject of the dispute—calls to mind the six stone jars of water changed to wine at the wedding feast in 2:6. I believe this section ultimately culminates and concludes ideas begun in chapter 2 and continued in chapter 3.

It seems to me that one of the major keys to the understanding of the passage lies in 3:25—what was the nature of the dispute over purification (cleansing) between the Jews and the Baptist’s disciples? Obviously, they disagreed over something. The word kaqarismou' suggests it was over the Jewish ritual of purification. But who said what? The Evangelist just doesn’t tell us.

However, I suggest this reconstruction: The disciples of John, perplexed after this disagreement with the Jewish authorities, come to John and ask about the fact that Jesus is baptizing and more and more are coming to him. John (we know from Lk 3:3, Mark 1:4) had been preaching a baptism of repentence for forgiveness of sin.

Possibly—and this is speculation—what the Jews reported to John’s disciples was that Jesus was now setting aside the Jewish purification rituals as unnecessary. To John’s disciples this might also be interpreted as:

a falling away from Judaism, and
a break with John’s own teaching.

That Jesus could have said this is very evident from many incidents in his ministry in all the gospels. The thrust would be that outward cleansing (that is, observance of purification rituals) is not what makes a person clean. A new heart within (that is, being born from above ) is what makes a person clean.

So John’s disciples come to him troubled about an apparent contradiction in doctrine though the explicit problem they mention is that Jesus was baptizing and multitudes were coming to him. (Whether Jesus was or was not baptizing really wasn’t the issue though, and John knew that because he didn’t mention it in his reply. In 4:2 we are told that Jesus was not baptizing, but his disciples. That reference would seem to cover this incident as well, and so the disciples of John are just reporting what they have heard, or think they heard.)

The real point at issue is the authority of Jesus to “overturn” the system of ritual purification within Judaism. John replies to this question of the authority of Jesus in vss. 27-36. In vss. 27-30 he reassures his disciples, reminding them that if more people are coming to Jesus, it does not threaten him at all, because “heaven” has ordained it to be so. After all, some of these very disciples of John had heard him tell the Jewish delegation that he was not the Messiah but was sent before him. Then John compares himself to the friend of the bridegroom who stands by and yet participates in the bridegroom’s joy. John is completely content in his own position as forerunner and preparer of the way.

Again with vss. 31-36 there is the problem of who is speaking: the Baptist or the Evangelist. Probably it is best to take these as the Evangelist’s words concerning the authority that Jesus has to do these things:

The one who comes from above is over all (31);
The one who receives Jesus’ testimony has set his seal that God is truthful (33);
The One God sent speaks God’s words (34);
believing in the Son is all-important (35).

3:34 ouj...ejk mevtrou Midrash Rabbah on Leviticus 15:2 states: “The Holy Spirit rested on the prophets by measure.” Jesus is contrasted to this. The Spirit rests upon him without measure.

This forms the perfect capstone to Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus. (Note the theme of ‘replacement’ that runs through the end of chapter 4). But it also does something else. It presents Jesus as the fulfillment of Judaism (the whole purpose of ritual purification was the inner attitude of the heart, from the beginning, although by Jesus’ day this had been forgotten and emphasis was upon externals). Jesus turns the water into wine. He is the One who has come down from heaven to bring free communication between God and men. He came to save the entire world (3:16-17). But if so, he must reach out beyond the nationalistic and sectarian borders of Judaism. As the fulfillment of Judaism Jesus must fulfill the role Judaism had failed to carry out: to be a witness to the nations.

This, then, forms the transition to chapter 4 and Jesus’ conversation the woman of Samaria.

⁶⁵Zane C. Hodges, “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John—Part 3: Water and Spirit—John 3:5,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (1978): 206-20.

⁶⁶Hodges, “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John—Part 3: Water and Spirit—John 3:5,” BSac 135 (1978): 206-20.

⁶⁷See Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 1:54, n. 10 for further discussion.

⁶⁸Brown, The Gospel According to John, cxvii-cxviii.

Related Topics: Christology, Soteriology (Salvation)

Commentary on the Gospel of John

Related Media

71. The Rejection of Israel's Messiah - Part I (Luke 22:47-71)

The Arrest

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” 49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. 52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”

Peter’s Denial

54 Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. 55 But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. 56 A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” 57 But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said. 58 A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied. 59 About an hour later another asserted, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.” 60 Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.” 62 And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Mocked and Abused

63 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64 They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65 And they said many other insulting things to him.

Condemned by the Sanhedrin

66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Christ,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” 70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am.” 71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

Introduction

The arresting party made its way to the place where Judas had assured them Jesus could be found. I have to wonder if some of those who made up this party had “butterflies” in their stomachs. This time, could they pull it off? Could they actually succeed in arresting Jesus? You see, it was not the first time something like this had been attempted. One such abortive attempt, which occurred in Jerusalem, was recorded by John in his gospel. It was the during the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), and Jesus went up to Jerusalem somewhat secretly (v. 10). There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the person of Jesus at the time, but people were fearful to talk about Him because of the Jews (vv. 10-13). Jesus then went to the Temple and began to teach. The subject of Jesus’ death—that is, of those who wanted to put Him to death—was on the lips of many, including our Lord (v. 19). The Jews were seeking to arrest Jesus, and then to put Him to death. This brings us to the events surrounding the failed arrest attempt of the Jews:

30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come … 32 The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him … 37 On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified. 40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “He is the Christ.” Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David’s family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him. 45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?” 46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards declared. 47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.” 50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 “Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?” 52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.” 53 Then each went to his own home (John 7:30, 32, 37-53).

It is, in some respects, a humorous account. The Jewish religious leaders are angry that Jesus has come to Jerusalem and to the Temple and almost taken over. His teaching and presence has created a sense of expectation, and even a certain amount of tension. They purpose to do away with Jesus, and yet, as John tells us, it was not His time (v. 30). An arresting party was sent out by the Jewish leadership to bring Jesus in. They planed to arrest Him, accuse Him and to put Him to death.

The arresting officers—the temple guards—that had been dispatched to arrest Jesus came back, empty handed. They must have shuffled their feet a great deal when the religious leaders began to fume at their “failure.” Jesus had not eluded them, by some clever escape route or method. They simply could not find it in themselves to arrest Him. To put the matter briefly, they were so impressed with the person of Christ, they could not find it in themselves to do as they had been commanded. Jesus had more authority than the religious leaders. Wow! Were the leaders ever angry when they heard this explanation from the soldiers. The haughty snobbery of these leaders didn’t convince the soldiers either. Did the masses believe in Jesus, though their leaders did not? Maybe the leaders needed to go and hear Jesus for themselves.

The religious leaders were not able to press the matter any further, because it quickly became apparent that they did not hold a unanimous view among themselves. When they met as a council, Nicodemus called his fellow-leaders to account by reminding them that they were condemning Jesus without having heard Him. They brushed aside his rebuke by reminding him that no prophet comes from Galilee (v. 52).⁹⁹

And so I say, the arresting party which came to lead Jesus away from the Garden of Gethsemane was not the first? Would they succeed? And if so, why? Was it because they were right, because they had truth on their side, because they had so ordered and arranged things that it couldn’t be avoided? Or was it because it was Jesus’ time now and He allowed them to get away with it, in spite of their own blindness and blundering.

Obviously, my view is that it is the latter of these two options. I see the account of the arrest and trials of our Lord as a pathetic, almost humorous, bungling effort, which succeeded only because God purposed for it to succeed, in spite of the failings and wicked motives of men, because it was through these events that the salvation of men would be accomplished by the Savior.

The Structure of our Text

I have chosen to deal with the “religious” side of our Lord’s rejection and condemnation, which thus focuses on verses 47-71 of Luke chapter 22. In chapter 23, we come to the more secular side of the story, where Jesus is brought before Pilate and Herod. The major events of our text are as follows:

(1) The betrayal and arrest of Jesus—(vv. 47-53)

(2) The denial of Jesus by Peter—(vv. 54-62)

(3) The soldiers’ abuse of Jesus—(vv. 63-65)

(4) The condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin—(vv. 66-71)

Luke’s Account and the Rest of the Gospels

Descriptions of the events surrounding the arrest, trials, and crucifixion of the Savior are found in each of the four Gospels. Luke’s account of the betrayal, arrest, denial, and condemnation of Jesus is the most concise. I believe that this is because Luke is aware that other accounts of these events exist, some with much more detail (as John contains, for example). The things which Luke does report are those which he has selected because they contribute to the theme or message which he is trying to convey here. As we look at Luke’s text, I will, from time to time, fill in some details supplied by other Gospel writers.

It should be understood that we cannot piece together all of the details supplied by all of the Gospels and come up with one “complete” story. There are some aspects of the Lord’s arrest, trials, and execution which none of the Gospel accounts chose to record. On the other hand, those details which are supplied may, at times seem to contradict. This is due to our limitations, however, and not to the “failings” of any of the inspired writers, whose words have been divinely directed by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21).¹⁰⁰

The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus
(22:47-53)

At the meal table that evening, while they were celebrating Passover, Jesus had once again told His disciples that He was to be betrayed (22:21-22). In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus told His disciples that the betrayer was at hand. Rather than Judas and the arresting party coming upon Jesus and His disciples, still at prayer, Jesus aroused His disciples and went forth to meet them (Matthew 26:46; Mark 14:42). Jesus was not “caught off guard” by their appearance, for He knew all that was going to happen to Him (John 18:4), but they were “shaken” by His response. They obviously expected something very different.

They came in large numbers, with a large number of Roman soldiers (John 18:3), who were heavily armed. They even came with torches, as though they would have to search for Him in hiding. They expected a fight. Jesus did not resist, and He rebuke His disciples for trying to resist. Jesus did not hide from them; indeed, He went to them (cf. John 18:4-8). They found Jesus totally unshaken, totally in control. It was these arresting officers who were shaken up. John’s account informs us that they actually drew back and tripped over themselves when Jesus identified Himself to them (John 18:6).¹⁰¹

Luke does not go into detail concerning the arrest of Jesus, as do some of the other Gospels. Instead, he sticks to a very basic account of the approach of Judas, of the arresting party, and of the attempted resistance of Jesus’ disciples, one of whom (John tells us it was Peter, John 18:10) struck the servant of the high priest (John, again, tells us his name was Malchus, 18:10), severing his right (thanks to Luke’s report) ear.

The focus of Luke’s account is not on what was done to Jesus, but on what was said and done by Jesus. In the final analysis, Jesus rebuked three times and He healed once. In response to Judas’ approach to kiss the Savior, Jesus rebuked him with the words, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” These were serious words to ponder. Words that would haunt him until his death. Words which will likely haunt him throughout all eternity. In response to His disciples’ attempt to resist His arrest, Jesus rebuked His disciples, healing the severed ear of the high priest’s servant at the same time.

Before we can fully grasp the significance of what Jesus said and did here, I think we must pause to reflect a moment on the explosive atmosphere of the moment, and the very real dangers that existed. This incident, which ended up being amazingly peaceful, was not expected to go down that way. The arresting party that came was a large one, a crowd, in fact. They were heavily armed, and they even had torches. If this were to have happened in our day and time, this would have been a swat team, accompanied by the national guard. There would have been helicopters hovering overhead, with searchlights fanning the area, seeking to illuminate the “criminal band,” which they feared might be in hiding in the trees. The soldiers would be armed with automatic weapons. You would have been able to hear the safety latches clicking off on each of them as they approached the place where Jesus was praying.

Now let’s suppose that Peter was not carrying a sword, but a 357 magnum automatic pistol. What do you think would happen if one of those whom you were seeking to arrest began to open fire? I can tell you, with a reasonable measure of confidence. Guns would have been blazing. The casualties would have been great. Peter’s drawing of his sword was the most volatile thing he could have done, which, apart from our Lord’s intervention, would have been devastating to the cause of our Lord. Granted, Peter thought he was helping, but he greatly endangered the eternal plan (from a human point of view).

Apart from the quick action of our Lord, I believe that a blood bath would have occurred. Jesus first took charge of the situation with the words, “No more of this!” This expression has been taken in a number of ways, but I think that Jesus is calling a truce. Both the disciples and the arresting officials heeded the Master’s command. He surely was in charge here, and fortunately so. Jesus healed the ear of Malchus, the servant of the high priest. In the other accounts, Jesus told His disciples that to resist His arrest would have been to resist the eternal purpose of God, which was for the Messiah to die as a sin-bearer. He also reminded them that if He wished to defend Himself, He could have called 12 legions of angels to His side (Matthew 26:53). But the Scriptures must be fulfilled (Matthew 26:54).

Had Peter swung his sword on a Roman soldier, things could have been different, at least for him, for this would have been assaulting an officer (at least in our terminology). Why wasn’t Peter arrested for assault? Well, it surely would have proven somewhat embarrassing for this servant to attempt to prove to a judge that he was, indeed, assaulted by Peter? If his ear were perfectly restored, who would ever believe someone cut it off, and another put it back on him?

I think, however, that there is something even greater here. I believe that the diffusing of this explosive situation, even after Peter had swung his sword, was the direct result of the power and authority which Jesus possessed here. Jesus is portrayed by the Gospels here not only as a person of great composure and dignity, but also as a man of great personal power. When Jesus spoke, men did listen. Just as the power of our Lord caused the soldiers to draw back from Him and to fall on the ground (John 18:6), so His dignity and power here caused the soldiers to “cease fire” at the command of our Lord. Jesus was in charge here, so that when He said, “Enough of this!” everyone stopped dead in their tracks. Jesus’ power was so great that no one even thought about taking Peter into custody, even though he had just assaulted a man with a deadly weapon. Its really amazing when you think of it, isn’t it?

In the first place, then, Jesus rebuked His betrayer, Judas, for betraying Him with a kiss. In the second place, Jesus ordered a “cease fire” and was obeyed, by both His own disciples and by the crowd of armed men who had come to arrest Him. Third, Jesus healed the servant’s ear, so that all damages were corrected.

Finally, Jesus rebuked the religious leaders for the way in which they dealt with Him. In verses 52-54, Jesus spoke to the chief priests, the temple guard, and the elders of the Jews, rebuking them for dealing with Him underhandedly and inappropriately, as though He were a criminal, rather than a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. Every day He had been in the Temple. His teaching was in the open and subject to public scrutiny. He had not hidden out, but had taught publicly. Yet they chose not to deal with Him openly, but to secretly capture Him late at night, in the cloak of darkness and deceitfulness (the kiss of Judas, for example). They should be admonished for the way they were dealing with Jesus. The reason that they are able to carry out their plans, wicked though they may be, is that this is, in God’s eternal purpose and plan, “their hour.” It is also the hour when “darkness reigns.” This does not mean, however, that they are somehow frustrating the purposes of God. They are fulfilling them, for God is able to use those things men mean for evil to achieve His good purposes (cf. Genesis 50:20).In Jesus’ rebuke we see that He is, even now, in charge.

Peter’s Denial
(22:54-62)

Before we attempt to show what Luke wants us to learn from this account of Peter’s denial of the Lord, let me make a few comments about what we are not told here. I admit, this is one of my “hot” buttons, and I need to let off a little steam before we proceed.

Nowhere in this account do I see either fear or cowardice as being the reason for Peter’s denials, at least so far as the Gospel writers’ words would indicate. We project the response we would have had into the account and thus conclude that Peter was acting as we would. I hear preachers speak of Peter, “warming his hands at the enemy’s fire,” using this as an illustration of the danger of worldliness or wrong associations. I think we have missed the point. If Peter was denying His Lord out of fear, then how do we explain the following facts?

Peter is not portrayed as a fearful man. Peter was certainly willing to stick his neck out when other disciples held back. It was Peter who walked on the water (so he sank), while the rest watched from the safety of the boat. It was Peter who not only promised to stay with His Lord, even unto death, but was the first and only one to draw his sword and use it. In the Garden, Peter was willing to die for His Master. And think of the odds—one man, one sword (two, at best, if someone else had the guts to use it, cf. Luke 22:38), against an entire crowd, armed to the teeth. That doesn’t look like fear to me. From Mark’s account, I believe that the soldiers had every intention of arresting Jesus and all of His followers. The young man in Mark’s account got away only by leaving his clothing behind (Mark 14:50-52). According to John’s account, if the soldiers had not been so overwhelmed by the presence of Jesus, the disciples would not have been dismissed, but this miracle occurred in order to fulfill prophecy (John 18:4-9).¹⁰² If the soldiers intended to arrest all of the disciples, then surely they would have wanted Peter the most, for he was the only one, to have drawn his sword and used it.

There was no more dangerous place for Peter to have been than in that courtyard, where the soldiers must have stood by, and where Peter could not only be identified as a disciple of Jesus, but also could be detained. And if Peter were lying, out of fear for his life, all he had to do to “save his own skin” was to leave. The amazing thing is that Peter stayed there in that courtyard, even after he had been spotted, and even after he knew that this young servant girl was not going to give up in getting him arrested. One more thing. The text seems to make it clear that Peter did not realize that he was denying his Master, as Jesus had said he would, until after the third denial. If Peter were acting out of fear, you would have thought that he would have realized what he was doing, and that he would have felt guilty each time he denied the Savior, rather than only after the third time. Had he been aware of what he was doing, I think he would have fled, weeping bitterly, after his first denial.

I do not know why Peter denied His Lord. And none of the Gospels tell us. I should probably stop right here. I admit it. But I will nevertheless press on to say that it could have been out of anger that Peter acted. Peter had been frustrated all along that Jesus had it in His mind to die. Peter tried to talk Him out of it. Jesus could have called down fire from heaven, or 12 legions of angels, but He did not. Jesus’ arrest, Peter knew, was Jesus’ will. Knowing this, and having your own hopes of quick power and glory and prestige dashed, could have made Peter angry at the Lord. Have we not heard someone say to us, “I don’t know you” when they are angry at us?

And then again, it could have been out of misdirected loyalty that Peter denied His Lord. In Peter’s mind, his lies may have been a kind of necessary evil, justified by the good end they were aimed to accomplish. And what would this “good end” be? The release of Jesus. Peter may have staying in that courtyard, not only to find out how things where going, but with the intention of “breaking Jesus out of jail.” Does this sound fantastic? Well so does drawing a sword against a mob. If this were the case, Peter would be warming himself by the fire to learn the whereabouts of Jesus and the plans which the religious leaders had for transporting Jesus elsewhere, as they would.

So much for speculation. My point is that we need to be careful not to accuse Peter of doing as we might, when he was acting for other reasons, reasons which he may have considered commendable, at the moment. Now, back to the story.

Luke’s account of Peter’s denial gives us no explanation for Peter’s presence there in the courtyard of the high priest’s house. Neither does he give us the reason why Peter denied his Lord, when confronted with the fact that he was one of His disciples. Luke simply gives us a straightforward account of Peter’s three denials. Luke’s conclusion to this account is, I believe, the key to why it is included. In verses 60-62, Luke tells us that immediately after Peter’s last denial, Jesus was somehow able to look Peter straight in the eye, at the very time that the cock crowed. It was only then that it struck him, full force, that he had done exactly as Jesus had said earlier that night (cf. Luke 22:31-34). It was then that he went out and wept bitterly.

Jesus is under arrest. He is being interrogated, and even abused. It would seem, at this point, that things are out of His hands. But they are not. Even at this point in time, Jesus is fully in control. After Peter has denied his Lord three times, Jesus is able to “give Peter the eye,” right at the time the cock crowed. Jesus was able to communicate to Peter that those things He had foretold earlier in the evening had taken place, even though this was the “hour when darkness reigned.” Prophecy will be fulfilled. Jesus’ words were prophecy, and they were fulfilled precisely at the time and in the way Jesus said they would be. Once again, we see that Jesus Christ is in control, even when life seems to be unraveling at the seems, at least for Peter.¹⁰³

Mocked and Abused
(22:63-65)

63 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64 They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65 And they said many other insulting things to him.

Both Matthew and Mark record mockings and abuses of our Lord after the Lord’s “trail” before the Sanhedrin. Luke tells us of mockings which occurred before this trail. It is my opinion that the abuse of the Savior by His “guards” occurred all through His trials, up to the time of His death.

But why this very brief account? For the same reason, I believe. Luke is once again informing us that it is Jesus who is “in control.” Think about it for a moment. Law enforcement officials are trained to keep their emotions under control. The ideal policeman remains calm in the execution of his duties. He is not supposed to be goaded by the prisoner, or by the crowd. But look at these men! They have utterly lost control of themselves. And notice that they are not abusing Jesus as though He were a hardened criminal, a violent man who has caused others to suffer, and so He deserves to suffer as well. They are mocking Jesus as a prophet. They want Him to give them some kind of magical display of His powers. In the process, they are fulfilling Jesus’ own words, that a prophet is persecuted, not praised, for his work. Thus, Jesus is here identified with the prophets who have gone before Him to Jerusalem, to be rejected and to die.

Condemned by the Sanhedrin
(22:66-71)

The other Gospels give a much fuller account of the “mock trials” of the Sanhedrin.¹⁰⁴ We know that there were two “pretrial hearings” late that night, the first in the home of Annas,¹⁰⁵ a kind of high priest emeritus, and the second in the home of Caiaphas,¹⁰⁶ the high priest and son-in-law of Annas. The scholars also have much to say to us about all of the ways in which these religious leaders, with all of their meticulous rules and demands on others, violate the legal protections and processes assured by their laws. Luke brushes past all of this. He does not record the chaos and ad hoc kind of spirit which dominated these trials. Luke chose rather to focus on the Savior.

The Sanhedrin had come to its wits end. It looked as if this meeting once again (remember John 7) would end up not only with their failing to rid themselves of Jesus, but also in internal discord. They had to resort to another illegal ploy. Could they somehow trick Jesus into bearing witness against Himself? While the law of that day had its own fifth amendment, which prevented the accusers from forcing a man to testify against himself, could they somehow get Him to acknowledge that He was Messiah, and even better, that He was the Son of God? If so, then they could find Him guilty of blasphemy, a crime punishable by death.

Jesus answered their question, not because they had the right to ask it, and not because it would bring about pleasant results, but because His time had come. But first shows us Jesus, the accused, rebuking His accusers. The Savior pointed out that the trial was a sham, and that “justice” was not being administered in this court. If He told them He was the Messiah, they would not believe Him. And if He did give testimony against Himself, they would not allow Him to question (cross examine) them. Thus, He informed them that His answer was not one that was elicited by their trickery.

Yes, Jesus affirmed, He was the Messiah, in spite of their response toward Him. You can almost see the Sanhedrin hush with silence and with anticipation. Did He refer to Himself as the “Son of Man”? This expression, found in Daniel’s prophecy, implied not only humanity, but deity. Could they now press Jesus just a bit further, to admit that He was the Son of God? If so, they had Him. The room must have become absolutely quiet. They all asked with anticipation, “You are the Son of God, then?”

Jesus’ response was not evasive, nor was it indirect, as some tend to take it. Jesus spoke directly, in the idiom of that day. It was a firm “yes,” precisely what they had been looking for. No matter that their trials were a sham. No matter that this man’s rights had been violated. No matter that no witnesses could agree on the charges against Him. No matter that the accused had been beaten beforehand and that a testimony had been drawn from Him. They had the evidence they needed. Now, all they needed was the cooperation of the state, to kill Him.

Conclusion

I want to end with one simple, but overwhelming, point: Jesus was still in charge, even at the time of His arrest, His trials, His abuse, and His denials. Men consistently fail in our text. Not one man is faithful. Not one man understands fully what is going on. No one man stands by the Lord. Virtually everyone has or will soon abandon Him. But He is faithful to His calling. And even in this “hour of darkness” His is in control. His prophecies are coming to pass, even if by sinful men. Jesus is not overtaken by His enemies. Jesus went out to them, and He was taken captive and condemned because He purposed to do so. Men did not even take His life from Him. He gave it up Himself. Jesus was in charge, even in the worst hour of history.

As I have studied this passage, it occurred to me that virtually every section of Luke’s account is the fulfillment of something which Jesus told His disciples earlier in the book. Compare with me, if you would, the history of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest, denials, mocking, and condemnation with the prophecies of our Lord, as Luke has recorded them. Note with me how perfectly prophecy is fulfilled.

Peter followed at a distance. 55 But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. 56 A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” 57 But he denied it. “Woman, I don’t know him,” he said. 58 A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied. 59 About an hour later another asserted, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.” 60 Peter replied, “Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. 61 The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.” 62 And he went outside and wept bitterly.

63 The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64 They blindfolded him and demanded, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” 65 And they said many other insulting things to him. 66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Christ,” they said, “tell us.” Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.” 70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am.” 71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”

9:43 While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, 44 “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.”

22:21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man who betrays him.”

37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

22:31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” 33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

13:33 In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

18:32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33 On the third day he will rise again.”

17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

9:22 And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

There is a song about the birth of Jesus which goes like this, “Je-sus, Lord at Thy birth.” I agree with that song, but I must also add a line, as it were, to it. “Je-sus, Lord at Thy Death.” There is but one reasons why Jesus died on the cross of Calvary. It is not that men rejected Him. It was not that His mission failed. It was that His hour had come, and He was doing His Father’s will. Jesus was in charge at every point. What an awe-inspiring thought.

There are implications to this. Jesus not only spoke of His own rejection and suffering, but also of that of His disciples, which would include those who believe in Christ today (cf. Luke 21). There are going to be dark times ahead, Jesus warned, times when it would appear that it is the “hour” of the powers of darkness (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:13-16; 2 Timothy 3:12). And so it will be, during the time of the Great Tribulation as well (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8; Revelation 12:7ff.; 20). Even at such dark hours as this, He is in control, and His purposes and prophecies are being fulfilled. Let us not lose heart.

99 Isn’t is interesting to see that when the chips were down, the religious leaders twice found they had to resort to social stratifications and snobbery, rather than to facts, in order to prove their points. In the first case, the leaders rebuked the soldiers for taking the same position the ignorant masses held, rather than the more informed view of their leaders. In the second case, the leaders again revealed their snobbery by reminding Nicodemus that nobody of any importance (certainly not a prophet) comes from Galilee.

100 Some would see the differences in the accounts of the Gospels as to who accused Peter of being a disciple of Jesus as proof of error or sloppiness in recording, but there is a much easier explanation. Morris, for example, poses a very satisfactory explanation for these differences:

“In Matthew the second denial appears to be elicited by a question from a slave girl different from the first one, in Mark by the same slave girl, in Luke by a man and in John by a number of people. A little reflection shows that in such a situation a question once posed is likely to have been taken up by others round the fire.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 315.

101 It is a rather humorous scene, and one that is easy to believe, once you grant the divinity and the dignity of the Savior, whose poise and confidence (a dimension of His deity, I suspect) disarmed them. There was a large crowd present. When Jesus and His disciples came up to the arresting party, the rest of the crowd pressed in behind. When those in the first row backed away from Jesus, they tripped over those behind them, and thus a mass of bodies and confusion. How hard it must have been to regain their compose and get on with the arrest. It was a little like the Keystone Cops.

102 Incidentally, it is interesting to note that in John’s account, Peter is not said to have drawn his sword until after the release of the disciples had been secured. Had all the other disciples already begun to escape for their lives?

103 It might be worthwhile to ask, at this point, “What could or should Peter have done, other than what he did do?” One of my friends suggested that Peter should have been praying for the Savior, that He would be obedient to the Father’s will, and that the purposes of God for Him would have been realized. Peter could have been praying for himself, that he would not succumb to temptation. This is possible, although I am inclined to say that now, at this point, there was nothing for Peter to do but fail. Peter had not prayed, when Jesus had told him to do so. The time for taking the right course of action was earlier. Peter (and the others as well) had not done so, and thus they had set themselves up to fail. Jesus had told them this would be the case, so it was also in accordance with God’s purposes and prophecies. My point here is simply to illustrate that there is a kind of “point of no return,” spiritually speaking. There is a time when we can act, so as to prevent our failure under fire. But when that time to take evasive action has passed and we have neglected it, we are destined to fail, and nothing (save divine intervention) at that point in time can save us from ourselves. Some Christians pray and plead for deliverance after it is too late. How grateful we can be for a Savior who prays for us that even when we fail, our faith will not fail.

104 “The Sanhedrin, or Jewish Council at Jerusalem, consisted of seventy members plus the chairman (the high priest), and exercised the supreme authority over the ordinary as well as the religious life of the Jewish people (though at that time in subordination to the Roman authorities).” Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [Photolithoprinted], 1975), p. 589., fn 3.

Concerning the trials of Jesus, Morris comments: “The details of Jesus’ trial are not easy to piece together, for none of the Gospels gives a full account. But it seems clear that there were two main stages. First, there was a Jewish trial in which the chief priests had Jesus condemned according to Jewish law and then tried to work out how best to get the Romans to execute Him. Then a Roman trial followed in which the Jewish leaders prevailed on Pilate to sentence Jesus to crucifixion. The Jewish trial was itself in two or three stages. During the night there were informal examinations before Annas (as John tells us) and Caiaphas (who had some of the Sanhedrin with him). After daybreak came a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. This was probably an attempt to legitimate the decisions reached during the night. It was not lawful to conduct a trial on a capital charge at night. It was not even lawful to give the verdict at night after a trial had been held during the day. But the Jewish hierarchy was in a hurry, so they rushed Jesus into an examination immediately after His arrest, night-time though it was. To give this an air of legitimacy they proceeded to hold a daytime meeting in which the essentials of the night meeting were repeated and confirmed. Even so they came short of what was required, for a verdict of condemnation could not be given until the day after the trial (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:1).” Morris, p. 317.

Shepard adds, “The regular place for the meeting of the Sanhedrin was in the Temple, but they led Jesus away to the house of the high-priest Caiaphas, situated in a place just outside the present wall of the city, where all the chief priests and elders and scribes had been summoned to meet. Nor was the legal hour of meeting for trials in the night. Other features in the illegality practiced in the trials of Jesus were: undue haste, seeking or bribing witnesses, neglecting to warn the witnesses solemnly before they should give evidence, forcing the accused to testify against Himself, judicial use of the prisoner’s confession, and failure to release the prisoner when there was failure of agreement between witnesses.” Shepard, p. 575.

105 “They seized Jesus and tied His hands behind Him. He was led away, first to Annas, who had served as high-priest from 6 to 15 A.D., and, through astute politics, had succeeded in securing from the Romans the succession of this office to his five sons, and how his son-in-law Caiaphas, who was the present occupant of the high-priesthood. Annas owned the famous Bazaars of Annas, which ran a monopoly on the sale of animals for the sacrifices and the stalls of the money-changers. It was the vested interests of this monopoly that Jesus had assailed in the first and second cleansing of the Temple.” J. W. Shepard, The Christ of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [Photolithoprinted, 1971]), p. 573.

106 “Caiaphas, the high priest (18-36 A.D.) and his son-in-law, was thoroughly lined up with Annas in all that he might perpetrate against the hated Nazarene. Weeks ago, he had suggested in a secret session of the Sanhedrin, when plotting the ruin of the ‘pretender-Messiah,’ that it was very convenient that one man die for the people rather than that the whole nation perish.” Shepard, p. 573.

The Indigenous Pilgrim Principle: A Theological Consideration of the Christian, the Church, and Politics

Related Media

It is common knowledge that in order not to unduly ruffle feathers or chaff relationships the two topics that ought to be avoided at all costs are politics and religion. However, as a Christian, is it really possible to keep these two hot button topics in two completely non-intersecting spheres? Such a question is especially germane to this season of the political cycle of America when in just a few days we will be asked to cast our votes not only to elect leaders in various spheres of local, state, and federal government, but also to weigh in on other ballot measures that will have significant impact on the socio-economic fabric of American society.

The question under consideration for us today is to what extent, if any, should the Christian be involved in politics and how does one properly orient themselves to the political process in light of biblical truth? Fortunately, the Bible offers us a thorough guide to help us answer these concerns.[1]

Romans 13.1-5

¹ Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ² Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. ⁴ For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Perhaps no other biblical passage speaks as directly to politics and government like Romans 13.1-5. What is striking about this passage is the decidedly unequivocal and unilateral language invoked by Paul at this point. At first reading, it would seem that Paul is unnuanced in his instance that Christian submit, unquestionably, to the authorities and government over them for these have been in fact instituted by God Himself.

However, Paul’s statements in Romans 13, beg the question, “Are we always to submit to the government and its precepts in passive acquiescence and quiet surrender?” If this is indeed the case, the moral and practical implications are at the same time profound and confounding. Consider the following:

1. In Rom 13.1b Paul states baldly that there is no governmental authority except that which is from God.

a. But does this include evil rulers? Are we really to say that the likes of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin, and the Taliban were instituted by God?

2. In saying in v.1a that, ‘Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,’ is Paul saying that as Christians we ought to go along with whatever the governing authorities decide?

a. When Jews began to disappear from across Eastern and Western Europe is it Paul’s intention that Christians should have gone right along with the Nazi ‘Final Solution?’

b. Should churches and Christians have enforced and encouraged racial segregation in ‘60s America thinking it was right to have separate bathrooms and drinking fountains based upon the color of one’s skin?

3. Verse 3 states that, ‘rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.’ Are we then to think that governments are consistent in punishing bad behavior and lauding good behavior?

a. Does not China imprison Christians for assembling for church and persecute pastors who spread the Gospel?

b. Don’t Islamic regimes kill Christians for proselytizing?

To say that it is difficult to square some of Paul’s sentiments in Romans 13 with what we observe in the world today and throughout history is an egregious understatement. Not only does Romans 13 seem to fail to jibe with reality, but it also seems to conflict with Scripture itself.

In Acts 5.28 we hear the Sanhedrin confront the apostles for sharing the Gospel. They state,

“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

Now listen to the emphatic response of Peter and the other apostles in verse 29:

Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!”

How about the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1.15-17 when they were told by Pharaoh to kill every Hebrew male baby but instead let them live?

The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, ¹⁶ “When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” ¹⁷ The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. ¹⁸ Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”

In Daniel 3.8-23 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego disobey King Nebuchadnezzar’s command to bow down before his gold image and it results in their being thrown in the furnace.

Later on in the book of Daniel (6.6-16), we see Daniel himself, when ordered not to pray to any God other than the Medo-Persian king, walks into his home, flings open the windows, and begins to pray to the Yahweh.

¹⁰ Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. ¹¹ Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help.

What we see above are clear biblical examples of instances of those who both do what their governing authorities tell them not to do (Daniel, Peter & Apostles) as well as character who refuse to do what is asked of them by authority (the Hebrew midwives, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego).

So clearly we can see that the Bible simultaneously affirms the divine installation of earthly authorities, yet also plainly endorses what is termed in our age, civil disobedience.

Setting aside some of the issues raised by Romans 13.1-5,[2] we turn now to the issue of how one negotiates on the one hand the need to submit to governmental authority and yet on another to do what is right despite its political implications.

In attempting to find one’s place within any aspect of society as a Christian, especially in the political realm, we see that the Bible holds up two poles, the tension between which the Christian is left to balance upon.

On the one hand there are verses such as 1 Corinthians 9.22b-23 (see also, 10.32-33):

^22b I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. ²³ I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Yet on the other hand we find Romans 12.1-2 (see also, 1Th 4.11-12):

¹ Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God — this is your spiritual act of worship. ² Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.

In these two verses of Paul, one finds two directional forces acting upon the Christian. In 1Cor 9.22ff Paul urges an adapting, conformation to the ‘world’ for the sake of the Gospel. In Romans 12.2 Paul underscores the other pull on the Christian, viz., the need to come out and be different from the world so as to know the will of God.

In a sermon on Romans 12.1-2, John Piper calls attention to the work of Princeton missiologist Andrew Walls who labels these two opposing rays in the life of the Christian what we might call here Indigenous Pilgrim Principle.[3]

One who is ‘indigenous’ to a people or place, originates or belongs to that certain place or culture, while a ‘pilgrim’ is one who leaves or comes out of a people or culture. So to put it another way, as a Christian, we are called to be both ‘coming out’ and ‘going in’ to our world and culture.

To put the ‘indigenizing’ and ‘pilgrim’ principles in theological terms, Piper suggests that we might think of these two pulls on the Christin in terms of adaptation to the world on the one hand and separation from the world on the other:

Indigenous Principle (Adaptation to the World)

The Gospel must incarnate, or be made manifest, in every culture and people of the world (the Great Commission).
The Gospel and Christians ought to be a complementary part of culture and society.

1Th 4.11-12 Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, ¹² so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

1Ti 2.2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

The Pilgrim Principle (Confrontation and Separation)

Christians pull away and out of culture.
Christians live in a manner contrary to culture.
We are aliens and exiles in our own cultures, societies, and families.

Luke 12.53 (cf., Matt 10.34-35) They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

2Cor 6.17 Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.

Eph 5.6-11 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. ⁷ Therefore do not be partners with them. ⁸ For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light ⁹ (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) ¹⁰ and find out what pleases the Lord. ¹¹ Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

From these examples it is clear that the Bible speaks to instances where it is necessary to exhibit what Walls and Piper refer to as a ‘Pilgrim’ mentality, that is, coming out of culture and society, and an ‘Indigenous’ posture, viz., being adaptable to culture and the world.

Taking even an even broader view, Piper also says that we can see the indigenous pilgrim principle at work even in some of the grandest motifs of Scripture.

1. Creation (Ge 1-3, Rom 8.20-23, 1Cor 7.31)

a. Indigenous: God made everything so in one sense, we are at home in it.

b. Pilgrim: Creation is also fallen, passing away, temporary, and eagerly awaiting future redemption.

2. Christ

a. Indigenous: Jesus exhibits the indigenous principle in that He came to earth as fully man and experienced everything humanity does (Jn 1.14, Heb 2.14, 4.15).

b. Pilgrim: Jesus is also altogether separate from the world in that He is fully God (Jn 1.11).

3. Conversion

a. Indigenous: We are already saved/as good as saved when we accept Christ (Jn 3.16, Rm 3.28, Col 3.12).

b. Pilgrim: However, we are also awaiting ultimate and future complete restoration at the final judgment.

4. The Kingdom of God/Heaven

a. Indigenous: In one sense the kingdom is already here (Lk 11.20).

b. Pilgrim: We await the kingdom’s return with Christ as king (Lk 17.21, 22.18).

Thus, Piper has pointed out that the Bible, both in specific examples as well as its grand, overarching motifs, is rich in the Indigenous Pilgrim Principle. But how is the Christian to know when, where, and to what degree each out to be exhibited?

May I suggest some guidelines that may help us to know when to act upon each influence.

1. How do we know when to be Pilgrims (i.e., separate ourselves)?

a. Is there a sin issue involved?

i. There is never a good time to do something wrong. We are always Christians and that Christianity must work itself into every nook and cranny of our lives.

b. Does our separation or coming out make God look good or further the Gospel?

i. We ought to stand for biblical truth.

ii. Does the act of separation create opportunities to share the Gospel?

c. Is the Holy Spirit convicting our spirit?

i. Do you feel God’s leading about a certain situation or feel uncomfortable about something?

2. How do we know when to be Indigenous (i.e., be complementary w/culture)?

a. When it furthers the Gospel (1Cor 9.22).

b. We must ‘win’ the right to another conversation (1Cor 8.9, 2Cor 6.3).

i. This was a favorite saying of a missions professor of mine at Dallas Seminary. We must always be cognizant of how we ‘come off’ and must be sure that our actions do not close off opportunities for us to love our neighbor and have meaningful relationships.

c. Know your ‘cultural scripts’ (1Cor 10.23-30).

i. Linguists and anthropologists have developed this phrase to describe the social and cultural significance lying behind various cultural forms. Cultural scripts are those unspoken assumptions that are attached to many, many things.

Talk alcohol as an example. Alcohol carries very different cultural scripts in the UK versus the US. In America, there is a bit of a negative stigma associated with alcohol, and indeed some church communities are very against its use. However, in the UK alcohol does not carry such a cultural script. In England, alcoholic beverages are just that, beverages. It is not at all uncommon for alcohol to be served as elementary and college functions, and even my very conservative church in the UK would serve wine along with coffee and tea at the end of service.

At Ambassador church for instance, we would never dream of serving wine at the close of one of our services due to the very different cultural script associated with alcohol in the UK and the US.

The point of all of this is simply that many Christians mistake something that we really ought to be separated from (be a pilgrim about) for something that we could be participatory with (be indigenous) based upon the wrong cultural script.

For example, take Halloween. I know of many Christians who are opposed to doing anything on Halloween – they don’t allow their children to dress up, keep their house black and do not answer their door for Trick or Treaters. Their reasoning behind such a decision is that Halloween had its roots in pagan and occultist practices not fit for a Christian. My argument would be that the cultural script for Halloween changed from a pagan holiday to an American fun holiday centuries ago and in being a pilgrim on Halloween may communicate something we do not intend.

Conclusion

In the end, we have seen in the Bible both in the activities of its characters as well as in its grand motifs that there is both a time to be indigenous to culture and a time to be a pilgrim, separated from culture.

As a Christian living in America, we need to be sure we are not falling outside of the tension set by the two poles of the indigenous pilgrim principle. On the one hand, we must be sure to manifest our Christianity in every aspect of our lives, including the voting booth, and if this means standing for a biblical truth or doctrine that isn’t altogether popular, we should do so. We mustn’t be so considered with being complementary with culture that we cease acknowledging sin as such or cease doing the things our Lord commands despite how the government might react. We need to be pilgrims in the sense of ‘coming out’ of the political fray, being willing to make pronouncements of right and wrong based upon biblical truth and not any party affiliation.

On the other hand, for the times when we are to be pilgrims in society, we must be sure to do so with the proper attitude and posture of humility and love rather not pride, anger, snickering, or arrogance. In Romans 8.23 Paul says that all Creation groans waiting for redemption. We must be sure to remember that the reason why Creation is groaning is because it is saddened and grieved over its fallenness. We must remember that the sole reason for being a pilgrim is because sin is so pervasive right now. This fact should engender sorrow, love, and compassion, not frustration or anger that the world is not as it ought to be. The proper response of a Christian to those he has separated himself from is found in Matthew 5.44, viz., to love your neighbor as yourself and pray for your enemies.

On the other hand, to be an indigenous Christian requires us to rightly apportion those things which we are willing to fight for and those which are secondary issues to be put aside and ‘lived with.’ We must understand that it is impossible to legislate righteousness and if we truly desire change in our culture and society, we will be wholly given over to those activities which can bring this about – leading people to Christ and building them up in their faith toward maturity. With limited resources of time, people, and finances, we must ask ourselves tough questions about how to spend those resources and be willing to let certain things go in order to make a greater, and longer lasting impact for the kingdom in another sphere of society while resisting the other impulse to be so indigenous that we fail in our calling to be salt and light to our communities and culture.

In the end it is important to always maintain a Godly perspective. The tendency of every generation is to think that theirs is the most fallen and perverse to have come along. However, the words of Jesus in Mark 13.7-8 help us to have the right perspective regarding our situation in the world. We ought to expect a decline of culture and society and not let our circumstances rob the joy of our salvation. The fields are white for the Harvest and Jesus is coming soon!

⁷ When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. ⁸ Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. Mark 13.7-8

[1] This article began as a letter to many of my family, friends, and supporters who had asked for my opinion on the place of Christians in politics. Some of my response here is based upon the outstanding treatment of these issues in John Piper’s sermons on Rom 13.1-7, parts 1-4, as well as that on Romans 12.2, both of which can be found at www.desiringgod.org.

[2] Although Paul is requiring submission to government, he does not necessarily affirm universal obedience to government. Both Jesus and Paul are quick to say that obedience to God and simultaneous submission to the government may very well cost the Christian his life. Paul says as much in Romans 8.36 when he states, ‘As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” The point Paul is trying to drive home in his strong words regarding government is the proper hierarchy in which God has placed the Christian. In disobeying governments in certain situations even to the point of accepting death, one keeps the proper perspective of said hierarchy intact. Being willing to die at the hands of the government to do what God requires properly aligns the Christian within the hierarchy established by God.

[3] Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in Transmission of Faith (T & T Clark, Edinburgh: 1996), 7-9.

What’s So Foolish About the Gospel?

“For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).

Is the Gospel foolish? Do ideas of a crucified Savior, exaltation by humiliation, the conquering of death by death, the overcoming of the powers of evil by weakness, et al, convey foolish elements that faith must overcome in order to embrace Christ? Or, put another way, does faith ignore evidence to the contrary and believe the absurd or unreasonable?

“Irrational Faith”

For some, true faith is irrational and blind, the embrace of an ideal, regardless of history, reason, and science. The courage to believe despite the evidence displays virtue, they say. Moreover, a faith built on personal experience, with no objective basis in history, reason, and science, cannot be refuted by arguments of history, reason, and science. None can deny or disprove another’s experience, goes the thinking. Perhaps you have heard people teach such a faith, or maybe you recognize elements of this blind faith as your own? What, then, are we to make of this?

A Fallen Perspective and Defective Standard

The true Gospel does appear foolish and undesirable to most of the world, even to deeply religious people. But, does the response of the world indicate a problem with the Gospel or with the world? For instance, does the world exalt holiness? Scripture tells us people love darkness and reject the light (John 3:19), including the light of the Gospel. Indeed, “the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matt. 7:14).

At the same time, can unbelievers partially justify their unbelief by pointing to some of the “foolish” elements of the Gospel noted above? Perhaps, if according to a proper and godly standard the absurd could be found in the Gospel. But none can be found. What about a crucified Savior, weakness overcoming power and evil, and death defeating death? Are not these ideas unreasonable? Maybe, but only according to the fallen eyes of unbelief. In God’s economy, debt requires payment and sin demands death, while voluntary and infinite humiliation and suffering for the underserving displays the highest and most beautiful love. Moreover, the Temple ceremonies of Israel point to the need of a sacrifice, substitute, and mediator, while even unbelievers view such principles as noble, such as jumping in front of a car to save a life, paying another’s debt, or martyrdom for a great cause (though Christ’s sacrifice was far more than mere martyrdom). Regardless, God determines what is right and foolish in the world. Apart from God, no standards of good, bad, wise, or foolish are possible.

Nothing of the Gospel history or message justifies unbelief. Rather, the heart hostile to God cannot see the beauty of God’s holiness and the perfect character it displays. In fact, the world’s foolishness views the infinitely excellent as unworthy of notice or respect, including the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, love, grace, mercy, and wisdom in Christ.

Preconceived Notions

People view Christ and Scripture according to a heart of love or hatred toward the God of the Bible. Those unwilling to acknowledge and submit to God’s authority will interpret reality to support their desire to be independent of God. Nothing that points to the God of Scripture and our debt to love and honor Him will be viewed with an objective “neutrality.” Those set on living as they please will reject the Gospel as foolish and explain the world as giving no evidence of its Designer and Creator.

Reasonable Faith

Also, a blind faith contrary to history, reason, and science is not Christian faith. We swim in a sea of evidence for God’s power, genius, and goodness. The heavens declare His glory (Psalm 19:1), and the “rains from heaven and fruitful seasons” that satisfy our “hearts with food and gladness” declare His goodness (Acts 14:17). Moreover, all people have an inescapable sense of God’s existence and holiness because God has written His law on every heart (Rom. 2:14-15). The evidence appears so obvious in what God has created that all people “know God” and are “without excuse” for not worshipping and giving Him thanks (Rom. 1:18-22). Even though the order, intricacy, and beauty of the universe proclaim its designer in the same way a beautiful painting proclaims the existence and genius of the artist, unbelief denies the knowledge of God from hostility towards His holiness and authority.

Unwanted Implications

Moreover, the mere fact that we reason and conduct science clearly affirms God’s design and power over the universe—random chance produces no “natural” laws by which we think and do science. Reality, as well as science to describe it, cannot exist without God. Indeed, that some scientists observe the amazing order and design of creation and still claim it evolved by time and chance indicates that something other than the scientific method drives their conclusions. The theory of evolution, as impossible and unscientific as it is, serves to explain life without a debt to love and obey the One to whom we owe all things. The same applies to denials of the authority of Scripture. Christ said it this way, “If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself” (John 7:17). In other words, if you have a heart to do God’s will, you will recognize Christ’s words as the divine expression of God’s will.

Open Eyes

Therefore, while true faith involves experience—the heart embracing Christ as God and Savior in love and trust—it also accepts objective reality as created and ordered by God, and Scripture as God’s word. So, what’s so foolish about the Gospel? Nothing. As believers, our eyes have been opened to see and love its excellence, an eternal excellence unseen by hostility and spiritual blindness. “For God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). Thus, we now sing with the saints, “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see.”

Q. Why Did God Bless Solomon?

How is it that the Lord blessed Solomon with wisdom. Yet Solomon led a sinful life by having wives and concubines.

Answer

Dear *****,

Thanks for your question. Let’s begin with a different question: “Why does God save anyone?” The answer is not because of our good works, but because of God’s grace in Christ. No one deserves salvation, and no one can achieve it by their works:

3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:3-7).

God blessed Abraham, even though he passed off his wife Sarai/Sarah as his sister, making her very vulnerable. God blessed Jacob, who cheated everybody he could. God’s blessings are not bestowed on us because we are so good, but because God is so gracious.

There is also a sense in which God blessed the offspring of David because of the intimate relationship between David and God:

This is what the Bible says about God’s blessing of Abijam:

3 He walked in all the sins of his father which he had committed before him; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, like the heart of his father David. 4 But for David's sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to raise up his son after him and to establish Jerusalem; 5 because David did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. (1 Ki. 15:3-5 NAU)

Note that it does not say that David was sinless, but he did have a heart for God and he sought to walk in his ways. But David’s sin with Uriah and Bathsheba was worthy of death.

David also had many wives and concubines. The fact is that God blesses us in spite of our sin and because of His grace.

I hope this helps,

Bob Deffinbaugh

ps. My good friend Kevin also pointed out that when God blessed Solomon it was before all of those things occurred. It would seem that he (mis)used God's blessing to do them. When God blessed him he had humbled himself before God, was seeking Him wholeheartedly, and was depending on Him.

15. The Life and Times of Elisha the Prophet— Elisha’s Accreditation (2 Kings 2:19-3:27)

Introduction

Transition of power from one leader to the next is not always easy. Years ago I was a high school teacher in a state prison. I taught there the summer between my first and second year of seminary. At the end of the summer the full-time teacher who was to replace me came to my last class session. Someone must have given him some advice about “taking charge” because he let it be known to those inmates that he was going to be the one “in charge.” As the inmates filed out of class, one of them came up to me and whispered softly, “We’ll see.”

Just this past month, I was in Indonesia during the election of the president and vice president. You may remember that several times in 1998 there was serious rioting in that nation. The year 1998 was a very traumatic time in the history of Indonesia. If the results of the election last month had been different, things could have become very messy again. The fellow I was staying with in Jakarta left for the office the morning of the election with these words, “If you look out that window tonight and see fires burning all over the city, you’ll know that the riots have begun again.”

The section we are dealing with in 2 Kings describes the transition of power from Elijah to Elisha. While there were a number of prophets in Israel, it would seem that Elijah was the “senior prophet” of his time. After his departure, it was necessary that his successor be designated in a way that would make it clear he was the one in whom the spirit of Elijah had come to abide.

It took some doing for Elijah to be recognized and respected as God’s prophet in Israel. At the beginning of his prophetic ministry, it was necessary for him to hide out by the brook Cherith, and then at the home of a Gentile widow and her son who lived in the Sidonian town of Zarephath (1 Kings 17). At the end of his ministry, Elijah was able to travel freely about Israel, without fear of being bothered by wicked men. After all, the nation not only knew that he had called down fire on Mount Carmel, but that he had called down fire upon two groups of soldiers who had been sent to arrest him (2 Kings 1:9-12).

Elisha was with Elijah when he was taken up into heaven, accompanied by a chariot and horses of fire (2 Kings 2:11-12). A guild of prophets looked on from a distance as Elijah and Elisha crossed the Jordan River. They saw Elijah take his robe and strike the waters of the Jordan. They observed the waters of the Jordan parting so that Elijah and Elisha could cross over on dry ground. They did not witness Elijah’s incredible departure, but they realized that he was gone when Elisha returned alone. They watched as Elisha took Elijah’s robe and struck the waters of the Jordan just as Elijah had done, and then cross over on dry ground. They realized that Elisha was somehow energized by the Spirit that once had empowered Elijah.

I am inclined to believe that Elisha did not yet have the full respect that his office deserved. I say this because the prophetic guild who were in Jericho were not yet willing to accept Elisha’s word, unchallenged. They must have seen some evidence of the whirlwind that took Elijah up into heaven because they asked Elisha for permission to send out a search party to look for Elijah’s body. I don’t believe they expected to find Elijah alive. It seems their intention was to recover the prophet’s body if at all possible. They may have reasoned that if he was caught up by a whirlwind, his body must have been deposited somewhere, whether in the hills or in the valley. Elisha knew better, and he told them not to go, but they kept pressing him till he reluctantly granted them permission to conduct a search. Their mission was unsuccessful, as Elisha knew it would be. The very fact that they sought to change Elisha’s mind suggests to me that they did not yet sufficiently appreciate the power and position God had given him as Elijah’s replacement. To truly honor a prophet, one must take his words seriously. When spoken under inspiration, his words were the word of the Lord. It is my opinion that Elisha’s words were not yet taken seriously enough,⁹⁹ and that the three miracles described in our text were divinely designed to accredit Elisha as Elijah’s replacement, who now possessed the office and authority of Elijah.

Elisha Heals the Water at Jericho
(2 Kings 2:19-22)

19 The men of the city said to Elisha, “Look, the city has a good location, as our master can see. But the water is bad and¹⁰⁰ the land doesn’t produce crops.” 20 Elisha said, “Get me a new jar and put some salt in it.” So they got it. 21 He went out to the spring and threw the salt in. Then he said, “This is what the LORD says, ‘I have purified this water. It will no longer cause death or fail to produce crops.” 22 The water has been pure to this very day, just as Elisha prophesied.

In America, hardly anyone thinks about the water they drink. My recent trip to Indonesia reminded me of the fact that pure water is a very precious thing. During my stay abroad, I was careful not to drink water from the tap, and not even to brush my teeth with it. I would only drink bottled water in a restaurant, and I was warned to be careful about the ice as well. Although the location of the city of Jericho was ideal, the city had a serious water problem. The city was in the Jordan River valley, approximately five miles west of the Jordan River, and a few miles north of the Dead Sea.¹⁰¹ The land was fertile, but water was needed for drinking and for watering the crops. The city’s water supply spelled the difference between a thriving city and a wasteland. Unfortunately, the waters of the spring at Jericho were “bad” (literally, “evil”). The result was that the water was not drinkable, and the land was barren.

Elisha was told about this problem. He was not exactly asked to do something about it, but it seems those who informed him hoped he might be able to do something about it. I am reminded of the way Mary, the mother of Jesus, informed our Lord that they had run out of wine at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee (see John 2:3). Elisha instructed them to bring him a new jar, in which salt had been placed. He took the jar of salt and went to the spring, where he proceeded to cast this salt upon the “evil” waters. He then spoke these words: “This is what the LORD says, ‘I have purified this water. It will no longer cause death or fail to produce crops” (verse 21). From that time to the day this book was written, the waters of the spring remained pure.

There are those who have sought to identify the precise problem with the water. The author of our text does not even attempt to do so. I am content to leave it at that. Some seek to explain just how the salt healed the waters. I do not think we were intended to know this, either. What we do know is that the water was “bad” and that it could not be drunk, nor could it be used to water their crops. By what appears to be a symbolic gesture (casting salt upon the waters), Elisha heals the waters of the spring. In the final analysis, it is Elisha’s word that purified the waters (literally, the waters were healed “just as Elisha said,” verse 22).

Here was a miracle that lasted, not only in terms of its essence, but in terms of its effect. The writer tells us in verse 22 that the waters remained pure up to the day the account was written. Surely this is an evidence of the hand of God and made it clear that this “healing” was indeed a miracle. I think the miracle endured in a different way. It continued to be a sign as time passed. Let me see if I can illustrate this.

Years ago when our church was newly formed, we did not yet have a building of our own. We met in a school, and later in a hotel. We observe communion every week, and so each Sunday morning Ray, my brother-in-law, would prepare the communion trays. On one particular Sunday, Ray finished preparing one tray and held it out to me to set aside so that he could pour the grape juice into the cups in the next tray. The humidity was especially low that day, which meant there was a great deal of static electricity. I had just walked some distance on the carpet, and so when I reached out to take the tray from Ray, I got a very substantial jolt of static electricity. I jumped and slopped grape juice everywhere. It was a mess, but Ray graciously helped me clean it up. Later on we were celebrating the Lord’s Table, and as communion was being observed, it happened to be Ray who brought the tray of grape juice to the row where I was seated (on the aisle). It was a most solemn moment, and Ray held out the tray, for me to take it. Then, unexpectedly, he withdrew it. He bent down and quietly whispered in my ear, “Steady, now.” Because of the way I spilled the grape juice earlier, Ray wanted to be sure I did not do it again. My earlier action had continuing results.

That is the way it must have been with the water in that spring at Jericho. Can you imagine finding that spring after a long journey, hurrying to it and taking a great gulp of water, only to spit it out in disgust? Having once drunk from these “evil” waters, one would not be so quick to try again. You would be reminded of the previous condition of this spring every time you drank from it in the future. From this day on, every time someone drank from that well, they would be reminded that these waters were once bad. And thus, it would seem to me, one would have to exercise a certain amount of faith every time you drank from this well. Would there not be the lingering thought, “I wonder if the purification of these waters is still in effect.”?

By the healing of these waters, God gave life to an entire city through His prophet, Elisha. And by the healing of these waters God was once again showing His sovereign control over His creation. Did the heathen look to their gods for rain and crops? The God of Israel is God alone. He gives water, and He gives crops, as He does here by the hand of Elisha.

Elijah, the Bears, and the “Bad Boys of Bethel”¹⁰²
(2 Kings 3:23-25)

23 He went up from there to Bethel. As he was traveling up the road, some young boys came out of the city and made fun of him, saying, “Go on up, baldy! Go on up, baldy!” 24 When he turned around and saw them, he called God’s judgment down on them. Two female bears¹⁰³ came out of the woods and ripped 42 of the boys to pieces. 25 From there he traveled to Mount Carmel and then back to Samaria.

It’s a very simple story, really, but one that troubles many. Some people seem to read the story as though it went like this (I caution you to read carefully, forewarned that the following is not what the biblical text says, or what I understand it to mean. What follows is a description of how the critics and skeptics tend to read this text.):

Elisha made his way to Bethel. Outside town, a group of children was playing. Elisha happened to pass by. Innocently (or at least ignorantly) a child took note of the fact that the prophet was bald, and commented about this. The other children took up this theme and chanted or sang it, thinking that Elisha would see the fun in it all. The grumpy prophet did not see anything funny about this at all. Instead, he exploded in anger and pronounced a curse upon these children, so that two bears came on them and they were brutally maimed.

It was, indeed, a long, hot twenty-five mile trek from Jericho (some 1300 feet below sea level) to Bethel (which was 2,000 feet above sea level). Bethel was not just any Israelite city, either. Bethel was one of two cities that Jeroboam had designated as places of worship for the northern kingdom of Israel when Solomon’s kingdom was divided between his son Rehoboam and his enemy, Jeroboam. Jeroboam feared that these two kingdoms might be tempted to re-unite because of the one central place of worship (Jerusalem) which was located in Judah. And so Jeroboam made a bold move—he established two places of counterfeit worship in Israel. One was in Dan, at the northern edge of Israel. The other was in Bethel, at the southern edge of Israel, a mere 12 miles from Jerusalem. One of the golden calves Jeroboam had provided for Israel to worship was placed in Bethel (see 1 Kings 12). This was a very pagan place, where God and His Word were no longer revered. The disrespect which Elisha received by these young Bethel boys was typical of the attitude of the general population in Bethel toward any true prophet of God.

The term used by our author to refer to these young men is one that is quite flexible. It is used of a young child, but it can also refer to what we would call a “young man.” It is apparent to me that these are not “little boys” who accost Elisha, but “young men.” My junior high school teacher, Chet Dombroski (I can remember some things), used to call fellows like this “local toughs.” This was not a group of little boys; it was a gang of young trouble-makers. Remember, we know that 42 were injured. That means that the smallest number for this “gang” was 42, and there could have been others who were fortunate enough to escape from the bears. This could have been a very intimidating confrontation for Elisha. The “bad boys of Bethel” got what they deserved. Would they try to bully Elisha? Then let them face two mother bears and see what real intimidation feels like.

There are various explanations of the words these young men spoke to Elisha, but I think we can be certain of several things. First, these young men were both hostile and insulting to the prophet. The expression “bald head” is no compliment, but rather a most offensive insult. We do not know for sure what they meant by the words, “Go up,” either. Were they challenging Elisha to do what Elijah had just done (“Go up” into heaven?)? It’s possible, but I rather doubt it. After all, even the prophets who looked on from a distance were inclined to think that Elijah was “taken up” by a windstorm. I think the essence of what these boys were chanting was something like this: “Keep on going up that road!” In more contemporary terms, these young men were shouting for Elisha to “Get out of town!” These young men, like the rest of those who lived in Bethel, did not want Elisha around. They did not want to hear “the word of the Lord.”

Let me remind you that Elisha did not personally harm any one of these trouble-makers. Elisha pronounced a curse on them, but in and of itself, that is not an act of violence. By pronouncing a curse, he left judgment where it should be—in the hands of God. We are intended to conclude that the two she bears attacked the young men simply because Elisha pronounced a curse on them. This is true, but we must also see that it was God who brought about the judgment these young men deserved. If we do not like the judgment that was executed here, then we have a problem with God. I believe that God “tried these young men as adults” (in today’s legal language) and found them guilty. Thus He carried out their rightly-deserved punishment by means of the bears.

Before anyone gets too worked up about this incident, they should seriously consider several other biblical texts in relation to what is reported in our text:

In the Law, God warned His people that if they refused to obey Him, He would send wild animals against them, and their children:

21 “‘If you walk in hostility against me and are not willing to obey me, I will increase your affliction seven times according to your sins. 22 I will send against you the animal of the field and it will bereave you of your children, annihilate your cattle, and diminish your population, and your roads will become deserted”(Leviticus 26:21-22, emphasis mine).

Later on, God’s judgment came upon His people because they rejected and ridiculed His prophets:

15 The LORD God of their ancestors continually warned them through his messengers, for he felt compassion for his people and his dwelling place. 16 But they mocked God’s messengers, despised his warnings, and ridiculed his prophets. Finally the LORD got angry at his people and there was no one who could prevent his judgment (2 Chronicles 36:15-16).

Do we really think that God indiscriminately pours out his wrath on “innocent little children”? It was Jonah who lacked compassion toward the innocent, and God who refused to punish those who were not yet accountable for their actions (who “did not know their right hand from their left”):

10 The LORD said, “You have compassion for the plant, something that you have not worked over nor made to grow, a thing that lasted a night and perished after a night. 11 Now should not I have compassion for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than one hundred twenty thousand people who do not know their right from their left, besides many animals?” (Jonah 4:10-11, emphasis mine).

For me, the most forceful and relevant Old Testament text is this one, recorded in the first chapter of the Book of Proverbs:

8 Listen, my child, to the training of your father and do not forsake the teaching of your mother. 9 For they will be a garland of grace for your head and a pendant for your neck. 10 My child, if sinners entice you do not consent. 11 If they say, “Come with us; we are going to lie in wait for blood we are going to lie in hiding for an innocent person for no reason. 12 We will swallow them alive, like the grave, and whole, like those going down to the pit. 13 We will get all kinds of precious wealth, we will fill our houses with plunder. 14 Throw your lot in with us, and we will all have a common purse.” 15 My child, do not go in the way with them, withhold your foot from their path; 16 for their feet run to evil, and they hasten to shed blood; 17 for it is futile to spread a net in front of all the birds! 18 But these men lie in wait for their own blood, they lie in hiding for their own lives. 19 Thus is the end of all who unjustly gain profit; it takes away the life of those who get it. 20 Wisdom calls out in the street, she lifts up her voice in the plazas; 21 at the head of the noisy streets she calls, in the entrances of the gates in the city she makes her speech: 22 “How long will you simpletons love simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery, and fools hate knowledge? 23 If only you will respond to my rebuke, then I will pour out my spirit to you, and I will make my thoughts known to you. 4 Since I called but you refused me, I stretched out my hand but no one paid attention, 25 and you neglected all my advice and did not comply with my rebuke, 26 then I will laugh at your disaster, I will mock when what you dread comes, 27 when what you dread comes like a whirlwind, and your disaster comes like a storm, when distress and trouble come upon you. 28 Then they will call to me, but I will not answer; they will look to me, but they will not find me. 29 Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, 30 they did not comply with my advice, they spurned all my rebuke, 31 then they will eat from the fruit of their way and from their counsel they will be satisfied. 32 For the turning away of the simple will kill them, and the careless ease of fools will destroy them. 33 But the one who listens to me will live in security and be at ease from the dread of harm (Proverbs 1:8-33).

These were not innocent little boys, naively teasing a prophet in an inappropriate fashion. Elisha was not needlessly harsh, nor was God. God’s judgment was poured out on those who rebelled against God, who disobeyed His Word, and who mocked His servants, the prophets. If there was one lesson that the people of Bethel learned that day, it was that they must reverence God and His spokesmen.

We Three Kings
(2 Kings 3:1-27)

1 In the eighteenth year of King Jehoshaphat’s reign over Judah, Ahab’s son Jehoram became king over Israel in Samaria; he ruled for 12 years. 2 He did evil before the LORD, but not to the same degree as his father and mother. He did remove the sacred pillar of Baal that his father had made. 3 Yet he persisted in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who encouraged Israel to sin; he did not turn from them.

4 Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep-breeder. He would send as tribute to the king of Israel 100,000 male lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. 5 When Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6 At that time King Jehoram left Samaria and assembled all Israel for war. 7 He sent this message to Jehoshaphat king of Judah: “The king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you fight with me against Moab?” Jehoshaphat replied, “I will join you in the campaign; my army and horses are at your disposal.” 8 He then asked, “Which invasion route are we going to take?” Jehoram answered, “By the road through the Desert of Edom.” 9 So the kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom set out together. They wandered around on the road for seven days and finally ran out of water for the men and animals they had with them. 10 The king of Israel said, “Oh no! Certainly the LORD has summoned these three kings so that he can hand them over to the king of Moab!” 11 Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there no prophet of the LORD here that we might seek the LORD’s direction?” One of the servants of the king of Israel answered, “Elisha son of Shapat is here; he used to be Elijah’s servant.” 12 Jehoshaphat said, “The LORD speaks through him.” So the king of Israel, Jehoshaphat, and the king of Edom went down to visit him.

13 Elisha said to the king of Israel, “Why are you here? Go to your father’s prophets or your mother’s prophets!” The king of Israel replied to him, “No, for the LORD is the one who summoned these three kings so that he can hand them over to Moab.” 14 Elisha said, “As certainly as the sovereign LORD lives (whom I serve), if I did not respect Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not pay attention to you or acknowledge you.” 15 But now, get me a musician.” When the musician played, the LORD energized him, 16 and he said, “This is what the LORD says, ‘Make many cisterns in this valley,’ 17 for this is what the LORD says, ‘You will not feel any wind or see any rain, but this valley will be full of water and you and your cattle and animals will drink.’ 18 This is an easy task for the LORD; he will also hand Moab over to you. 19 You will defeat every fortified and every important city. You must chop down every productive tree, stop up all the springs, and cover all the cultivated land with stones.”

20 Sure enough, the next morning, at the time of the morning sacrifice, water came flowing down from Edom and filled the land. 21 Now all Moab had heard that the kings were attacking, so everyone old enough to fight was mustered and placed at the border. 22 When they got up early the next morning, the sun was shining on the water. To the Moabites, who were some distance away, the water looked red like blood. 23 The Moabites said, “It’s blood! The kings are totally destroyed. They have struck one another down. Now, Moab, grab the plunder!” 24 When they approached the Israelite camp, the Israelites rose up and struck down the Moabites, who then ran from them. The Israelites thoroughly defeated Moab. 25 They tore down the cities and each man threw a stone into every cultivated field until they were covered. They stopped up every spring and chopped down every productive tree. Only Kir Hareseth was left intact, but the slingers surrounded it and attacked it. 26 When the king of Moab realized he was losing the battle, he and 700 swordsmen tried to break through and attack the king of Edom, but they failed. 27 So he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him up as a burnt sacrifice on the wall. There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland.

There are several things we need to review before we consider the “three kings” of 2 Kings 3. We need to remember that we are now in the period of the divided kingdom. The “Israel” over which Saul, David, and Solomon reigned is now two nations: the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah. Israel will be carried off to captivity by the Assyrians; later, Judah will be carried off to Babylon by the Babylonians. Both Elijah and Elisha were prophets to the northern kingdom of Israel. At this point in Elisha’s ministry, Israel continues to be ruled by the house of Omri, or more specifically at this point in time, by Ahab’s son, Jehoram.¹⁰⁴ Judah is still ruled by Jehoshaphat.

The story of the “three kings” is all the more perplexing in the light of 1 Kings 22:1-40. On this earlier occasion, Ahab wanted to go to war against the king of Syria in order to regain possession of Ramoth Gilead. Ahab asked Jehoshaphat to join him in this battle, and the king of Judah agreed, with almost the same words that we find in 2 Kings 3:7:

“I will support you; my army and horses are at your disposal” (1 Kings 22:4b).

“I will join you in the campaign; my army and horses are at your disposal” (2 Kings 3:7b).

In this earlier alliance with a king of Israel, Jehoshaphat is clearly set up by Ahab, who disguises himself and sends the king of Judah out to battle in his royal attire—something which nearly costs Jehoshaphat his life. God providentially intervened, however, sparing Jehoshaphat’s life, and bringing about the death of Ahab by what seemed to be a random shot (1 Kings 22:29-38).

One has to marvel that Jehoshaphat would so readily join with Jehoram, king of Israel, especially after this stinging rebuke for going into battle with Ahab:

1 When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned home safely to Jerusalem, 2 the prophet Jehu son of Hanani confronted him and said to King Jehoshaphat: “Is it right to help the wicked and be an ally of those who oppose the LORD? Because you have done this the LORD is angry with you. 3 Nevertheless you have done some good things; you removed the Asherah poles from the land and you were determined to follow the LORD” (2 Chronicles 19:1-3).

I am inclined to wonder if the words of 2 Kings 3:1-3 may not have been a factor in Jehoshaphat’s decision to go with Jehoram:

We are told that Jehoram, Ahab’s son, became king (after the death of Ahaziah) and reigned for 12 years. Like Ahab his father, Jehoram was also evil. But he was not as evil as his father or his mother (Jezebel) had been. It may be that Jehoshaphat reasoned that while Jehoram was not the man he should have been, he was not as bad as he could have been, and he was surely not as bad as Ahab or Jezebel. Perhaps, then, Jehoshaphat reasoned that Jehoram was a good enough king to form an alliance with him in a time of war. After all, many of those who are our allies in a time of war are not our close associates in a time of peace. Perhaps this is why the author gives us this evaluation of Jehoram at the beginning of this account.

Ahab, king of Israel, has died, and Jehoram his son now reigns in his place. When Ahab was king, he prevailed over the surrounding nations, collecting tribute from them. Moab (located on the eastern side of the Dead Sea), ruled by king Mesha at the time, paid tribute in the form of 100,000 male lambs and the wool of (100,000) male rams. When Ahab died and Jehoram took his place, Mesha saw this as his opportunity to break away from Israelite domination and to avoid further payments of tribute.

Jehoram was not inclined to let Mesha get away with this rebellion. Not only would Israel lose the tribute Moab paid them, but other subject nations might also try to break away from Israel’s domination. And so Jehoram appealed to Jehoshaphat for help against a common enemy. Jehoram’s strategy was brilliant, or so it seemed. Now, two nations were going to join him in his battle against the Moabites. It hardly seems coincidental that Edom is also an ally of Israel and Judah in this war. I understand that Edom was subject to Judah at this time, and thus when Jehoshaphat committed Judah to this battle, he was as good as committing Edom also. How could the king of Edom say “No”?

The route of their attack further entangled Edom in this alliance. Edom and Moab were neighbors. Moab was on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, and Edom was located at the southern end of the Dead Sea, just below Moab. Rather than attack Moab by crossing the Jordan River and marching south (thereby attacking Moab’s northern border), Jehoram planned to march south, down the western side of the Dead Sea. Then the three kings and their armies would pass through Edom and attack Moab at their southern border, which was perhaps not as heavily armed. This was all Jehoram’s plan, a plan that Jehoshaphat did not devise or propose. It is a plan to which Jehoshaphat rather foolishly submitted himself, his army, and Edom as well.

It really did seem like a clever plan, and at first it appeared to be working well. The three kings and their armies marched down the western coast of the Dead Sea, intending to pass around the end of the Dead Sea, passing through the Desert of Edom. This is where things really began to go wrong. The text seems to describe their journey as though these three armies were “wandering around,” as though they had lost their way (2 Kings 3:9). We are then told that they ran out of water while still in the desert. As someone has said, “This does not bode well.” The king of Israel was one of the first to figure out that they were all in very serious trouble. He saw this as the judgment of God—the God of Israel—Who was intent upon bringing about the destruction of all three kings and their armies. How interesting that this polytheist would see these events as coming from the hand of God.

Jehoshaphat was not willing to accept Jehoram’s assessment of the situation. It was certainly a bit late, but Jehoshaphat decided it was time to seek divine guidance. He wanted this guidance from a true prophet, a “prophet of the LORD” (2 Kings 3:11). Jehoram has no one to recommend, but one of his servants does. He reports to Jehoram that Elisha, the one who formerly served Elijah, was living nearby. Jehoshaphat was certain that this prophet was one through whom the LORD spoke (3:12).

The three kings then made their way (literally “went down”) to where Elisha was staying. Elisha immediately rebuked Jehoram, asking why he had come, and instructing him to go and consult the prophets of his father (Ahab) and mother (Jezebel). This meeting is probably as distasteful to Jehoram as it is to Elisha. He would prefer to consult other prophets, except for one fact—Jehoram was convinced that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was behind this disaster, and that He alone could save them. Unpleasant as it might be, he had no alternative.

This would not have been enough to convince Elisha to come to his aid. Elisha made it very clear to Jehoram that his help would be for Jehoshaphat’s sake. The kings of Israel and Edom would be spared, but only on account of Jehoshaphat. I am reminded of the principle which Paul set down in 1 Corinthians 7:12-14:

12 To the rest I say—I, not the Lord—if a brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is happy to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is happy to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified because of the wife, and the unbelieving wife because of her husband. Otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy (1 Corinthians 7:12-14).

This text encourages the Christian spouse not to divorce their unbelieving mate and to live with their unbelieving partner so long as they are willing to do so. The reason Paul gives is that, in some sense, the children of this marriage are “sanctified” or “set apart.” I would suggest to you that our text in 2 Kings 3 sheds some light on Paul’s words. Neither the king of Edom nor the king of Israel were saints, but in spite of this they were “blessed” because of their association with Jehoshaphat. In the same way, I believe, the unbelieving spouse and children of a “mixed marriage” (spiritually speaking) benefit from living in association with the parent who is a believer. “Second-handedly,” they experience God’s blessings on the believer, with whom they are associated.

Having decided to seek divine guidance on behalf of Jehoshaphat and his associates, Elisha asks for a musician, perhaps a harpist like David.¹⁰⁵ While this was not the norm, music sometimes played an influential role in the realm of the spirit. This is most apparent in the life and times of David. For example, Samuel informed Saul that he would be overcome by the Spirit of God, which would indicate to others that God had empowered him to serve as their king:

3 “You should continue on from there, coming to the tall tree of Tabor. At that point three men who are going up to God at Bethel will encounter you. One of them will be carrying three kids, one of them will be carrying three round loaves of bread, and one of them will be carrying a flask of wine. 4 They will ask you how you’re doing and will give you two loaves of bread. You will accept them. 5 Afterwards you will go to Gibeah of God, where there are Philistine deputies. When you enter the city, you will meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place. They will have harps, tambourines, flutes, and lyres, and they will be prophesying. 6 Then the spirit of the LORD will rush over you, and you will prophesy with them. You will become a different person. 7 “When these signs have taken place, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God will be with you. 8 You will go down to Gilgal before me. I will come down to you to offer burnt offerings and to make peace sacrifices. You should wait for seven days, until I come to you and inform you of what you should do.” 9 As he turned to leave Samuel, God changed his thinking. All these signs happened on that very day. 10 When they arrived at Gibeah, a company of prophets was coming out to meet him. Then the spirit of God rushed on him, and he prophesied in their midst. 11 When everyone who had known him previously saw that he was prophesying with the prophets, the people all asked one another, “What on earth has happened to the son of Kish? Does even Saul belong with the prophets?” 12 A man who was from there replied, “And who is their father?” Therefore this became a proverb: “Is even Saul among the prophets?” 13 Then when he had finished prophesying, he went to the high place” (1 Samuel 10:5-13, emphasis mine).

We are also told that when Saul was troubled by an evil spirit, David’s music seemed to calm him:

And so it was that whenever the spirit from God would come on Saul, David would take his lyre and would play it with his hand. This would bring relief to Saul, and things would improve for him. The evil spirit would depart from him (1 Samuel 16:23).

The musician came as Elisha requested, and as he (or she) played, the Spirit of God [literally, the “hand of the LORD”] came upon Elisha. Elisha spoke the word of the LORD to them. They were to create cisterns or ditches in the valley where they were. This “valley” would be what we in Texas might call a “wash.” Here, it is not a constantly flowing, year-round stream or river; it is a dry river bed, where the waters would gather to run off when it rained sufficiently to produce a stream (or, in some cases, a torrent). God is assuring Jehoshaphat and the other kings that He will fill the “wash” with water, so they are to dig out small reservoirs which will contain some of the water, and thus obtain water for themselves and their animals to drink.

In some ways, it sounds as though God is saying, “Get ready, it’s going to rain!” But Elisha makes it clear that God is going to do something unusual. He is going to fill the “wash” or valley with water, but in such a way that they will not see the source of the water which God provides. They will not observe the phenomena which are normally associated with rain. They will see neither wind nor rain. Usually, if water were to be found in this wash, it would be because a storm had brought rain. This water will seemingly come from nowhere.

I believe there are several reasons for this unusual provision of water. First, I believe that God does not allow Himself to be “put in a box,” as some are inclined to do with God. Why is it that we so often try to find human explanations for His actions? When we read in the Book of Jonah that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, and then escaped, we seem to find great comfort and assurance in reading stories about others who have been swallowed by fish and have survived. Why is this? Do we believe only the believable? I believe that whether or not anyone ever survived being swallowed by a fish before or after, Jonah did. After all, God prepared this fish. God did not wish to provide water in a normal fashion, but He chose to do it in a most unusual way. Because He is God, this is no problem to Him. God is not restricted to man’s ways, or even to man’s imaginations (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Second, God provided water for these three kings and their armies in a very unusual way in order to emphasize His ability to give them the victory over their enemies, the Moabites. That is what these words seem to mean:

“‘You will not feel any wind or see any rain, but this valley will be full of water and you and your cattle and animals will drink.’ 18 This is an easy task for the LORD; he will also hand Moab over to you. 19 You will defeat every fortified and every important city” (2 Kings 3:17b-19a).

The God who provided water “out of nowhere” is the God who will give them the victory, when there seems to be “no way” that can happen. He is the God of the impossible.

Third, the water is provided in an unusual way because it is not only the instrument of salvation for these three kings and their armies, but it is also God’s instrument of destruction for the Moabites. If the water had come from the rains, the Moabites would probably have seen this. The text would indicate that when the Moabites looked out and saw the water, they assumed that it was blood. They seem to have no idea that this could be water, because they had not observed any rainfall. They expected any water in that wash to come about normally, but God provided the water in an unusual way, a way undetected by the Moabites. Supposing that this divinely-provided water was the blood of their enemies, the Moabites reasoned that these three approaching armies had turned against one another. If this was the case, they did not need to come prepared to have a fight; they needed to come prepared for hauling freight. I can almost see them laying aside their swords and their shields to lighten the load of their chariots, or to leave their arms free to carry off the spoils. And so with this very unusual provision of water for the three kings and their armies, God put their enemies at a tremendous disadvantage. They left their fortifications and came out into the open, not fully armed (it would seem) but largely unarmed, because they wrongly supposed that their enemies were already dead.

God had made it clear that when he gave Jehoshaphat and his colleagues success, they were to totally devastate the land. They were to capture and destroy the major cities, to chop down the trees of value, to cover the land with stones, and to stop up every spring (2 Kings 3:19). In so doing, they would virtually cripple the nation of Moab for years to come. The Moabites would think twice before they made an enemy of God’s people again.

From the outset of the fighting, it was apparent that the Moabites were losing. The allied army did just as God had commanded throughout the land of Moab. Only the capital city of Moab remained, and here is where the battle got ugly. Kir Hareseth was under attack by the “slingers.” It was not just David who was highly skilled with the sling, but a number of Benjamites, and perhaps others (see Judges 20:16). I think the present day equivalent would be the “sharpshooters” who are used in very specialized situations. They were attempting to “pick off” those Moabites who made the mistake of giving these sharpshooters any target at all.

The king of Moab seemed to realize that it would only be a matter of time before the city fell. He assembled 700 of his swordsmen and made a desperate attempt to break through and attack the king of Edom—who seemed to be the weakest link in the allied army’s defenses. This did not work, and so in one final act of desperation, the king of Moab offered up his son as a burnt sacrifice on the wall of the city, in the sight of all. This seems to be an act of appeasement to his god, Chemosh, with the hope that his god would save the Moabites. The result was an outbreak of anger against Israel. There is a great deal of discussion about this anger. Was it God’s anger against Israel? Was it anger on the part of the Moabites? I cannot say for certain. But it is safe to say that this “anger” caused the allied armies to give up their fight and go home. I think we can also conclude that the war accomplished the goal of delivering Jehoshaphat and those with him and of dealing a devastating blow to the Moabites. At the same time, the way this war ended did not allow anyone to feel really good about it. We must remember Elisha’s words to the king of Israel, which indicated that he had little concern for saving this idolater, but only concern for Jehoshaphat. A foolish alliance—and perhaps a foolish war—was concluded safely, but without the usual thrill of victory.

Conclusion

Let us conclude this message by considering what these miracles accomplished then, and what they have to teach us now.

First of all, these miracles served to accredit Elisha as the successor of Elijah. Moses parted the Red Sea, and Joshua the Jordan river. So, too, both Elijah and Elisha parted the Jordan River. As Moses “healed” the waters of Marah (Exodus 15:22-26), so Elisha healed the waters of the spring at Jericho. Elisha is one of a line of men whom God used to save His people. It was through Elisha that God spared Jehoshaphat and the kings of Israel and Edom, along with their armies. We hear it from the lips of the servant of Jehoram, as well as from the king of Judah—“the Word of the LORD is with Elisha” (2 Kings 3:11-12).

Second, God is a saving God. God “healed” the waters of the spring at Jericho, and He provided “streams in the desert” which spared the lives of Jehoshaphat and those with him. His salvation is gracious; it is unmerited. He saved the Edomites and the Israelites, along with their kings, only because they were associated with Jehoshaphat. God saved Jehoshaphat, in spite of his foolish decision to enter into an alliance with pagans. I am reminded of this verse from the Psalms: “Yahweh looks after the simple, when I was brought low he gave me strength” (Psalm 116:6, NJB).

How grateful I am that God not only saves, but that He saves the simple! How often God has saved me from my own folly.

Third, God is a God who saves, but He is also the God who judges sin. We see God’s saving hand in our text, but we dare not overlook the incident with the “Bad boys of Bethel” and the bears, or the defeat of the Moabites. Those who reject God and who reject His Word are those who place themselves in harm’s way. God may delay His wrath, but He will not overlook sin indefinitely. The God who saves is also the God who judges.

I am reminded of Paul’s words here, calling our attention to the “kindness and harshness of God”: “Notice therefore the kindness and harshness of God—harshness toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off” (Romans 11:22).

God was gracious to Jehoshaphat, even though he had done something foolish. In spite of his folly, Jehoshaphat was a man who trusted in God, and thus God was kind toward him. Those who mocked Elisha also mocked his God, and because of this God dealt with them severely.

My friend, how will God deal with you? Will He deal with you severely, or with kindness? The answer to this question is determined by your response to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Your relationship to Jesus Christ determines whether you spend eternity in heaven with God, or an eternity in hell, separated from God. You and I are saved, not by any good works or merit of our own, but on the basis of our relationship to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the cross of Calvary, bearing the guilt and the penalty for our sins. Those who acknowledge their sin and who trust in Jesus Christ are promised the forgiveness of their sins and the assurance of eternal life.

When our Lord Jesus came to this earth, He came as God’s final messenger, exposing our sin, suffering its guilt and punishment, and offering eternal life to those who trust in Him. If God dealt severely with those young men who mocked Elisha (as God’s messenger), how do you think He will deal with those who reject Jesus Christ as His final messenger?

33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a fence around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a watchtower. Then he rented it to tenant farmers and went on a journey. 34 When the harvest time was near, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his portion of the crop. 35 But the tenants seized his slaves, beat one, killed another and stoned another. 36 Then he sent other slaves, more than the first, and they treated them the same way. 37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and get his inheritance!’ 39 So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They said to him, “He will put those evil men to a miserable death, and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants who will give him his portion at the harvest.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 For this reason I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit. 44 The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.”45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them. 46 They wanted to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.

1 Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2 For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, 3 how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first communicated through the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him, 4 while God confirmed their witness with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will (Hebrews 2:1-4).

It is my hope and prayer that you have given heed to our Lord and to His message. If you have trusted in Him, then you can rest assured that He will save you, and show His kindness to you.

99 Remember, too, that Elisha had served as Elijah’s servant for some period of time (2 Kings 3:11). It would take a little doing for people to think of Elisha as the “father” of the prophets, rather than as the servant of Elijah.

100 In my opinion, the “and” has the force of “so that.” It was the bad water of this spring which caused the land to be unproductive. When the waters were healed, the land became productive.

101 Modern-day Jericho is about a mile or so east of the site where ancient Jericho was located, and is almost a desert oasis, since this area gets little rain.

102 I came across a scholarly article that referred to the “Bethel boys” as the “Bad boys of Bethel,” and I liked this designation so well that I borrowed it.

103 It was also near Bethel that the “young prophet” was killed by a lion (see 1 Kings 13).

104 There are actually two Jehoram’s (see 2 Kings 8:16): Jehoram, son of Ahab (sometimes also called Joram), and Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat. This can obviously be confusing. It is the first Jehoram (king of Israel) with whom we are dealing in our text.

105 In the NET Bible, the translator’s note on 2 Kings 3:15 reads: “The term used refers to one who plays a stringed instrument, perhaps a harp.” The NIV renders it, “bring me a harpist.”

Related Topics: Character Study, Inspiration

網上牧師雜誌 – 中文版（繁體）, TCh Ed, Issue 35 2020 年春季

A ministry of…

作者: Roger Pascoe,博士,主席
郵箱: [email protected]

I.加強對聖經的理解
“如何閱讀和理解聖經”(第二部分)

介紹

雖然聖經解釋的主題（釋經）很廣泛，有時可能有些複雜，但是學習如何釋經對我們來說至關重要，只有這樣，我們才能夠成為神話語準確而清楚的傳道人，忠誠地傳講聖經說的是什麼，意思是什麼以及如何應用於我們的生活。

當我們研究聖經的時候，常常會遇到短語、句子和段落，難以理解原始作者想說的是什麼。正是因為這些情況，我們需要指導聖經解釋的方針和原則，幫助我們盡可能好地理解某個段落，尤其是我們生活在一個完全不同的時代和文化下，說著完全不同的語言。

在“如何閱讀和理解聖經”的第一部分（見2020冬季版），我們討論了：

1. 聖經解釋中的三個基本任務

(a)決定一個段落準確的意思（解經）；

(b) 將正確的解釋原則應用於這個段落（釋經）；

2. 兩個重要的釋經學問題：

(a) 舊約作者完全瞭解他們所寫的嗎？

(b)新約作者完全瞭解他們所寫的嗎？

現在第二部分，我們將繼續研究聖經解釋的其他一些重要方面。

A.字面解釋

有人說，你不能按字面的意思理解聖經，因為（1）聖經運用修辭（比喻、誇張等），以及（2）聖經使用詩意的語言和其他文學體裁，不能從字面上解釋（比如預言世界末日的）。這是一種試圖貶低聖經真理的行為。事實上，我們對《聖經》的解釋和其他文學作品的解釋是一樣的。

“字面意思”指的是什麼？如果說“字面”指的是機械地一個字一個字的翻譯，而不考慮修辭或比喻的手法，答案是否定的—我們不從字面上解釋聖經。但是如果說“字面”指的是，我們相信聖經所寫的，相信聖經所肯定的一切都是真實的，它所記載的一切都是準確的；我們閱讀和解釋《聖經》是根據它樸素、自然的含義，以及作者的意圖（考慮他們的文學風格，手法，體裁，語法，寫作時詞彙的意義，以及寫作時的歷史，經濟，社會，地理和政治背景），那麼答案是肯定的，我們確實從字面閱讀和理解聖經。

可能比“字面”意思更適合的詞是“實際”意思。實際意思是一種解釋，它 “…反映了所用的文學手法、上下文意思、歷史背景、語法、(和)詞的意義”[1] ，也就是，一種基於“語法—背景—神學”的理解方法。我們可以說，實際意義是一種解釋，它“沒有靈意化或寓言化” [2]那些作者沒有打算靈意化或者寓言化的內容—也就是“正常”或者“簡單”的意思。

字面解釋就是指根據經文字裡行間的意思理解聖經—也就是，就像你解釋任何一部文學作品一樣，根據正常的語法、言語、句法和上下文的規則來理解。因此，字面解釋並不排除字體或插圖的使用；也不排除基於想像或象徵的文學體裁（比如啟示錄）。字面解釋並不排除自然閱讀（普通的）經文所產生的正常理解。正如我的一位牧師朋友說的：“當普通的意義符合常識，那麼任何其他意義都是胡說。”

字面解釋與其他一些解釋方式截然不同，比如寓言化、靈意化、道德說教和象徵化。或者，換句話說，在《聖經》作者可能使用的文學手法、意象、體裁和風格背後，隱藏著一個字面上的想法或概念。這就是我們閱讀聖經時所尋找的。

雖然聖經不同於其他任何書籍，因為它是聖靈所啟示的；但是它也是用正常的人類語言和語法結構寫的，因此我們理解它的時候也要遵循閱讀和理解其他任何文學作品的相同原則。字面解釋並不是說我們要機械地理解聖經，把經文放在一個僵直的木筒子裡，這樣反而使它變得不可理喻。

這就是為什麼根據“語法—背景—神學”學習聖經的方式是至關重要的。為了能從字面的意思來理解聖經，你需要能夠辨認：經文的各種語法成分；（b）神學觀點；（c）它的背景：（d）它的文學體裁和手法。所有這些方面都會影響理解和解釋。

因此，為了正確地理解聖經，我們需要分析和理解…

1.語法—各種句法結構（從句和主句）和詞的運用—它們的類型和部分（例如名詞、動詞等），形態（比如情況；狀態），和意義。

2.理論—作者說了關於神的什麼（他的目的、他的性格、他的本質，他的計畫等）以及我們和神的關係。

3.背景—歷史、政治、經濟、社會和文化。

4. 文學體裁和手法—寫作風格和修辭手法。

所有這些分析都會影響我們對原始作者想表達的觀點（真理、理論）的理解，他們是字面解釋的重要組成部分。

B.理解某些文學體裁和手法

顯然，文學體裁對我們解讀任何文字都有很大的影響，尤其是聖經因為它包含了很多不同的體裁。文學體裁是指文章的寫作風格，如散文、詩歌、諺語、書信、啟示錄、福音(含寓言類)、歷史敘事性、預言性等。

文學體裁影響我們對一個段落的理解。例如，如果它是用世界末日的語言寫的，有各種瘋狂的，幾乎是幻想的，末世論場景的形象和描述，人們就必須從這個角度來解讀它。

然而，知道了文學體裁並不見得會使解釋顯而易見。例如文學體裁並不能解決史實性問題。約拿書就是這樣一個例子。比如約拿書的一部分是歷史敘事，但是另一部分（第二章）是詩歌的形式。這本書究竟是歷史性的記述；還是對約拿的經歷進行寓言式描述，其中詩歌部分只是約拿的反思謝恩禱告，在這點上學者們還存在分歧。當然，對於那些不相信奇跡的不信者來說，詩歌的章節給了他們一個藉口來否認整本書的歷史真實性。

除了文學體裁之外，我們還必須瞭解作者可能使用的任何文學手法，如比喻、明喻和誇張等修辭手法。當這些文學手法被應用在文中的時候，影響我們如何來解釋和理解經文。

C.一個意思：多種應用

請注意這個原則：“一個意思；多種應用。”我們認為每段經文，當我們按著作者所寫的以及作者的意圖來理解的時候，就只有一個意思，並非多個，也並非對你來說一個意思，對我來說又是另外一個意思。寫的是什麼就是什麼。任何一段經文都只有一個意思。因為翻譯以及書面表達的限制，我們可能會有多個理解，但只有一個意思是作者想表達的。然而，每段經文可能有多種應用。從一段經文的單個意思，我們可以引申出很多影響我們行為、言辭、關係等等的應用。

.但是請注意這點：由於聖經的遞進啟示，我們可能會看到一個原始作者和讀者所看不到的更進一步的，更廣更深層次的意思。這並非改變最初的意思，而只是擴展了。

我們需要謹記，雖然聖經有很多位人類作者，但是神作者只有一位。因此，人類作者所不明白或者沒有想表達出來的有可能是神想要向我們表達的。但是我們必須有聖經依據來說明聖靈啟示了一個更進一步，更廣更深層次的意思，這個意思也是聖經作者沒有意識到的（更多的解釋請看2020冬季版）。

D.文化對我們理解的影響

一些聖經學者和傳道者試圖從詞語的當代意義和當代文化標準來解讀聖經，從而使其現代化。這有效地重新詮釋了聖經，使之成為他們今天想要表達的意思。但是聖經不是今天寫的，它的教導也不能被更改以符合當代的倫理和實踐。

不論怎樣，我們需要承認聖經確實存在很多古老的特別的習俗（至少是這樣），在我們文化中沒有任何意義。所以，我們面對的挑戰，一方面，不要詮釋聖經為了迎合當代的文化；另一方面，就是區別聖經裡面普遍的原則（適用於任何年齡、任何文化的任何人）以及它古老的習俗（只限于古老的文化）。

首先，我們所說的“文化”是什麼？任何組織的文化本質上都是隨著時間的推移而形成的做事方式或表達態度。這種環境的形成可能是由於過去所做的決定、有影響力的人、可能發生的危機、已經發生的歷史、經歷過的情況、所採用的原則等。它實際上是組織的個性和特徵，表現在它的價值觀、優先事項、好惡、活動、領導風格、它所代表的東西、它如何反應、它為什麼存在以及它相信什麼等。

家庭也有文化。在那裡，你學會了你對生活和行為最早也可能是最根深蒂固的信念，你的價值觀、人生優先考慮的事情、你的世界觀、人際關係（比如和你的父母及兄弟姐妹）。你們政府有自己的文化，你們教會有自己的文化；你的工作單位有自己的文化。所有的這些文化都影響你如何閱讀、理解和應用聖經。

1. 古老的文化

詮釋聖經的挑戰之一是確定哪些做法只適用於和反映古代社會(即文化)，哪些做法適用於所有年代（即多種文化）

最重要的問題是:我們如何應用聖經? 我們在聖經中讀到的所有誡命和實踐，有哪些在今天仍然適用於我們，我們應該來實踐？我們應該按著在古老文化中的方式來遵行，還是應該對其進行某種改良？

一些舊約的例子

(a)十分之一—農產品的十分之一（利27:30-33）；十分之一為利未和他們在會幕中作祭司的職任（民18:21）；每年農產品和為祭司的十分之一（申14:22）；十分之一為利未、陌生人、孤兒和寡婦（申26:12-15）

(b)強姦—比如申22:28-29.這個條例在今天仍然適用嗎，如果一個人強姦了一個女孩，這個人只需要付給她父親50舍克勒銀子並和她結婚嗎？

(c)同性戀—例如利18:22。這條舊約裡面反對同性戀的條例，我們今天也必須遵行嗎？

(d)與獸淫合—例如利18:23. 在今天如果有人和獸發生關係是不道德的嗎？

(e)混合的衣服—比如利19:19. 不穿羊毛、亞麻布混紡的衣服，我們今天是否也要遵守這樣的條例？

(f) 安息日的律法—比如出2:9-10。我們需要在安息日“不做任何事情”嗎？如果這樣的話，如何定義“工作”？哪一天該是我們的安息日？耶穌說：“安息日是為人設立的，人不是為安息日設立的”（可2:27）？

(g) 割禮—比如創17:10。割禮對我們來說是必須要做的嗎？

(h) 紋身—例如創19:28。禁止在身上紋紋身，是我們應該遵守的嗎？

(i) 衣服的類型—例如申22:5，“婦女不可穿戴男子所穿戴的，男子也不可穿婦女的衣服。”這指的是什麼樣的衣服？這對誰有約束力，為什麼以及如何應用？

一些新約的例子

(a)女人蒙頭而不是男人（哥前11:1-16）。今天女人在敬拜的時候真的需要蒙頭嗎？在我們今天的文化中是否有一種更適合的方式來表達？換句話說，蒙頭是否只是一個永恆的原則在當時文化下的一種表達，在今天可以用不同的方式更好地表達嗎？

(b)女人在教會中的安靜（提前2:1-15；哥前14:34）.保羅關於女人在教會中要“安靜”，是當時特定文化下的教導還是跨文化的教導？這只是針對某個教會（比如以弗所）中婦女的教導，以禁止她們爭吵和擾亂教會敬拜？還是適用於任何時代針對所有婦女的教導？如果安靜本身是當時那個時代遵行某一個原則的體現，那麼它所代表的那個原則是什麼？今天我們如何來遵行？

(d)舉手禱告（提前2:8）.保羅的勸戒是當時文化下的還是跨文化的？

(e)傳福音（路10:4）。我們必須“不要帶錢囊，不要帶口袋，不要帶鞋，在路上也不要問人的安”嗎？主耶穌是否聲明了一個原則，在我們的文化下可以用適當的方式來表達？

(f)親嘴問安（哥前16:20）.我們今天也要這樣問安嗎？如果是這樣，那麼在世人看來，兩個男人接吻會是什麼樣子呢？一個男人親吻一個不是他妻子的女人呢？以及兩個女人親吻呢？

(g)喝酒（提前5:23）。保羅讓提摩太“因你胃口不清，屢次患病…可以稍微用點酒”，我們也需要遵行嗎？這是標準的藥物治療嗎？還是這只是針對提摩太的一個叮囑？

(h) 用油膏（雅5:14；可6:13）。用油膏抹病人是我們必須做的事嗎？如果是，這樣做的目的和意義是什麼？這是醫學上的還是宗教上的？

(i) 賣了你所有的周濟窮人（路12:33）。今天我們如何來實踐耶穌的這個教導？

(j) 長頭髮是男人的羞辱（哥前11:14）。如何定義長頭髮？我們今天如何來實踐呢？

結論

聖經教導中那些反映古代文化實踐的方面必須加以檢驗以確定：

1.這些教導背後的原則是什麼？注意：當準備講道的時候，我們首先要找的是持久的真理，不變的原則。這些是我們講道的要點。

2. 這一原則在今天該如何實踐？由於整部《聖經》都是由古代人用當時的語言、意象和文化寫成的(特定的人在特定的時間處理特定的情況)，顯然其中有很強的文化元素。我們的任務是來決定，聖經教導的是文化實踐本身適用於任何時代還是其背後的原則適用於任何時代。

2.我們的當代文化

我們閱讀聖經時，不僅需要認識到古代文化對聖經作者的影響，我們還需要能夠認識到我們自己的文化。我們需要認識到，我們閱讀和理解聖經時，所看所想的都會受到我們自己文化的影響。這就是為什麼來自其他文化的人在閱讀某些部分的聖經時有和我們不同的世界觀和理解。

一些當代因素極大地影響了我們對古代文本的理解，包括：（a）同時代溝通的方式（比如電話、郵件、報紙等）；旅行（比如飛機）；生活方式（比如個人主義和物質主義）；服飾；世界觀。

當我們學習聖經為教導和傳道做準備時，我們必須努力作一個無偏見的讀者（雖然這並不完全可能）來閱讀聖經。這就是為什麼我們必須要訓練自己“釋經”（考慮存在的東西）而不是“牽強附會”（讀出沒有的意思）。這就是為什麼我們應該掌握一些基本的釋經原則，就是我在“加強聖經理解”這一系列中試圖闡釋的。下一期我們會繼續談論這個話題。

II.基督徒自由的局限性

哥前6:12-20

Stephen F. Olford博士

這是我們上次在2019年冬季版雜誌上發表的系列文章的延續

介紹

哥林多教會的第三種混亂就是不潔淨。這個問題出自對人類身體的流行教導。希臘人總是輕視身體。有句諺語是這樣說的:人的身體就是墳墓。魂與靈是人格的重要組成部分，而身體並不重要。

這種思想導致了兩種行為。第一種是最嚴格的禁欲主義，盡一切可能去壓制和羞辱身體的欲望和本能。第二種，也是在哥林多城非常流行的，就是用身體來最大程度地滿足自己的喜好和欲望。這種生活哲學因錯誤理解保羅所傳講的基督徒的自由而得到加強。結果導致哥林多城的淫亂和不道德侵入到教會的生活。考慮到這一點，保羅開始談關於信徒身體的教義。

A.信徒身體的自由

凡事我都可行，但不都有益處”（哥前6:12,13）。保羅引用了兩句諺語或規條來介紹信徒身體的自由這一主題，這兩句諺語或信條需要我們的關注。基督徒“被召到自由裡”，是確實的，但是我們不能把我們的自由“當做放縱情欲的機會”（加5:13）也是確實的。基督徒的自由不是為了去做任何我們想做的事，而是有力量去做我們該做的。所以保羅告訴我們關於基督徒自由的兩件事：

1)基督徒的自由是蒙神保守的。“凡事我都可行，但不都有益處；凡事我都可行，但無論哪一件，我總不受它的轄制”（哥前6:12）.保羅在這裡說的是，因為我們不再在律法之下，而在恩典之下，我們是自由的男人和女人，但是這樣的自由在任何情況下都不能成為不義的藉口，因為所有的不義都是罪（約一5:17）。因此，基督徒在享受身體自由的同時，必須遵守兩個守衛原則。

.首先雖然所有的事都可行，但不都是有益的。“有益的”指“對別人有幫助的。” 我們馬上就能看出這對我們基督徒的行為有多大的約束，因為很顯然，如果我們通過和使用我們身體所做的一切事都要對別人有幫助，那麼我們應該從不濫用基督徒的自由而犯罪。

第二個原則也同樣有力，保羅說“凡事我都可行，但無論哪一件，我總不受它的轄制”（哥前6:12）。如果第一個原則是關於別人的，那麼第二個就是關於我們自己的。我們所做的任何事，如果使我們受轄制，就不是自由，而是束縛。如果因使用自由而疏於自製，那麼我們就是濫用我們的自由。

現今我們聽到很多人說“自由地愛”，但是說這些話的人如果真懂得這句話，就會意識到他們正是他們聲稱有自由去做的事情的奴隸。你們要小心，免得你們的自由變成奴役。因此我們看到，真正的基督徒自由是蒙神保守的，但是請進一步注意：

2)基督徒的自由是蒙神引領的。“食物是為肚腹，肚腹是為食物，但神要叫這兩樣都廢壞。身子不是為淫亂，乃是為主，主也是為身子”（哥前6:13）.這是保羅用來說明基督徒自由的第二個規條。有的人爭論，認為食物是為肚腹，肚腹是為食物，所以任何其他的饑渴都應該同樣地加以滿足。但是這個理由有一個嚴重的錯誤。實際上，像Bishop Lightfoot說的，“這是一種嚴格的道德混亂。”在神聖潔律法的光照下，我們可以肯定食物是為肚腹，但是我們中有誰膽敢延伸這句活，說通姦本質上也是為了身體。事實上，保羅告訴我們，就食物和肚腹而言，神要叫這兩樣都廢壞；因為他們只是維持我們地上的生活。

但信徒的身體，則完全不同。我們的身體是為了主，不論是現在還是永恆。正如我們所看到的，它現在是彰顯主的工具，而將來有一天，成為了不朽壞的身體，它將成為彰顯神榮耀和服侍的工具，直到永遠。

所以，認為所有的饑渴都是同等的，必須得到滿足，既不符合邏輯也不符合聖經。食物是為肚腹，但身體是為了主，這是對的，因此身體不是為了任何形式的不道德或者不潔淨。因此我們說，雖然信徒身體的自由是一種值得享受的祝福，但必須補充的是，這種自由是神所保守和指引的。從這一方面，保羅接著討論我們所說的

B.信徒身體的聖潔

並且神已經叫主復活，也要用自己的能力叫我們復活。豈不知你們的身子是基督的肢體嗎？…豈不知你們的身子是聖靈的殿嗎？這聖靈是從神而來，住在你們裡頭的；並且你們不是自己的人？”（哥前6:14,15,19）。保羅以敏銳的洞察力，讓讀者直面信徒身體是聖潔的這一教義。實際上，他也表達了自己多麼吃驚，他們竟然不知道這個真理。所以在這兩章的經文裡，他一再地問他們，“豈不知”（15節）；“豈不知”（16節）；“豈不知”（19節）。是的，聖徒的身體得以永遠成為聖潔，因為

1) 神--父。”神已經叫主復活，也要用自己的能力叫我們復活”（哥前6:14）。父神，他創造了肚腹，要叫它廢壞；創造了身體，要叫它復活。身體的結局是永生。讓我們記住，“…神…創造了我們，而不是我們自己...”（詩100:3）.詩篇作者進一步提醒我們，“…我們的受造奇妙可畏”（詩139:4）. 在我們周圍的所有科學發明中，還沒有任何東西能與人體的奇妙相提並論。保羅告訴我們，創造我們的，也要叫我們復活。在聖經另外一處，他提醒我們，“…我們卻是天上的國民，並且等候救主，就是主耶穌基督從天生降臨…將我們這卑賤的身體改變形狀，和他自己榮耀的身體相似。”（腓3:20-21）。這是你我身體的最高的結局，在這樣的光照下，我們不能，也不敢，濫用我們的身體。神已經籍著創造，有一天籍著復活，永遠潔淨了我們。更何況，我們的身體得以成為聖潔，也因：

2)神—子。“豈不知你們的身體是基督的肢體嗎？我可以將基督的肢體作為娼妓的肢體嗎？斷乎不可！”（哥前6:15）。首先，“我們得贖…不是靠著能壞的金銀等物…乃是基督的寶血…”（彼前1:18,19）。換句話說，我們是重價買來的，正如一位聖經點評者說的，“我們是被買贖的”（Goodspeed）。因此，基督屈尊與我們同等。這是15節經文的重要所在。字面看：“豈不知你們的身體是基督的肢體嗎？”我們的思想是他的思想；我們的眼睛是他的眼睛；我們的嘴唇是他的嘴唇；我們的手是他的手；我們的腳是他的腳；我們的身體就是我們“復活的頭”的肢體。

保羅後來在12章接著談到了這個榮耀的主題，但是他在這裡提到這個主題是為了讓我們看到一個信徒用基督的肢體作神旨意以外的事，是完全不相容和不道德的。事實上，將我們的肢體用作不聖潔的行為，最開始指的是不正當的性行為，或者“強姦”。所以保羅說，“…豈不知與娼妓聯合的，便是與她成為一體嗎？因為主說“二人要成為一體””（哥前6:16）“通姦，”就像W. E. Vine指出的，“將一個男人和一個女人帶入一段如此親密和強大的關係，以至於在較低的層次上形成一個複雜的人格”。

這就是保羅用來強調信徒身體絕對聖潔的依據。但是第三點要注意的是，信徒的身體不僅因聖父和聖子得以聖潔，也因：

3)神—聖靈。“豈不知你們的身體是聖靈的殿嗎？這聖靈是從神而來，住在你們裡頭的；並且你們不是自己的人”（哥前6:19）.哥林多的信徒很容易理解保羅這句話的意思。哥林多有每一個異教偶像的寺廟。在這些寺廟裡面大多的敬拜都與不道德的行為有關，在這種背景下，保羅介紹了對生命的一種新的觀念。他說，“豈不知你們的身體是聖靈的殿嗎？”希臘文強調的是“聖潔”這個詞。神的殿，他籍著聖靈住在裡面，不但是教會整體，也是你我的身體。所以，雖然你說你的身體是自己的，但實際上不是：它屬於神。正確認識這一驚人的真理將徹底改變我們的生活方式。的確，這給予整個生命一種尊嚴，這是其他任何事情都無法做到的。無論我們走到哪裡，無論我們做什麼，我們都是聖靈的攜帶者。這使得將所有不適合神國的行為排除在外成為必須。因此，通姦是不可想像的。但是這裡所講原則的應用範圍要廣得多。在神殿中行為不當的，都不能成為神的孩子。

C.信徒身體的潔淨

“你們要逃避淫行。人所犯的，無論什麼罪，都在身子以外；惟有行淫的，是得罪自己的身子…因為你們是重價買來的，所以要在你們的身子上榮耀神”（哥前6:18,20）。這段經文中兩個有效的勸戒是“逃避淫行”和“榮耀神”。一個是被動的，一個是主動的。所以要想保持信徒身體的潔淨，必須：

1) 完全避免罪惡。“逃避淫行…”(哥前6:18)。英文翻譯中，“逃避”這個動詞是一般進行時的，表明這是一個習慣性的行為。這句話也就是“要使逃避淫行成為你的習慣。”這是對待罪的唯一方式。當試探來的時候，你要不停止地辯論，或者爭論，不要使不純潔的想法在你裡面停留。在那個被撒旦攻擊的時刻，要“逃避”。約瑟的生命是其中一個最生動和美麗的例子。在波提乏家裡，當他的妻子試圖勾引約瑟犯罪的時候，約瑟說；“…我怎能做這大惡，得罪神呢？”（創39:9），並且馬上跑到外面去了（12節）。

為了強調這一點，保羅繼續說，與其他的罪不同，淫行是得罪自己的身子。“人所犯的，無論什麼罪，都在身子以外；惟有行淫的，是得罪自己的身子…”（哥前6:18）。這是因為，這種不道德行為干犯了一個男人或女人本身的性格。並且，這個罪違背了我們身子的神聖目的和結局。所以保羅說，“要逃避淫行”，以及在另一處經文說“不要為肉體安排，去放縱私欲”（羅13:14），也就是“想都不要想”，不要刻意安排，使罪成為可能或者現實。

這是被動的勸戒。那麼接下來這個主動的勸戒需要：

2)完全忠於神。“…要在你們的身子上榮耀神…” （哥前6:20）。注意，這個命令與耶穌基督的救贖犧牲直接相連。保羅說：“…你們是重價買來的；所以要在你們的身子上榮耀神…”（20節）。在我們的身子上榮耀神，不但是義務，而且是出於感恩和奉獻，將自己獻給那捨命的主；從撒但的捆綁中釋放出來後，我們就該藉著我們必死的肉體，顯出住在我們裡面父、子和聖靈的榮耀。榮耀就是他的品格，當我們的身子完全被內住的聖靈擁有和掌權的時候，就有一種既能被看到也能被感覺到的聖潔。這就是詩篇所說的“聖潔的美麗。”亞當和夏娃原本披帶著這樣的榮耀，但是當他們的中心從信靠神轉移到自己身上的時候，他們就失去了這種榮耀。當失去了這種榮耀，他們第一次意識到他們是赤裸的。我們這身體雖然軟弱，耶穌基督卻能夠天天被彰顯，不論是生是死（腓1:20），這是何等的奇妙和美好！這種聖潔，能夠使這個罪惡的世界被定罪，也能夠使尋求的靈魂信服。這種聖潔是我們跟隨主耶穌並受教於他的證明。

結論

這就是聖經關於信徒身體的教義。信徒身體的自由是蒙神保守和引領的。信徒的身體因著父、子、聖靈得以成聖，因此也是潔淨的，其特徵是完全避免犯罪並且完全忠於神。沒有人能夠看到一個真正聖潔的生命，除非是被神買贖的男人或女人。

我們結束這個主題的唯一方式是用使徒偉大的教導提醒我們自己，這個教導是他寫給羅馬教會的“所以弟兄們，我以神的慈悲勸你們，將身體獻上，當做活祭是聖潔的，是神所喜悅的，你們如此事奉，是理所當然的”（羅12:1）。

III.講道大綱

如果想聽關於這些的英文講道，請點選連結: Link 1 - 啟 2:12-13; Link 2 - 啟 2:14-15; Link 3 - 啟 2:16; Link 4 - 啟 2:17

題目: 給七個教會的信: 別迦摩 –堅守卻妥協

主題:在妥協的文化中堅守真理

要點 #1:基督肯定信心(13)

要點 #2:基督咒詛妥協(14-15)

要點 #3:基督要求悔改(16)

要點 #4:基督給予應許(17)

[1] Duvall and Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 187.

[2] Charles Ryrie, The Essentials of Dispensationalism” (Israel My Glory, 五月/六月 2007), 29.

网上牧师杂志–中文版（简体）, SCh Ed, Issue 35 2020 年春季

A ministry of…

作者: Roger Pascoe,博士,主席
邮箱: [email protected]

I.加强对圣经的理解
“如何阅读和理解圣经”(第二部分)

介绍

虽然圣经解释的主题（释经）很广泛，有时可能有些复杂，但是学习如何释经对我们来说至关重要，只有这样，我们才能够成为神话语准确而清楚的传道人，忠诚地传讲圣经说的是什么，意思是什么以及如何应用于我们的生活。

当我们研究圣经的时候，常常会遇到短语、句子和段落，难以理解原始作者想说的是什么。正是因为这些情况，我们需要指导圣经解释的方针和原则，帮助我们尽可能好地理解某个段落，尤其是我们生活在一个完全不同的时代和文化下，说着完全不同的语言。

在“如何阅读和理解圣经”的第一部分（见2020冬季版），我们讨论了：

1. 圣经解释中的三个基本任务

(a)决定一个段落准确的意思（解经）；

(b) 将正确的解释原则应用于这个段落（释经）；

2. 两个重要的释经学问题：

(a) 旧约作者完全了解他们所写的吗？

(b)新约作者完全了解他们所写的吗？

现在第二部分，我们将继续研究圣经解释的其他一些重要方面。

A.字面解释

有人说，你不能按字面的意思理解圣经，因为（1）圣经运用修辞（比喻、夸张等），以及（2）圣经使用诗意的语言和其他文学体裁，不能从字面上解释（比如预言世界末日的）。这是一种试图贬低圣经真理的行为。事实上，我们对《圣经》的解释和其他文学作品的解释是一样的。

“字面意思”指的是什么？如果说“字面”指的是机械地一个字一个字的翻译，而不考虑修辞或比喻的手法，答案是否定的—我们不从字面上解释圣经。但是如果说“字面”指的是，我们相信圣经所写的，相信圣经所肯定的一切都是真实的，它所记载的一切都是准确的；我们阅读和解释《圣经》是根据它朴素、自然的含义，以及作者的意图（考虑他们的文学风格，手法，体裁，语法，写作时词汇的意义，以及写作时的历史，经济，社会，地理和政治背景），那么答案是肯定的，我们确实从字面阅读和理解圣经。

可能比“字面”意思更适合的词是“实际”意思。实际意思是一种解释，它 “…反映了所用的文学手法、上下文意思、历史背景、语法、(和)词的意义”[1] ，也就是，一种基于“语法—背景—神学”的理解方法。我们可以说，实际意义是一种解释，它“没有灵意化或寓言化” [2]那些作者没有打算灵意化或者寓言化的内容—也就是“正常”或者“简单”的意思。

字面解释就是指根据经文字里行间的意思理解圣经—也就是，就像你解释任何一部文学作品一样，根据正常的语法、言语、句法和上下文的规则来理解。因此，字面解释并不排除字体或插图的使用；也不排除基于想象或象征的文学体裁（比如启示录）。字面解释并不排除自然阅读（普通的）经文所产生的正常理解。正如我的一位牧师朋友说的：“当普通的意义符合常识，那么任何其他意义都是胡说。”

字面解释与其他一些解释方式截然不同，比如寓言化、灵意化、道德说教和象征化。或者，换句话说，在《圣经》作者可能使用的文学手法、意象、体裁和风格背后，隐藏着一个字面上的想法或概念。这就是我们阅读圣经时所寻找的。

虽然圣经不同于其他任何书籍，因为它是圣灵所启示的；但是它也是用正常的人类语言和语法结构写的，因此我们理解它的时候也要遵循阅读和理解其他任何文学作品的相同原则。字面解释并不是说我们要机械地理解圣经，把经文放在一个僵直的木筒子里，这样反而使它变得不可理喻。

这就是为什么根据“语法—背景—神学”学习圣经的方式是至关重要的。为了能从字面的意思来理解圣经，你需要能够辨认：经文的各种语法成分；（b）神学观点；（c）它的背景：（d）它的文学体裁和手法。所有这些方面都会影响理解和解释。

因此，为了正确地理解圣经，我们需要分析和理解…

1.语法—各种句法结构（从句和主句）和词的运用—它们的类型和部分（例如名词、动词等），形态（比如情况；状态），和意义。

2.理论—作者说了关于神的什么（他的目的、他的性格、他的本质，他的计划等）以及我们和神的关系。

3.背景—历史、政治、经济、社会和文化。

4. 文学体裁和手法—写作风格和修辞手法。

所有这些分析都会影响我们对原始作者想表达的观点（真理、理论）的理解，他们是字面解释的重要组成部分。

B.理解某些文学体裁和手法

显然，文学体裁对我们解读任何文字都有很大的影响，尤其是圣经因为它包含了很多不同的体裁。文学体裁是指文章的写作风格，如散文、诗歌、谚语、书信、启示录、福音(含寓言类)、历史叙事性、预言性等。

文学体裁影响我们对一个段落的理解。例如，如果它是用世界末日的语言写的，有各种疯狂的，几乎是幻想的，末世论场景的形象和描述，人们就必须从这个角度来解读它。

然而，知道了文学体裁并不见得会使解释显而易见。例如文学体裁并不能解决史实性问题。约拿书就是这样一个例子。比如约拿书的一部分是历史叙事，但是另一部分（第二章）是诗歌的形式。这本书究竟是历史性的记述；还是对约拿的经历进行寓言式描述，其中诗歌部分只是约拿的反思谢恩祷告，在这点上学者们还存在分歧。当然，对于那些不相信奇迹的不信者来说，诗歌的章节给了他们一个借口来否认整本书的历史真实性。

除了文学体裁之外，我们还必须了解作者可能使用的任何文学手法，如比喻、明喻和夸张等修辞手法。当这些文学手法被应用在文中的时候，影响我们如何来解释和理解经文。

C.一个意思：多种应用

请注意这个原则：“一个意思；多种应用。”我们认为每段经文，当我们按着作者所写的以及作者的意图来理解的时候，就只有一个意思，并非多个，也并非对你来说一个意思，对我来说又是另外一个意思。写的是什么就是什么。任何一段经文都只有一个意思。因为翻译以及书面表达的限制，我们可能会有多个理解，但只有一个意思是作者想表达的。然而，每段经文可能有多种应用。从一段经文的单个意思，我们可以引申出很多影响我们行为、言辞、关系等等的应用。

.但是请注意这点：由于圣经的递进启示，我们可能会看到一个原始作者和读者所看不到的更进一步的，更广更深层次的意思。这并非改变最初的意思，而只是扩展了。

我们需要谨记，虽然圣经有很多位人类作者，但是神作者只有一位。因此，人类作者所不明白或者没有想表达出来的有可能是神想要向我们表达的。但是我们必须有圣经依据来说明圣灵启示了一个更进一步，更广更深层次的意思，这个意思也是圣经作者没有意识到的（更多的解释请看2020冬季版）。

D.文化对我们理解的影响

一些圣经学者和传道者试图从词语的当代意义和当代文化标准来解读圣经，从而使其现代化。这有效地重新诠释了圣经，使之成为他们今天想要表达的意思。但是圣经不是今天写的，它的教导也不能被更改以符合当代的伦理和实践。

不论怎样，我们需要承认圣经确实存在很多古老的特别的习俗（至少是这样），在我们文化中没有任何意义。所以，我们面对的挑战，一方面，不要诠释圣经为了迎合当代的文化；另一方面，就是区别圣经里面普遍的原则（适用于任何年龄、任何文化的任何人）以及它古老的习俗（只限于古老的文化）。

首先，我们所说的“文化”是什么？任何组织的文化本质上都是随着时间的推移而形成的做事方式或表达态度。这种环境的形成可能是由于过去所做的决定、有影响力的人、可能发生的危机、已经发生的历史、经历过的情况、所采用的原则等。它实际上是组织的个性和特征，表现在它的价值观、优先事项、好恶、活动、领导风格、它所代表的东西、它如何反应、它为什么存在以及它相信什么等。

家庭也有文化。在那里，你学会了你对生活和行为最早也可能是最根深蒂固的信念，你的价值观、人生优先考虑的事情、你的世界观、人际关系（比如和你的父母及兄弟姐妹）。你们政府有自己的文化，你们教会有自己的文化；你的工作单位有自己的文化。所有的这些文化都影响你如何阅读、理解和应用圣经。

1. 古老的文化

诠释圣经的挑战之一是确定哪些做法只适用于和反映古代社会(即文化)，哪些做法适用于所有年代（即多种文化）

最重要的问题是:我们如何应用圣经? 我们在圣经中读到的所有诫命和实践，有哪些在今天仍然适用于我们，我们应该来实践？我们应该按着在古老文化中的方式来遵行，还是应该对其进行某种改良？

一些旧约的例子

(a)十分之一—农产品的十分之一（利27:30-33）；十分之一为利未和他们在会幕中作祭司的职任（民18:21）；每年农产品和为祭司的十分之一（申14:22）；十分之一为利未、陌生人、孤儿和寡妇（申26:12-15）

(b)强奸—比如申22:28-29.这个条例在今天仍然适用吗，如果一个人强奸了一个女孩，这个人只需要付给她父亲50舍克勒银子并和她结婚吗？

(c)同性恋—例如利18:22。这条旧约里面反对同性恋的条例，我们今天也必须遵行吗？

(d)与兽淫合—例如利18:23. 在今天如果有人和兽发生关系是不道德的吗？

(e)混合的衣服—比如利19:19. 不穿羊毛、亚麻布混纺的衣服，我们今天是否也要遵守这样的条例？

(f) 安息日的律法—比如出2:9-10。我们需要在安息日“不做任何事情”吗？如果这样的话，如何定义“工作”？哪一天该是我们的安息日？耶稣说：“安息日是为人设立的，人不是为安息日设立的”（可2:27）？

(g) 割礼—比如创17:10。割礼对我们来说是必须要做的吗？

(h) 纹身—例如创19:28。禁止在身上纹纹身，是我们应该遵守的吗？

(i) 衣服的类型—例如申22:5，“妇女不可穿戴男子所穿戴的，男子也不可穿妇女的衣服。”这指的是什么样的衣服？这对谁有约束力，为什么以及如何应用？

一些新约的例子

(a)女人蒙头而不是男人（哥前11:1-16）。今天女人在敬拜的时候真的需要蒙头吗？在我们今天的文化中是否有一种更适合的方式来表达？换句话说，蒙头是否只是一个永恒的原则在当时文化下的一种表达，在今天可以用不同的方式更好地表达吗？

(b)女人在教会中的安静（提前2:1-15；哥前14:34）.保罗关于女人在教会中要“安静”，是当时特定文化下的教导还是跨文化的教导？这只是针对某个教会（比如以弗所）中妇女的教导，以禁止她们争吵和扰乱教会敬拜？还是适用于任何时代针对所有妇女的教导？如果安静本身是当时那个时代遵行某一个原则的体现，那么它所代表的那个原则是什么？今天我们如何来遵行？

(d)举手祷告（提前2:8）.保罗的劝戒是当时文化下的还是跨文化的？

(e)传福音（路10:4）。我们必须“不要带钱囊，不要带口袋，不要带鞋，在路上也不要问人的安”吗？主耶稣是否声明了一个原则，在我们的文化下可以用适当的方式来表达？

(f)亲嘴问安（哥前16:20）.我们今天也要这样问安吗？如果是这样，那么在世人看来，两个男人接吻会是什么样子呢？一个男人亲吻一个不是他妻子的女人呢？以及两个女人亲吻呢？

(g)喝酒（提前5:23）。保罗让提摩太“因你胃口不清，屡次患病…可以稍微用点酒”，我们也需要遵行吗？这是标准的药物治疗吗？还是这只是针对提摩太的一个叮嘱？

(h) 用油膏（雅5:14；可6:13）。用油膏抹病人是我们必须做的事吗？如果是，这样做的目的和意义是什么？这是医学上的还是宗教上的？

(i) 卖了你所有的周济穷人（路12:33）。今天我们如何来实践耶稣的这个教导？

(j) 长头发是男人的羞辱（哥前11:14）。如何定义长头发？我们今天如何来实践呢？

结论

圣经教导中那些反映古代文化实践的方面必须加以检验以确定：

1.这些教导背后的原则是什么？注意：当准备讲道的时候，我们首先要找的是持久的真理，不变的原则。这些是我们讲道的要点。

2. 这一原则在今天该如何实践？由于整部《圣经》都是由古代人用当时的语言、意象和文化写成的(特定的人在特定的时间处理特定的情况)，显然其中有很强的文化元素。我们的任务是来决定，圣经教导的是文化实践本身适用于任何时代还是其背后的原则适用于任何时代。

2.我们的当代文化

我们阅读圣经时，不仅需要认识到古代文化对圣经作者的影响，我们还需要能够认识到我们自己的文化。我们需要认识到，我们阅读和理解圣经时，所看所想的都会受到我们自己文化的影响。这就是为什么来自其他文化的人在阅读某些部分的圣经时有和我们不同的世界观和理解。

一些当代因素极大地影响了我们对古代文本的理解，包括：（a）同时代沟通的方式（比如电话、邮件、报纸等）；旅行（比如飞机）；生活方式（比如个人主义和物质主义）；服饰；世界观。

当我们学习圣经为教导和传道做准备时，我们必须努力作一个无偏见的读者（虽然这并不完全可能）来阅读圣经。这就是为什么我们必须要训练自己“释经”（考虑存在的东西）而不是“牵强附会”（读出没有的意思）。这就是为什么我们应该掌握一些基本的释经原则，就是我在“加强圣经理解”这一系列中试图阐释的。下一期我们会继续谈论这个话题。

II.基督徒自由的局限性

哥前6:12-20

Stephen F. Olford博士

这是我们上次在2019年冬季版杂志上发表的系列文章的延续

介绍

哥林多教会的第三种混乱就是不洁净。这个问题出自对人类身体的流行教导。希腊人总是轻视身体。有句谚语是这样说的:人的身体就是坟墓。魂与灵是人格的重要组成部分，而身体并不重要。

这种思想导致了两种行为。第一种是最严格的禁欲主义，尽一切可能去压制和羞辱身体的欲望和本能。第二种，也是在哥林多城非常流行的，就是用身体来最大程度地满足自己的喜好和欲望。这种生活哲学因错误理解保罗所传讲的基督徒的自由而得到加强。结果导致哥林多城的淫乱和不道德侵入到教会的生活。考虑到这一点，保罗开始谈关于信徒身体的教义。

A.信徒身体的自由

凡事我都可行，但不都有益处”（哥前6:12,13）。保罗引用了两句谚语或规条来介绍信徒身体的自由这一主题，这两句谚语或信条需要我们的关注。基督徒“被召到自由里”，是确实的，但是我们不能把我们的自由“当做放纵情欲的机会”（加5:13）也是确实的。基督徒的自由不是为了去做任何我们想做的事，而是有力量去做我们该做的。所以保罗告诉我们关于基督徒自由的两件事：

1)基督徒的自由是蒙神保守的。“凡事我都可行，但不都有益处；凡事我都可行，但无论哪一件，我总不受它的辖制”（哥前6:12）.保罗在这里说的是，因为我们不再在律法之下，而在恩典之下，我们是自由的男人和女人，但是这样的自由在任何情况下都不能成为不义的借口，因为所有的不义都是罪（约一5:17）。因此，基督徒在享受身体自由的同时，必须遵守两个守卫原则。

.首先虽然所有的事都可行，但不都是有益的。“有益的”指“对别人有帮助的。” 我们马上就能看出这对我们基督徒的行为有多大的约束，因为很显然，如果我们通过和使用我们身体所做的一切事都要对别人有帮助，那么我们应该从不滥用基督徒的自由而犯罪。

第二个原则也同样有力，保罗说“凡事我都可行，但无论哪一件，我总不受它的辖制”（哥前6:12）。如果第一个原则是关于别人的，那么第二个就是关于我们自己的。我们所做的任何事，如果使我们受辖制，就不是自由，而是束缚。如果因使用自由而疏于自制，那么我们就是滥用我们的自由。

现今我们听到很多人说“自由地爱”，但是说这些话的人如果真懂得这句话，就会意识到他们正是他们声称有自由去做的事情的奴隶。你们要小心，免得你们的自由变成奴役。因此我们看到，真正的基督徒自由是蒙神保守的，但是请进一步注意：

2)基督徒的自由是蒙神引领的。“食物是为肚腹，肚腹是为食物，但神要叫这两样都废坏。身子不是为淫乱，乃是为主，主也是为身子”（哥前6:13）.这是保罗用来说明基督徒自由的第二个规条。有的人争论，认为食物是为肚腹，肚腹是为食物，所以任何其他的饥渴都应该同样地加以满足。但是这个理由有一个严重的错误。实际上，像Bishop Lightfoot说的，“这是一种严格的道德混乱。”在神圣洁律法的光照下，我们可以肯定食物是为肚腹，但是我们中有谁胆敢延伸这句活，说通奸本质上也是为了身体。事实上，保罗告诉我们，就食物和肚腹而言，神要叫这两样都废坏；因为他们只是维持我们地上的生活。

但信徒的身体，则完全不同。我们的身体是为了主，不论是现在还是永恒。正如我们所看到的，它现在是彰显主的工具，而将来有一天，成为了不朽坏的身体，它将成为彰显神荣耀和服侍的工具，直到永远。

所以，认为所有的饥渴都是同等的，必须得到满足，既不符合逻辑也不符合圣经。食物是为肚腹，但身体是为了主，这是对的，因此身体不是为了任何形式的不道德或者不洁净。因此我们说，虽然信徒身体的自由是一种值得享受的祝福，但必须补充的是，这种自由是神所保守和指引的。从这一方面，保罗接着讨论我们所说的

B.信徒身体的圣洁

并且神已经叫主复活，也要用自己的能力叫我们复活。岂不知你们的身子是基督的肢体吗？…岂不知你们的身子是圣灵的殿吗？这圣灵是从神而来，住在你们里头的；并且你们不是自己的人？”（哥前6:14,15,19）。保罗以敏锐的洞察力，让读者直面信徒身体是圣洁的这一教义。实际上，他也表达了自己多么吃惊，他们竟然不知道这个真理。所以在这两章的经文里，他一再地问他们，“岂不知”（15节）；“岂不知”（16节）；“岂不知”（19节）。是的，圣徒的身体得以永远成为圣洁，因为

1) 神--父。”神已经叫主复活，也要用自己的能力叫我们复活”（哥前6:14）。父神，他创造了肚腹，要叫它废坏；创造了身体，要叫它复活。身体的结局是永生。让我们记住，“…神…创造了我们，而不是我们自己...”（诗100:3）.诗篇作者进一步提醒我们，“…我们的受造奇妙可畏”（诗139:4）. 在我们周围的所有科学发明中，还没有任何东西能与人体的奇妙相提并论。保罗告诉我们，创造我们的，也要叫我们复活。在圣经另外一处，他提醒我们，“…我们却是天上的国民，并且等候救主，就是主耶稣基督从天生降临…将我们这卑贱的身体改变形状，和他自己荣耀的身体相似。”（腓3:20-21）。这是你我身体的最高的结局，在这样的光照下，我们不能，也不敢，滥用我们的身体。神已经籍着创造，有一天籍着复活，永远洁净了我们。更何况，我们的身体得以成为圣洁，也因：

2)神—子。“岂不知你们的身体是基督的肢体吗？我可以将基督的肢体作为娼妓的肢体吗？断乎不可！”（哥前6:15）。首先，“我们得赎…不是靠着能坏的金银等物…乃是基督的宝血…”（彼前1:18,19）。换句话说，我们是重价买来的，正如一位圣经点评者说的，“我们是被买赎的”（Goodspeed）。因此，基督屈尊与我们同等。这是15节经文的重要所在。字面看：“岂不知你们的身体是基督的肢体吗？”我们的思想是他的思想；我们的眼睛是他的眼睛；我们的嘴唇是他的嘴唇；我们的手是他的手；我们的脚是他的脚；我们的身体就是我们“复活的头”的肢体。

保罗后来在12章接着谈到了这个荣耀的主题，但是他在这里提到这个主题是为了让我们看到一个信徒用基督的肢体作神旨意以外的事，是完全不相容和不道德的。事实上，将我们的肢体用作不圣洁的行为，最开始指的是不正当的性行为，或者“强奸”。所以保罗说，“…岂不知与娼妓联合的，便是与她成为一体吗？因为主说“二人要成为一体””（哥前6:16）“通奸，”就像W. E. Vine指出的，“将一个男人和一个女人带入一段如此亲密和强大的关系，以至于在较低的层次上形成一个复杂的人格”。

这就是保罗用来强调信徒身体绝对圣洁的依据。但是第三点要注意的是，信徒的身体不仅因圣父和圣子得以圣洁，也因：

3)神—圣灵。“岂不知你们的身体是圣灵的殿吗？这圣灵是从神而来，住在你们里头的；并且你们不是自己的人”（哥前6:19）.哥林多的信徒很容易理解保罗这句话的意思。哥林多有每一个异教偶像的寺庙。在这些寺庙里面大多的敬拜都与不道德的行为有关，在这种背景下，保罗介绍了对生命的一种新的观念。他说，“岂不知你们的身体是圣灵的殿吗？”希腊文强调的是“圣洁”这个词。神的殿，他籍着圣灵住在里面，不但是教会整体，也是你我的身体。所以，虽然你说你的身体是自己的，但实际上不是：它属于神。正确认识这一惊人的真理将彻底改变我们的生活方式。的确，这给予整个生命一种尊严，这是其他任何事情都无法做到的。无论我们走到哪里，无论我们做什么，我们都是圣灵的携带者。这使得将所有不适合神国的行为排除在外成为必须。因此，通奸是不可想象的。但是这里所讲原则的应用范围要广得多。在神殿中行为不当的，都不能成为神的孩子。

C.信徒身体的洁净

“你们要逃避淫行。人所犯的，无论什么罪，都在身子以外；惟有行淫的，是得罪自己的身子…因为你们是重价买来的，所以要在你们的身子上荣耀神”（哥前6:18,20）。这段经文中两个有效的劝戒是“逃避淫行”和“荣耀神”。一个是被动的，一个是主动的。所以要想保持信徒身体的洁净，必须：

1) 完全避免罪恶。“逃避淫行…”(哥前6:18)。英文翻译中，“逃避”这个动词是一般进行时的，表明这是一个习惯性的行为。这句话也就是“要使逃避淫行成为你的习惯。”这是对待罪的唯一方式。当试探来的时候，你要不停止地辩论，或者争论，不要使不纯洁的想法在你里面停留。在那个被撒旦攻击的时刻，要“逃避”。约瑟的生命是其中一个最生动和美丽的例子。在波提乏家里，当他的妻子试图勾引约瑟犯罪的时候，约瑟说；“…我怎能做这大恶，得罪神呢？”（创39:9），并且马上跑到外面去了（12节）。

为了强调这一点，保罗继续说，与其他的罪不同，淫行是得罪自己的身子。“人所犯的，无论什么罪，都在身子以外；惟有行淫的，是得罪自己的身子…”（哥前6:18）。这是因为，这种不道德行为干犯了一个男人或女人本身的性格。并且，这个罪违背了我们身子的神圣目的和结局。所以保罗说，“要逃避淫行”，以及在另一处经文说“不要为肉体安排，去放纵私欲”（罗13:14），也就是“想都不要想”，不要刻意安排，使罪成为可能或者现实。

这是被动的劝戒。那么接下来这个主动的劝戒需要：

2)完全忠于神。“…要在你们的身子上荣耀神…” （哥前6:20）。注意，这个命令与耶稣基督的救赎牺牲直接相连。保罗说：“…你们是重价买来的；所以要在你们的身子上荣耀神…”（20节）。在我们的身子上荣耀神，不但是义务，而且是出于感恩和奉献，将自己献给那舍命的主；从撒但的捆绑中释放出来后，我们就该藉着我们必死的肉体，显出住在我们里面父、子和圣灵的荣耀。荣耀就是他的品格，当我们的身子完全被内住的圣灵拥有和掌权的时候，就有一种既能被看到也能被感觉到的圣洁。这就是诗篇所说的“圣洁的美丽。”亚当和夏娃原本披带着这样的荣耀，但是当他们的中心从信靠神转移到自己身上的时候，他们就失去了这种荣耀。当失去了这种荣耀，他们第一次意识到他们是赤裸的。我们这身体虽然软弱，耶稣基督却能够天天被彰显，不论是生是死（腓1:20），这是何等的奇妙和美好！这种圣洁，能够使这个罪恶的世界被定罪，也能够使寻求的灵魂信服。这种圣洁是我们跟随主耶稣并受教于他的证明。

结论

这就是圣经关于信徒身体的教义。信徒身体的自由是蒙神保守和引领的。信徒的身体因着父、子、圣灵得以成圣，因此也是洁净的，其特征是完全避免犯罪并且完全忠于神。没有人能够看到一个真正圣洁的生命，除非是被神买赎的男人或女人。

我们结束这个主题的唯一方式是用使徒伟大的教导提醒我们自己，这个教导是他写给罗马教会的“所以弟兄们，我以神的慈悲劝你们，将身体献上，当做活祭是圣洁的，是神所喜悦的，你们如此事奉，是理所当然的”（罗12:1）。

III.讲道大纲

如果想听关于这些的英文讲道，请点击链接: Link 1 - 启 2:12-13; Link 2 - 启 2:14-15; Link 3 - 启 2:16; Link 4 - 启 2:17

题目: 给七个教会的信: 别迦摩 –坚守却妥协

主题:在妥协的文化中坚守真理

要点 #1:基督肯定信心(13)

要点 #2:基督咒诅妥协(14-15)

要点 #3:基督要求悔改(16)

要点 #4:基督给予应许(17)

[1] Duvall and Hays, Grasping God’s Word, 187.

[2] Charles Ryrie, The Essentials of Dispensationalism” (Israel My Glory, 五月/六月 2007), 29.

Psalm 1: Two Ways of Life -- A Psalm of Wisdom

Related Media

General Introduction to the Psalms

The Psalms have a wonderful capacity to capture the reality of our human experience. They express the emotions, personal feelings, attitudes, gratitude, and interests of the average individual. One reason people love the Psalms is that we can each usually identify the Psalms with our own experiences. “In every experience of our own, no matter how deep the pain or how great the frustration or how exhilarating the joy, we can find psalms which echo our inmost being, psalms which God uses to bring comfort or to confirm release.”¹

Hebrew Poetry

The Psalms, like the other wisdom literature of the Old Testament (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes), is Hebrew poetry. Unlike English poetry, which emphasizes rhyme and meter, Hebrew poetry relies on other characteristics for its impact like parallelism and figures of speech.

Parallelism

English verse manipulates sound, and emphasizes rhyme and meter. Hebrew poetry repeats and rearranges thoughts rather than sounds. There are several types of parallel arrangement of thoughts, with the first three listed below being the most basic.

(1) Synonymous—the same thought of the first line is basically repeated in different words in the second line (2:4; 3:1; 7:17).

(2) Antithetical—the thought of the first line is emphasized by a contrasting thought in the second line (1:6; 34:10). They are often identified with “but.”

(3) Synthetic—the second line explains or further develops the idea of the first line (1:3; 95:3).

(4) Climactic—The second line repeats with the exception of the last terms (29:1).

(5) Emblematic—One line conveys the main point, the second line illuminates it by an image (42:1; 23:1).

Figures of Speech

Like the Hebrew language itself, Hebrew poetry uses vivid images, similes, and metaphors to communicate thoughts and feelings.

Types of Psalms

While praise and prayer characterize the Psalms as a whole, they may be categorized as: Praise (33, 103, 139), Historical (68, 78, 105, 106), Relational (8, 16, 20, 23, 55), Imprecatory (35, 69, 109, 137), Penitential (6, 32, 51, 102, 130, 143), and Messianic (2, 8, 16, 22, 40, 45, 69, 72, 89, 102, 109-110).

Introduction to Psalm 1

This first Psalm stands as a kind of introduction to the rest of the Psalms. Its subject matter is very general and basic, but it touches on two subjects that continually occur throughout the Psalms. It declares the blessedness of the righteous and the misery and future of the wicked.

Man’s spiritual life is set forth negatively and positively, inwardly and externally, figuratively and literally. Above all else, it summarizes all that is to follow in the rest of the Psalms, and, for that matter, in the rest of Scripture.

It presents two ways of life: the way of the righteous and the way of the wicked. However, the key subject is the centrality of God’s Word to the life and fruitfulness of the righteous who truly love His Word. Two great thrusts flow out of this: (a) the importance and absolute necessity of the Scripture, and (b) the changed character, stability, and fruitfulness it promises to those who make Scripture the core of their lives.

Note how this Psalm drives home its truth by the use of contrasts.

(1) There is the way of the godly and their blessedness in contrast to the way of the ungodly (1:1-6).

(2) The way of the godly is set forth by way of a contrast: negatively, what the godly do not do (1:1), and positively, what the godly do (1:2).

(3) Then there is the contrast between the results of the two ways of life; the godly are stable and fruitful, but the ungodly are unstable and face sure judgment. Here is a contrast between character and destiny.

Psalm one is a wisdom Psalm. There are praise Psalms, lament Psalms, and enthronement Psalms and all contain wisdom, of course, but as an introduction and door to the rest of the Psalms, this Psalm declares in just a few words some of the most basic but profound truths and propositions of the Bible.

In essence, God says there are two ways of life open to us: one means blessedness, happiness, and fruitfulness, but the other means cursedness, unhappiness, and judgment. The choice is ours. Blessedness is a choice, but to be blessed, one must by faith obey the conditions; he must pursue the way of blessedness as described in this Psalm.

The Way of the Godly
(1:1-3)

1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night. 3 And he will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season, And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers.

“How blessed is the man who … ”

By position and context, the Hebrew is exclamatory. It means, “Oh, the blessedness.” It stresses this as a fact to those who fulfill the conditions or proposition of the passage.

“Blessed” is plural in the Hebrew and literally means, “Oh the blessednesses, or the blessings.” It is an intensive plural and is designed to emphasize the multiplicity of blessings and happiness to those who fulfill the requirements marked out in this Psalm. We might paraphrase, “Oh how very, very happy is the one who …”

Applications of this principle for the New Testament believer are multiplied ad infinitum both positionally (Eph. 1:3; 3:20; Col. 2:10), and experientially (Phil. 4:19).

The Hebrew word for “blessing” is a^shr?. Interestingly, it comes from a word which means “to go straight, go forward, advance, set right.” The root verb (a`sh~r) means: (a) to “proceed, advance in the way of understanding” (Prov. 9:6b), (b) “do not proceed in the way of evil men” (Prov. 4:14), and (c) in Isaiah 1:17 it is used of correcting false rulers so they will go straight through learning and advancing in the Word.

Blessing comes from growth in the plan of God through fellowship with Him and through the Word of God. While believers have a heavenly position and an eternal inheritance secured by the work of Jesus Christ, the experience of their blessings, the increase of their capacity to appreciate the Lord, and their capacity for happiness is directly proportional to their knowledge and application of the Word. This must not be understood in the sense of legalistic obedience to a set of rules and principles, like a prescription or a formula, but in the sense of an obedience of faith that such a life brings to the one who believes the concepts of this passage.

This is a beatitude. A beatitude pronounces blessing upon a certain group of people. It is not, however, an unconditional pronouncement, nor a pronouncement of bliss or a life without problems. It is conditional and this is strongly stressed. Note, “how blessed is the man who …” The article specifies a certain kind of man, “the man who obeys the actions of this passage.”

By the sound of the words, the Hebrew has a play on these words which drive this home. “Who” is the Hebrew relative pronoun, a&sh#r. “Blessed” is the Hebrew noun, a~shr?. Now listen to the sound of the text in Hebrew, a~shr? h~a’sh a&sh#r. “Blessed is the man who.” “Who” is a function word which introduces us to the person who is so blessed, one who has the qualities of life which lead to blessedness.

Remember this is God’s Word and every jot and every tittle are important. Blessing is pronounced, but only on those who comply with certain divine demands or spiritual qualities. But what are these in general?

The passage is not speaking about complying with a system of works or self-righteous pharisaism, nor complying with a special formula so one may then experience blessedness. Instead, a beautitude promises blessing to those whose lives are characterized by certain qualities as the outcome of faith and relationship with God. The principle is that certain things corrupt, they tear down and destroy. Other things build, develop, make fruitful, and give the capacity and means for happiness through trust and fellowship with God. This is the message of this Psalm. Now, what are those things?

Negatively: Things to Avoid (1:1)

There are three things the man who is blessed must avoid. But let’s first note how the author develops this because it is so instructive and is a warning in itself. As it is presented, it demonstrates the process of retrogression, which always occurs when men are not advancing in God’s words and way of life. We never stand still! Verse one portrays this truth in three degrees of degeneration, each a little more permanent, settled, and embedded into one’s life.

(1) There are three degrees of habit or conduct: walk / stand / sit.

(2) There are three degrees of openness, fellowship, or involvement in evil: counsel / path / seat.

(3) There are three degrees of evil that result: wicked / sinners / scoffers.

In each of these there is regression from God’s way and progression into sin and Satan’s way. It warns us how man is prone to turn aside little by little and become more and more entangled in the web of sin. He is easily influenced by the way of the world in its attitudes and actions, for actions follow attitudes.

Let’s look at each of these three negative statements in their three-fold breakdown:

“Does not walk / in the counsel / of the wicked”

“Does not walk.” “Walk” is the Hebrew h`l^K which metaphorically means, “to go along with, follow a course of action,” or “to live, follow a way of life.” It has the idea of “go along with, use, follow.” The tense is decisive, he is one who has chosen not to follow this path.

“In the counsel.” “Counsel” is the Hebrew u@s>h which means, “purpose, plan, resolution of the will,” or “deliberation, viewpoint, way of thinking.” It refers to a mental attitude, a state of mind, or viewpoint that determines the decisions that we make. “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” The man of blessedness is one who has determined to walk by the whole counsel of the Word, not by his emotions, experience, tradition, by popular opinion or by what is politically correct.

“Of the wicked.” “Of” is a genitive of source, i.e., counsel from those who are wicked, from those who want nothing to do with God’s way. This is the kind of counsel that we must avoid.

“Wicked” is a Hebrew word (r`sh`u) which has as its root idea, “to be loose, unstable.” This word carries two ideas. First, it means to be loose with reference to morals. It means immoral and without godly restraint or controls. It also means ungodly, godless, or negative toward God, loose from God, without Him as an anchor or controlling factor. It refers to those who are guided and controlled by their own desires, emotions, impulses of the mind and flesh rather than by the Word and the Holy Spirit.

“Nor stand / in the path / of sinners”

“Stand” is the Hebrew u`m~D. It means “to stop, to be firm.” From merely walking in their counsel, one becomes more confirmed in the way of the wicked, more involved and influenced. It connotes movement toward the formation of habits or patterns.

“In the path.” “Path” is the Hebrew word D#r#K and means, “a way, course of action, journey, manner, work.” It refers to one’s conduct, behavior patterns, habits and responses. Here we see patterns forming and becoming entrenched. From thinking like the world we begin to act like the world.

“Of sinners.” “Sinners” is the Hebrew j^ff`a. It was an archery term and meant “to fall short, miss the mark.” The mark is the will and plan of God as revealed in Scripture. Sin is the transgression of the Law. It is whatever misses the will of God for man doctrinally or morally. We are all sinners. We all miss the mark, and none of us are perfect nor will we ever be perfect in this life. This is why Christ had to die for our sin so we might have His righteousness. But “sinners” here refers to those who have deliberately chosen a way of life, a path contrary to the plan of God as revealed in the Word of God. The man of blessedness chooses to direct his life by God’s plan according to His inspired and inerrant Word.

“Nor sit / in the seat / of the scornful”

“Nor sit.” Literally this can be translated, “in the seat of scorners, he has not sat.” “Sit” is the Hebrew word y`sh~B meaning “to sit, dwell, remain, abide.” It emphasizes a thoroughly settled state or condition—settled down, comfortable, content with the world with its patterns entrenched in our lives. I’m afraid this is the state of the majority—even of the majority of the church. Past Gallup polls which compared the churched and unchurched showed there was basically no difference in the way they lived their lives. Many people in the church today are comfortable with their religion; they are merely playing at church. They are not advancing in their life with Christ, but are materialistic, earthly-oriented, living as earthdwellers and not sojourners.

“In the seat.” “Seat” is the Hebrew word mosh`B. It means: (a) a seat, a place of sitting, or (b) an assembly where many are gathered together to sit and make deals or have close associations. The point is, when you sit in someone’s seat, according to the idiom, you act like or become what they are. You are viewed as in a confederacy with them.

“Of scoffers.” “Scoffers” is the Hebrew word l’s. It means “to mock, deride, ridicule, scoff.” Grammatically, it is a participle of habitual action. It refers to one who is actively engaged in putting down the things of God and His Word. But please note that scoffing can occur by declaration of words or by declaration of a way of life that scorns the moral absolutes of Scripture and its way of life.

From this retrogressive process, it is easy to see that people simply do not remain passive about God. We can’t. Passivity toward God and His Word leads to activity in sin and finally to overt activity against God. That is a law of life.

How do people scoff at the Word of God? (a) By blatant ridicule or rejection. But there are other ways. (b) By indifference. We think we have better things to do with our time. (c) By substituting one’s own ideas, experiences, emotions, feelings, or traditions for the Word and its principles. (d) By listening to the Word proclaimed, but then ignoring it. In essence we scoff at the Word when we fail to obey it and order our lives accordingly (cf. Prov. 1:22 with 29-33).

These verses pose a warning to us. They teach us how little by little we can step out of the place of blessedness and into the place of misery and cursing with horrible consequences.

First, we can begin to think with the viewpoint of the wicked. Compare Lot in Genesis 13:10f. He chose according to the viewpoint of the wicked.

Then we can quite naturally begin to behave like sinners, acting more and more like the world. Compare Lot in Genesis 13:11. He “journeyed eastward,” walking in the way of sinners.

We can then too easily become an associate of those who scoff at God’s plan and ignore His counsel. Again compare Lot in Genesis 13:12-13; 19:1.

Note how these three verses in Ephesians parallel Psalm 1:1:

Ephesians 4:17-19	Psalm 1:1
17 This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,	who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;	Nor stand in the path of sinners,
19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality, for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.	Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

So, how can we avoid this? Psalm 1:2 is our answer! The man who experiences great blessing is one who has a love affair with God’s Word. He/she is a person of the Scriptures. I would emphasize how remarkable this is. Note that that quality which characterizes the life of the blessed above everything else which could be mentioned is one’s relationship to the Word of God (Ps. 138:2).

Psalm 1 is an introductory Psalm, a kind of gateway to the rest, where all kinds of qualities are mentioned. Yet, this is the one quality which is of single importance. Why? Because here is the root, everything else is the fruit, i.e., the result of one living close to God by living in His eternal, infallible, sure, true and tried Word. This emphasis is borne out throughout Scripture (cf. Luke 11:27-28; 16:17).

The church is not a social club, a welfare organization, a religious or a ritualistic institution. It is a spiritual body, an organism of living people whose lives are nurtured and sustained through the teaching of God’s Word (Amos 8:11-12, 2 Tim. 4:1-4). According to Scripture, everything in the church is to flow from and around this emphasis and activity. Its organization, its fellowship, its works, testimony, witness, and giving. This does not deny the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit or other valid functions of the church like music, but central to everything is the Word (Jam. 1:19f).

Positively: The Key to Blessedness (1:2)

“But his delight is in the law of the Lord”

“But” is K’a]m in the Hebrew text. If this is translated as a conditional clause, “but if,” then verse three gives the conclusion and promise. But it may also be taken as a strong contrast, i.e., “but rather.” Because of the construction of verse 1 with the emphasis on the negative, it introduces the reader to a strong contrast showing positively what the man of blessing does in contrast to verse 1, what he does not do.

“But his delight is in …” This statement is emphatic in two ways: by the fact it is a nominal clause (no finite verb), and by the word order. For the sake of emphasis, the Hebrew word order reads, “but rather, in the Law of the Lord (is) his delight.” God’s emphasis is on His word, that which is to be the object of our delight

“Delight” is the Hebrew word j@Px. The basic meaning is obvious, but let’s dig a little deeper to see exactly what this means. It came from an Arabic verb (a sister language) which meant “to be mindful of, attentive to,” and so it came to mean, “keep, protect.” When something delights us, we become preoccupied with it and we tend to protect and guard it. Gesenius, the great lexicographer, says it originally meant “to bend, incline toward,” so it includes the ideas of “desire, pleasure, inclination, satisfaction.” It is a term for positive volition.

The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament points out this word may be used for that which a person wishes strongly to do or have.² It means “to feel great favor toward something.” The emphasis of this word is that the desire is caused in the subject by the intrinsic qualities that are found in the object desired (cf. Isa. 54:12, “precious, delightful stones,” and Mal. 3:12, “delightful land”). The Hebrew verb form of this noun is used several times of a man taking pleasure or finding delight in the woman he loves. In the Old Testament, Israel was viewed as the wife of yahweh and in the New Testament the church is the bride of Jesus Christ. The written Word is God’s love letter to us and we are to have a love affair with God through His Word. Just as one would read the love letters of his or her sweetheart, so are we to read and study God’s Word with the same delight.

The word “delight” was also used of that in which one takes delight as in one’s business, pursuits, or affairs of life. Compare: Isaiah 53:10-11 (“the good pleasure,” i.e., the purpose, business, cause); Isaiah 58:13 (“your own pleasure,” i.e., business, affairs); and Proverbs 31:13 (“and works at the ‘business of her hands’”).³ The principle is that the study of God’s Word is to be one of the key purposes and affairs in our life in which we delight and to which we give careful attention.

“In the law of the Lord.” This is the object of our delight. The law, of course, refers to the Word of God. “Law” is torah (tor> or Tor`H) meaning “law, teaching, instruction.” So tor> means direction, instruction, but also law, because it contains the authoritative principles and instructions which are to guide men’s lives.

“Of the Lord.” yahweh is a genitive of source, i.e., the law or Scripture which comes from the LORD. This draws our attention to the doctrine of bibliology or the doctrines of revelation, inspiration, preservation, collection and canonization of the Bible, and illumination (2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Pet. 1:21). If you are interested there is a thorough study on this subject entitled, Bibliology: The Doctrine of the Written Word available on the Biblical Studies Foundation web site at www.bible.org in the theology section.

One of the reasons Scripture is a delight, like honey in the honey comb, is because it is truth. It is accurate, reliable and actively powerful (Ps. 19:7-9; Prov. 3:13-15, verse 15 uses the verb form of our word “delight”).

“And in His law he meditates day and night”

“Day and night” is an idiom which means “constantly, consistently, and regularly.” This means the man of blessedness is occupied with God’s Word. It is on his mind and in his heart at all times in every situation and area of life (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

“He meditates” is an imperfect tense of habitual action. The verb is h`G> or H`G`H which literally means “to moan, growl, utter, speak, muse, think, and plan” (cf. 2:1b where it means, “devise”). This is a comprehensive term for the study and application of the Word to one’s life. It involves thinking about what Scripture means and how, when, and where it should be applied. Included with this would be reading, hearing, study, and memorizing so one can accurately think about Scripture and apply it.

The Production and Motivation (1:3)

“And he shall be like a tree”

Please note, this is a promise from God and a well established fact of life. A Bible that is worn and falling apart from use usually belongs to someone who isn’t.

Being like a tree is of course a metaphor, a picture. But what does this picture teach us?

(1) A tree has deep roots and is usually very sturdy, especially when compared to a tumble weed. A tree portrays stability and the capacity to withstand the storms of life (Jer. 17:5-8). It’s the picture of mental, emotional, and spiritual stability in every kind of situation (see Phil. 4:11f).

(2) It also pictures the concept of growth and time. As it takes time to produce a huge sprawling oak, so it takes time to grow and mature in the Word. The problem, especially in our ‘instant tea’ society, we want and expect an overnight transformation and change. But true spiritual strength comes from a long-term, established relationship with God in his Word (Hebrew 5:11ff; 1 Pet. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:18).

(3) It also pictures ministry. If a tree is a fruit tree, it gives fruit. If it is an oak, it gives shade. God has given us His Word that we might become fruitful trees in His service and in ministry to others.

2 Timothy 3:16-17. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

“Firmly planted by streams of water”

“Planted” is a participle of the Hebrew verb sh`t~l. This verb actually means “to transplant,” not merely “plant.” This is rich and significant. “To plant” means to cause to take root, to become firmly established for the purpose of stability, nutrition (food and water), growth, and eventually production.

“To transplant” includes the above, of course, but it also includes taking a plant out of one environment and placing it into another which is more conducive to production, growth, and stability. Like taking wild trees growing in barren and desert-like conditions and carefully transplanting them in rich prepared soil by streams of water.

There is very significant application we need to note here: Before we were saved we were in Adam, dead in sin, but God in His grace has transplanted us into Jesus Christ. He has taken us out of Satan’s domain of darkness and placed us into the kingdom of His dear Son (Rom. 6:4f; 1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 1:13). With this new position also comes new provision and resources of life—the Holy Spirit and the Word—both of which are likened to streams of living water (John 7:37-39; Ps. 1:3; Jer. 1:8).

“Transplanted” is a passive participle. The passive voice is the voice of grace. But we must, in the practical application of this, personally respond to His plan. We must choose to live not in the counsel of the ungodly (as verse 2 shows us), but live by the streams of water, the Word and God’s provision for learning it. This means value choices! In New Testament terms this means: (a) daily time with the Lord (Hebrew 3:7), and (b) weekly times of assembling together with other believers (Hebrew 10:24-25). The participle stresses continual action. This is to be our habit, and it will be if we obey verse 2 and God’s commands.

“By streams of water” continues to paint this picture for us. “Streams” is P#l#G from P*l^G and means “to divide, split.” The word was used of cutting a water channel for irrigation, or of the land divided by rivers, ravines, and streams. Our word P#l#G refers to canals or water courses provided for irrigation.

By way of application, God has provided the inspired word, the canon of Scripture and gifted teachers of the Word. In Old Testament times there were the prophets and teaching priests; there was even a school of the prophets led by Elijah and Elisha. In New Testament times we have pastors or elders who are to teach as well as other teachers (Eph. 4:11-12). It is the believer’s responsibility to respond to God’s provision and to plant themselves regularly in a seat where they can drink from these water resources.

“Which yields its fruit in its season”

Note again the recurring biblical principle: First the root, then fruit. First the word with obedience and application, and then there is production. (Note the fruit-bearing power of the gospel in Colossians 1:5b-7; 2:6, and then note the emphasis in verses 9f on the need of prayer.)

“Which yields” is n`T^n, “to give.” The verb is the imperfect tense, which stresses continual action, or even that which, given the inherent power of Scripture, is always true as a general rule of life. As 1 Thessalonians 2:13 reminds us, constantly living in the Word should result in continued fruitfulness if there has been an open ear to hear what God is saying. How much fruit each tree yields depends on several factors:

(1) The filling of the Holy Spirit or the abiding life (John 15:1-7; Gal. 5:22-23)

(2) One’s level of maturity (1 John 2:12, 13; Heb. 5:11-13).

(3) One’s particular gifts (1 Pet. 4:10-12).

(4) God’s own special blessing and use of our gifts (1 Cor. 3:6-7).

(5) The conditions in which we labor, the preparedness of the soil (Mk. 4:14-20; John 4:37-38).

Each tree is to have some fruit. Fruit is a proof of the root, i.e., where one is dwelling (in truth or error) (cf. Matt. 12:33-34). There are several categories of fruit: (a) The character of Jesus Christ (Gal. 5:22-23, 16); (b) the exercise of our spiritual gifts in Christian service (1 Pet. 4:10-11; Rom. 12:3f), including exhortation, giving, showing mercy, helping; and (c) witnessing and leading people to Christ (cf. John 15:16 with verse 27).

“In its season” is literally “in its time,” i.e., at the proper, suitable time (Ps. 104:27). As far as the believer’s fruitfulness is concerned, this means studying and becoming prepared to serve in special ways according to one’s gifts and God’s timing (compare Moses, Paul and Christ). It also means being prepared to bear fruit when opportunity knocks (2 Tim. 4:2).

“And its leaf will not wither”

This is a picture of vitality, of being green, healthy plants in spite of conditions. A plant which is planted by streams of water has the capacity to endure (Jer. 17). It is the principle of living life independently of the details of life for one’s happiness (Phil. 4:11-13).

“And in whatever he does, he prospers”

Literally, we may translate, “in all that he may do he continually or repeatedly prospers.” “Prospers” is the Hebrew x`l@~j, “prosper, succeed, be profitable.” The root means to accomplish satisfactorily what is intended.⁴ Real prosperity results from the work of God in the life of one who meditates on His Word. But does God really mean this? Of course, but this is not a blank check to be filled in as we want. The man of blessedness prospers first because he always seeks to operate in the framework of God’s will according to God’s values and purposes. As one who delights and meditates in the Word, Scripture is consulted and used as a guide for whatever he does (Prov. 3:5-6). He also prospers because, as such a man, he uses Scripture as a guide for how he does what he does. He operates in the sphere of God’s enablement, supply, and direction (Ps. 37:3-5).

This does not mean there is never adversity or failure. God often engineers failure as mirrors of reproof and instruments of growth. Sometimes God has to engineer failure and pressures before He can bring about success—His kind of success—in our lives. And sometimes God allows severe suffering for other reasons as He did with Job.

Compare Psalm 37:6 and note the kind of prosperity God primarily has in mind (spiritual prosperity, discernment, and godly character). By-in-large, people of the Word will gain the capacity to be wise and stable in areas such as their business or the office which could mean promotions or higher profits. But it could also mean persecution as one takes a stand for righteousness or refuses to compromise or do the things employees are sometimes asked to do that go against the righteous principles of Scripture.

It could also mean the capacity to be healthier in general, since a joyful heart is good medicine and since godliness may produce the discipline needed to eat wisely and exercise regularly. The main thing is we must judge prosperity not by physical wealth or even physical health, but primarily by spiritual growth and capacity for life with people and in service to God.

The Character
and Destiny of the Wicked
(1:4-6)

4 The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish.

With verse 4 we come to a very strong contrast. The way of the righteous is contrasted with the way of the unrighteous. In the original Hebrew text, this contrast is strongly emphasized by the lack of a connective between these sections called asyndeton, and by the word order. Literally, “not so, the wicked.” This is an emphatic denial; the way of the wicked is nothing like the way of the righteous. They have completely different sources for living, different purposes, different character, and very different results both temporally and eternally.

The primary emphasis here is to the unbeliever, but there are definite applications to the believer both for this life and for eternity. Scripture teaches that the believer, if he continues on in a life of carnality, can begin to look like the wicked (1 Cor. 3:3), and though he is saved, he will experience serious consequences as we shall see in the material below.

What the Wicked Are Like—Instability (1:4)

“The wicked are not so”

Literally “not so the wicked.” There are two different negatives in the Hebrew and each expresses a very different idea. There is loa, which expresses absolute emphatic negation. Then there is a~l, which expresses subjective or relative negation with an appeal to the will. Verse 4 uses loa, the negative particle of absolute negation. This verse flatly and absolutely denies any correspondence of the characteristics and life of the wicked with the righteous.

“So” is the Hebrew K@n, an adverb of quality. The wicked are not in any way like the righteous or the man of blessedness of verses 1-3 in the quality, character, or constitution of their lives.

“The wicked.” This is a key word in the Psalms. In our passage it occurs four times (verses 1, 4, 5, and 6). This is the primary word by which the Psalmist describes the unrighteous. The Hebrew word is r`sh`u. We saw in verse 1 that one of the basic ideas of this word was to be loose or unstable, and so it means to be loose ethically. But loose morals occur only because one was first negative to God; loose from Him, cut loose and excluded from a life with God and the control and stability that God brings into the lives of men when they have fellowship with Him. But there is more. Included in this word is the idea of restless activity. It refers to a restless, unquiet condition which, in its agitation and unquieted passions, runs from one thing to another seeking happiness and peace, often at the hurt of others.

Isaiah 57:20-21But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud. “There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked.”

This Hebrew word graphically portrays the restlessness within those who are out of touch with God, whose hope and trust is not on the Lord, and who, in their unsatisfied and agitated state, are propelled forward in a search for whatever it is they think will give peace, satisfaction, security, and significance (cf. Eph. 4:17f).

A study of the word r`sh`u (used well over 255 times in the Old Testament) finds that one of the key characteristics of the wicked is this looseness from God. It portrays apathy and negative volition to God and His Word. This results in moral instability which is the fruit of the root problem, a failure to care about God. Note the contrast seen with verse 2 “but his delight is in the law of the Lord … not so the wicked” (cf. Psa. 10:3-5; 119:53 with 54 and 119:155 with 165). The issue is simply that spiritual deliverance and real happiness must always escape the wicked because of their negative volition to God and His precious Word. So how does the wicked forsake his wicked way? By turning to God and His infinite Word (Isaiah 55:7-11).

The key characteristics of the wicked are two-fold and stand to each other as root to fruit:

(1) Root: Forsakes God, negative to God and His Word with the result he is uncontrolled (Prov. 29:18).

(2) Fruit: Violates the rights of others: oppressive, violent, greedy; unstable, without security, and facing sure judgment (Isa. 57:20-21; Ps. 1:4-6).

The word r`sh`u (wicked or unrighteous) is contrasted regularly with x#D#q (righteous or righteousness).

These words contrast two lifestyles: (a) The righteous cling to God, love His Word, and as a result are restrained, stable, upright, and just. (b) The wicked forsake God, ignore His Word, and as a result are unrestrained, oppressive, and unjust. This is the point of Proverbs 29:18, “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law.”

These words also contrast the results of these different lifestyles: (a) The righteous are stable, fruitful, and will be rewarded. (b) The wicked are unstable, unfruitful, and will be judged.

The wicked run the gamut from those who have no room for God (Psalm 10:4), to the religious type who gives only lip service to spiritual things (Psalm 50:16ff). But in all cases, there is no real love for God, belief in His Word, or desire for fellowship with God.

“But they are like the chaff which the wind drives away”

The conjunction “but” is a strengthened form in the Hebrew text and is somewhat emphatic. It draws our attention to the difference between the righteous and wicked.

“Like chaff.” “Chaff” is the Hebrew word mox. Chaff is the seed covering and the debris separated from the grain or seed in threshing. Unlike the grain or actual seed, it has no body or substance and is blown about by the wind, always unstable. It is that which is worthless, of no value. It draws the reader’s attention to both the uselessness of the wicked and to the ease with which God deals with them, like the wind that so easily picks up the chaff and blows it away.

Like chaff, the wicked will be separated from the grain in judgment (vs. 5). For a similar idea compare the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:24-42). The unrighteous are ultimately worthless to God and generally worthless to society since they corrupt and feed on others. Primarily they are unstable, blown about from pillar to post because they have no spiritual roots in the Word of God (cf. Eph. 4:14; Jer. 17:6).

While genuine believers cannot lose their salvation, there is the danger of living like the unrighteous (the wicked) in carnal indifference, perhaps very religious, but out of fellowship with God. The church in Corinth is an illustration of this. Paul warned them that in their state of carnality and failure to grow, they were walking like mere men (1 Cor. 3:1-4). Such believers may act like the wicked in many ways. In their carnality they become unrestrained and impoverished in their spiritual lives. If this continues, it will mean severe discipline in this life followed by forfeiture of rewards in heaven, like chaff which the wind drives away (1 Cor. 3:12f).

As to this life, the wicked, those who walk independently of God (believers or unbelievers), are driven about by the false counsel of the world, by satanic and human viewpoint (Eph. 4:14), by the lust patterns of their own hearts (Eph. 4:17f), and by the pressures or problems of life for which they have no answer. Note that in Ephesians 4:14 the apostle is writing to believers regarding the need to grow in Christ lest they become unstable, tossed about by the waves of man’s ideas about life. Then in 4:17-19 he warns Christians against living like the unbelieving world in the futility of their minds, minds that are not being nourished by the water of God’s Word.

But the primary focus of this text is on the future judgment. The wicked will not be able to stand before God’s judgment (verse 5), but will be driven out, away from God and believers (see Rev. 20:11-15; 21:6-8). Note the parallel here. As the wicked are driven about in life because they do not have the Lord and His righteousness, so they will be driven away from Him in the day of judgment because they lack His gift of righteousness through Jesus Christ.

What the Wicked Cannot Do—Their Inability (1:5)

“Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment”

“Will not stand.” The verb here is qWm, “rise, arise, stand.” It looks at standing as the result of rising up. The idea in this context is that of ability to withstand or endure the judgment of God. Unbelievers will face God at the great white throne judgment but will not be able to stand its test (Matt. 22:11-13). Only those (both Jews and Gentiles) who have the robe of Christ’s righteousness because of their faith in Christ can stand before God’s throne.

In the progress of revelation, the Old Testament does not give us the details of the last judgments as does the New Testament. The Old Testament spoke of the time of the Tribulation (the time of Jacob’s trouble or Daniel’s 70th week), of a last judgment, and of the gathering of the righteous before God. But for the complete picture we need New Testament revelation. There are five future judgments with regard to mankind:

(1) The Judgment Seat of Christ, the Bema. The judgment of the Bema follows the rapture. It involves only the church, the body of Christ. It is an examination for rewards or loss of rewards in heaven, i.e., forfeiture of privileges of service (Rom. 8:1; John 5:24; Rom. 14:10-11; 1 Cor. 3:11-15; 2 Cor. 5:9-10).

(2) Tribulation Judgments: Also known as Jacob’s trouble and Daniel’s 70th week. (Rev. 6-19; 1 Thess. 5:1-11; 2 Thess. 2:1-12; Matt. 24; Isa. 24). The Tribulation begins after the rapture, thus it begins only with unbelievers. The purpose of the Tribulation judgments is to purge out the rebels and bring Israel to the Messiah.

(3) Judgment of living Jews (Matt. 25:1-30). This judgment comes at the end of the Tribulation and is carried out by Christ on earth. Unbelievers are separated from believers and the believers go into the Millennium.

(4) Judgment of living Gentiles (Mat. 25:31-46). This judgment also comes at the end of the Tribulation and is carried out by Christ on earth. Unbelievers are separated from believers and the believers go into the Millennium.

(5) The Great White Throne Judgment (Rev. 20). This refers to the judgment of all unbelieving dead or those raised in the resurrection for judgment (see John 5:29). It follows the thousand-year reign of Christ and pertains only to unbelievers. Because they do not have Christ’s righteousness, they are cast into the lake of fire.

For a detailed study on the judgments, see The Doctrine of the Judgments under New Testament, Topical Studies, on the Biblical Studies Foundation web site at www.bible.org.

The wicked (unbelievers) can’t stand at the judgment and are separated and cast out because they are found without God’s righteousness.

“Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous”

As a result of God’s judgment at the Great White Throne, sinners, those without the righteousness of Christ, will be excluded from the eternal blessings of God’s presence to be enjoyed by all those who stand in relation to God by faith in Christ. For the Old Testament saint, salvation was by faith in God’s covenant with Israel as it looked forward to the coming Messiah and His death as proclaimed in the sacrificial system of the Law (cf. Luke 1:71-73; Acts 3:25; Rom. 11:25-27; 3:21f; 4:1f). For the New Testament saint, salvation is by faith alone in the accomplishment of Christ’s finished work as proclaimed in the New Covenant, which is a fulfillment of the promises of the Old (cf. Eph. 2:8-9; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Heb. 7:22f; 8:6f; Heb. 9:1-22).

What the Wicked Must Face—Perishability (1:6)

“For the Lord knows the way …”

“Knows” does not mean simply to have knowledge of something. It is often used in Scripture in a protective sense and refers to God’s providential care and love, which includes the eternal security of believers and His divine provision. It means that God looks out for the righteous. The NIV even translates this, “The Lord watches over …” But ultimately, the issue here is the basis of God’s judgment.

The basis for this judgment is the Lord’s knowledge. The first half of the verse, The Lord watches over (lit., “knows”) the way of the righteous, is best understood by the antithetical parallelism, the way of the wicked will perish. Salvation in the day of judgment is equated with being known by the Lord (cf. Matt. 7:23).⁵

One is reminded of Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 2:19-20.

19 Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness.” 20 Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor.

“Way” refers to life’s course or path. The point is, our path or course is fully known by the Lord and He cares for us with God’s loving and providential care as a father his child and like the vinedresser cares for His vineyard (Ps. 103:13; Matt. 6:32; John 15:1f). For the righteous (believers in Christ), there is God’s pre-vision, and so also God’s pro-vision so that even when they fail and sin, God has foreknown us and provided for us in the complete and finished work of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul emphatically teaches us that nothing can separate us from the love of God which is anchored in Christ (Rom. 8:28-29, 38-39). The righteous cannot perish because they are in both the hand of the Father and in the hand of His Son, the Lord Jesus (John 10:28-30). But, as the next part of the verse warns, if their way of life is one of carnality, it will be futile and will perish by the loss of rewards.

“But the way of the wicked will perish”

The wicked are earthdwellers, those bent on getting all the gusto they can out of this life with little or no concern for God and eternity. By-in-large, the wicked live primarily for this life. Their way (even when religious) is the way of man, the flesh, and cannot stand before the righteousness of God. They fall short. Their way of life gains them nothing with God, so it too will perish. Ultimately this means the lake of fire for the unbeliever.

But since Christians too can live like mere men, like the wicked to some degree, Scripture exhorts us to live as sojourners, as aliens who seek to lay up treasures in heaven where neither moth nor rust destroys (1 Pet. 1:17; 2:11; Matt. 6:19-24). Exhortations like these in the New Testament would be meaningless unless this were a real possibility. Thus, a life lived for treasures on earth will perish, that is, it will result in the loss of rewards as well as bring dishonor to the Savior who purchased us from our sin. Since this is true, should we not pursue the way of blessedness both for now (God’s glory and spiritual stability in this life) and eternity (God’s glory and eternal rewards)?

The way of the wicked perishes because it is left to itself. The way of the wicked perishes because they have left God out and even their temporal life loses real meaning and value. Rejection of Christ and His Word means no provision for eternity. When it involves indifference to heavenly treasure as believers, it means loss of rewards and a failure to use this life as partners with Him in His life and enterprise on earth. However, the believer, who is kept by the power of God, will be in eternity with the Lord.

Conclusion

As one reflects back on this wonderful introductory Psalm, it is clear that the central issue is God’s awesome and holy Word, the Scripture. The man (or woman) of blessedness and spiritual stability is one whose life is built on and bathed in the Scripture. But why? How can the Bible have such a stabilizing affect on a person’s life? Because of the nature of the Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word to man, and because of its total sufficiency to meet every need of a person’s soul. This is the emphasis and declaration of David in Psalm 19:7-11. David shows us that the Scripture, when known and applied, can restore a sin-damaged and distraught soul, give spiritual wisdom, bring joy to the downcast, and provide spiritual discernment. In other words, as Peter teaches us in 2 Peter 1:3, it contains all that man needs for life and godliness, or about truth and righteousness.

What is it, then, that the church needs? It needs the Bible! What is it that pastors and elders ought to be doing? They need to be preaching and teaching the Scripture. What did Paul tell his young coworker in the faith? First, he told him, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Later he wrote, “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with great patience and instruction,” and then he quickly warned, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:2-3).

Where is the church, indeed, even the evangelical church today? It has turned aside from the Word as its authority and sufficient source for life and godliness. And what does the church look like today? Well, it certainly does not look like a tree planted by streams of water which yields its fruit in its season. While eating lunch, my wife and I occasionally listen to a well-known talk show host who takes questions from those who call in for counsel with their perplexing moral dilemmas. But the thing that never ceases to amaze me is the mess people can get their lives in. Some of these profess to be Christians, and I don’t doubt that many of them are. What’s also clear is that they have not been ordering their lives by the Word. Have these people been going to church? For many of them the answer is yes, but their time in church did nothing to build them in the Scripture.

The research efforts of Gallup, Barna, and Hunter all indicate that evangelicals are, for the most part, as secular in their orientation as non-Christians. The data reveals, among other things, an astounding degree of theological illiteracy: 84 percent of those who claim the evangelical label embrace the notion that in salvation God helps those who help themselves, 77 percent believe that human beings are basically good and that good people go to heaven regardless of their relationship to Christ, while more than half of those surveyed affirmed self-fulfillment as their first priority. An equal number had a difficult time accepting the concept of absolute truth. I fear that this may be only the tip of a massive iceberg.⁶

In plain and simple terms, the forces of our modern society have replaced the centrality and priority of the preaching and teaching of the Scripture. In its place has come (a) shorter and shorter topical sermons aimed more at self-fulfillment than biblical exposition, (b) pop-psychology, (c) entertainment in the form of drama and music, (d) more and more emphasis on music that gives an emotional bang for the sake of the emotions rather than music that focuses the heart on the person and work of God, i.e., sound biblical truth that may then stir the soul. Essentially, the services are man-centered rather than Bible-centered and God-centered.

As I observe much of the church today, at first glance it looks like wheat, but on closer observation, it is often more like the chaff that the wind drives about with every wind of the various doctrines of man and the modernity of our secular society. My dear friends, make the powerful Word the foundation of your life and ministry and get involved in ministries where the Word is truly the heart and soul of that church.

Let me close with this interesting illustration of the power of the Word.

George Whitefield, the great eighteenth-century evangelist, was hounded by a group of detractors who called themselves the “Hell-fire Club.” They derided his work and mocked him. On one occasion one of them, a man named Thorpe, was mimicking Whitefield to his cronies, delivering his sermon with brilliant accuracy, perfectly imitating his tone and facial expressions, when he himself was so pierced that he sat down and was converted on the spot.⁷

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

1 Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher's Commentary, electronic media.

2 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, p. 311.

3 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew And English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 343. See also the margin translation of ASV.

4 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, Vol. 2, Moody Press, Chicago, 1980, p. 766.

5 The Bible Knowledge Commentary, OT Edition, John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, editors, Victor Books, electronic media.

6 Gary W. Johnson, The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, General Editor, Moody Press, Chicago, 1996, p. 61.

7 R. Kent Hughes, The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, General Editor, Moody Press, Chicago, 1996, p. 94-95.

You are here

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

6. Exegetical Commentary on John 3

OUTLINE:

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

From the series: Commentary on the Gospel of John PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Commentary on the Gospel of John

From the series: Luke: The Gospel of the Gentiles PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

71. The Rejection of Israel's Messiah - Part I (Luke 22:47-71)

The Arrest

Peter’s Denial

Mocked and Abused

Condemned by the Sanhedrin

Introduction

The Structure of our Text

Luke’s Account and the Rest of the Gospels

The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus (22:47-53)

Peter’s Denial (22:54-62)

Mocked and Abused (22:63-65)

Condemned by the Sanhedrin (22:66-71)

Conclusion

From the series: Luke: The Gospel of the Gentiles PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

The Indigenous Pilgrim Principle: A Theological Consideration of the Christian, the Church, and Politics

Romans 13.1-5

Indigenous Principle (Adaptation to the World)

The Pilgrim Principle (Confrontation and Separation)

Conclusion

What’s So Foolish About the Gospel?

“Irrational Faith”

A Fallen Perspective and Defective Standard

Preconceived Notions

Reasonable Faith

Unwanted Implications

Open Eyes

From the series: Question and Answer with Bob Deffinbaugh PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Q. Why Did God Bless Solomon?

Answer

From the series: Question and Answer with Bob Deffinbaugh PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Profiting From the Prophets PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

15. The Life and Times of Elisha the Prophet— Elisha’s Accreditation (2 Kings 2:19-3:27)

Introduction

Elisha Heals the Water at Jericho (2 Kings 2:19-22)

Elijah, the Bears, and the “Bad Boys of Bethel”102 (2 Kings 3:23-25)

We Three Kings (2 Kings 3:1-27)

Conclusion

From the series: Profiting From the Prophets PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: 網上牧師雜誌 – 中文版（繁體） PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

網上牧師雜誌 – 中文版（繁體）, TCh Ed, Issue 35 2020 年 春季

I.加強對聖經的理解“如何閱讀和理解聖經”(第二部分)

介紹

A.字面解釋

B.理解某些文學體裁和手法

C.一個意思：多種應用

D.文化對我們理解的影響

1. 古老的文化

一些舊約的例子

一些新約的例子

結論

2.我們的當代文化

II.基督徒自由的局限性

介紹

A.信徒身體的自由

B.信徒身體的聖潔

C.信徒身體的潔淨

結論

III.講道大綱

From the series: 網上牧師雜誌 – 中文版（繁體） PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: 网上牧师杂志–中文版（简体） PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

网上牧师杂志–中文版（简体）, SCh Ed, Issue 35 2020 年 春季

I.加强对圣经的理解“如何阅读和理解圣经”(第二部分)

介绍

A.字面解释

B.理解某些文学体裁和手法

C.一个意思：多种应用

D.文化对我们理解的影响

1. 古老的文化

一些旧约的例子

一些新约的例子

结论

The Betrayal and Arrest of Jesus
(22:47-53)

Peter’s Denial
(22:54-62)

Mocked and Abused
(22:63-65)

Condemned by the Sanhedrin
(22:66-71)

Elisha Heals the Water at Jericho
(2 Kings 2:19-22)

Elijah, the Bears, and the “Bad Boys of Bethel”¹⁰²
(2 Kings 3:23-25)

We Three Kings
(2 Kings 3:1-27)

網上牧師雜誌 – 中文版（繁體）, TCh Ed, Issue 35 2020 年春季

I.加強對聖經的理解
“如何閱讀和理解聖經”(第二部分)

网上牧师杂志–中文版（简体）, SCh Ed, Issue 35 2020 年春季

I.加强对圣经的理解
“如何阅读和理解圣经”(第二部分)

The Way of the Godly
(1:1-3)

The Character
and Destiny of the Wicked
(1:4-6)