5. Abraham’s Epitaph (Genesis 25:1-11)

Related Media

How do you envision the end of your life? Living life to the full, right to the end? Using your gifts for God until your final breath? Or, fading into the sunset with nothing much to show for it?

What will be your perspective when you near the end of your life? “I’ve raised my children, worked hard, now I’m entitled to some peace and quiet” – preoccupied with your entitlement? Or, “I’m past it, out of touch, incapable of contributing, no use to anyone anymore” – absorbed with helplessness? Or, “My life is over and all I’m waiting for is to die” – obsessed with hopelessness?

What will others say about you when you’re gone? He lived his life well for God? Or, he lived for self? Or, she was fully devoted to serving God? Or, she was preoccupied with things?

What will be written on your tombstone, your epitaph? An epitaph is something by which a person, time, or event is remembered. It’s an inscription on a tombstone, words written or spoken in memory of a person who has died. So, how will others remember you? What words would they use to sum up your life?

Before commenting on the following verses, please note the interesting literary structure which the writer has chosen in bracketing Abraham’s death between the genealogies of his two concubines - Keturah (25:2-4) and Hagar (25:12-18) – which are then followed by the genealogy of Isaac in 25:19f.

Genesis 25:1-11 constitute the closing testimony of Abraham’s life and death, which testimony teaches us many invaluable lessons about how to end our lives well. Notice the first biblical lesson that…

I. Godly Parents Do Not Always Have Godly Children (25:1-4)

We’ve met Hagar before (Gen. 16:1-16 and 21:8-21) and now we are introduced to Keturah. “Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah” (25:1). Like many O.T. men of faith, Abraham had more than one wife. Multiple wives were often taken to produce children. But this practice was contrary to the will of God for marriage, that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24-25). This practice was an accommodation of cultural standards that were contrary to God’s standard. It conflicted with God’s intent for marriage, just as divorce did (Matt. 19:8).

The questions that are sometimes raised concerning Keturah are: (1) “What was Keturah’s status? (2) When did she become Abraham’s wife? (3) Was she Abraham’s wife or concubine? Or, was she his concubine who became his wife after Sarah died?”

Concubines were sometimes referred to as “wives” (cf. Hagar in 16:3; Bilhah in 35:22 and 30:4), as is Keturah (Gen. 25:1), although they did not have equal status alongside an actual wife. In some respects they were treated as slaves, being kept and provided for by the man and being considered the property of the man.

It appears that Keturah probably began as Abraham’s concubine and that, after Sarah’s death (Gen. 23:2), she became his wife (Gen. 25:1), although we cannot say this definitively since we need to remember that Genesis does not always record its genealogies in literary or chronological order. For example, even though Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah at age 40 is recorded in Genesis 25:20, and the twins were born 20 years later as recorded in Genesis 25:26, yet both these events took place before Abraham’s death, which is recorded earlier in Genesis 25:8. However, that said, if Keturah was Abraham’s concubine (1 Chron. 1:32) prior to Sarah’s death and became his wife after Sarah died, this would quite adequately explain the two different descriptions of her status – concubine and wife. It should be noted, however, that she never enjoyed the same status as Sarah, which perhaps would explain why her sons received gifts from Abraham (Gen. 25:6) but did not share in the inheritance with Isaac.

Other than her name, the only thing we really know about Keturah are the names of the six sons, seven grandsons, and three great-grandsons she bore to Abraham (25:2-4). We know little else but the names of these descendants of Abraham. What we do know is that Abraham sent them “eastward to the east country” (25:6b), probably to Syria or Arabia (cf. Ishmael’s children, Gen. 25:18) where they became the progenitors of six Arabian tribes (cf. 1 Chron. 1:32-33). We also know that the descendants of Midian (the Midianites) became staunch enemies of Israel.

It’s sad, isn’t it, that a godly, faithful man like Abraham should produce descendants who turned out to be so ungodly and so opposed to God’s people. But I suppose what we learn from this is that godly parents can raise their children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) but they cannot control how they turn out spiritually. For that we must entrust our children to God’s sovereign care and control.

So, the first biblical lesson that this account of the end of Abraham’s life teaches us that godly parents do not always have godly children. The second lesson is that…

II. Godly Parents Leave Invaluable Lessons For Us (25:5-11)

The first invaluable lesson that we learn from the life of Abraham is…

1. How To Plan Wisely (25:5-6)

Abraham had not always acted responsibly, as we have seen, for example, in earlier studies of Genesis 16 and 21 in his relationship and dealings with Hagar. But at the end of his life, he made responsible and wise provision for his children, provisions that he made voluntarily and not out of obligation.

Because Isaac alone was the son of promise, he was Abraham’s sole heir and inherited all his father’s assets. Thus, Abraham “gave all that he had to Isaac” (25:5). His estate would not be divided up between various children because Isaac was the sole and rightful God-appointed heir, the son of God’s promise.

This is a lovely illustration of Christ’s inheritance, whom God “appointed the heir of all things” (Heb. 1:2). And how much more precious is it to know that, as God’s children by faith, we also are heirs, “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (Rom. 8:17).

I assume that Isaac’s inheritance of his father’s estate took place upon Abraham’s death, since the text specifically states that to his other children, the children of his concubines, he gave gifts while he was alive: “But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country” (25:6). Giving gifts to the children of Keturah was an act of pure goodwill, as there was no requirement for Abraham to give anything to sons of concubines. They were his biological children, but not children “of promise.” Just as Abraham sent Ishmael away in order that he would not participate in, or interfere with, Isaac’s inheritance (21:10), so he also sends all the sons of his concubines away. And just as he gave provisions to Ishmael when he sent him away (21:14), so he gave gifts to all the sons of his concubines when he sent them away.

Notice the wisdom and forethought that Abraham must have put into the plans for the disposition of his estate pursuant to his death. He not only secured the succession of the covenant through Isaac as his heir (and subsequently Jacob), but he also safeguarded Isaac from any opposition of the children of Keturah (1) by giving them gifts while he was alive (that was the extent of their participation in his wealth); and (2) by sending them “eastward to the east country,” far away from causing Isaac any trouble.

In all of Abraham’s dealings with and provision for his children, we can learn good, practical lessons about responsible parenting and responsible financial planning prior to our death. First, we learn that parents lay up for their children, not vice versa. For, as the apostle Paul says, “children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2 Cor. 12:14).

Second, at our death we must not leave a mess for our children to clean up. While it is not possible to prevent your children from fighting over your estate, at least you can do your part by spelling out in writing what is to happen to it upon your death – i.e. by way of a will. It’s sad, isn’t it, how many families are torn apart by disputes over the division of an estate? Money often changes people’s thinking and behavior. No wonder that 1 Timothy 6:10 says, “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”

Third, as God prospers you, use your assets wisely for God’s work, for your family, and for those in need. May we make this a lifelong pursuit to be joyful and generous in blessing others and honoring the Lord with “the first fruits of all your produce” (Prov. 3:9; cf. 2 Cor. 8-9). Let us exemplify generosity now and to the next generation.

Fourth, leave a legacy that will impact your children and grandchildren after you’re gone – not just financial, but how you lived your life. This was the overriding legacy of Abraham’s life - not his wealth, but his faithfulness to God.

So, Abraham teaches us how to plan wisely. And he teaches us…

2. How To Be Remembered Well (25:7-8)

“These are the days of the years of Abraham’s life, 175 years” (25:7). His biblical biography doesn’t start until he was 75 years old and covers the next 100 years of his life, during which he experienced God in a most personal and dynamic way. Let’s quickly review Abraham’s biblical biography.

Abraham believed God’s promise that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (12:3) and he obeyed God’s instruction to uproot his wife, Sarah, and his entire household from their home in Ur of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia and go to a new home in the promised land of Canaan (12:1-9). When a famine came, he and Sarah journeyed to Egypt, where, because Sarah was “a woman of beautiful appearance” (12:11, 14), he feared the possibility that Pharaoh might kill him in order that he could take Sarah as his wife. So, he lied and said she was his sister. He and his nephew Lot parted company because their livestock and possessions were of such abundance that they needed separate properties (13:6). Lot chose the well-watered plains of the Jordan Valley, settling in Sodom, while Abraham settled in the land of Canaan. When four kings made war with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and captured Lot and his possessions, Abraham rescued them (14:1-16). After this, God repeated his promise to Abraham that he would have descendants in number like the stars of heaven, even though he was still, at that time, childless. And Abraham “believed the Lord and he counted it to him as righteousness” (15:5-6).

But no child was forthcoming from Sarah, so Sarah devised a scheme that, instead of waiting for God to fulfill his promise of a son and heir, they would produce their own son through Sarah’s maid, Hagar (16:1-4). But the result of this self-willed scheme was disastrous. Ultimately, Abraham had to send Hagar and her son, Ishmael, away in order to bring peace to his household (21:8-21). Finally, Isaac, the son of God’s promise, was born and no sooner had he become a young man than God called upon Abraham to sacrifice Isaac in order to test Abraham’s loyalty to God (22:1-19). He passed the test with flying colors.

Finally, in his old age and undoubtedly wanting to preserve their family lineage as God had promised, Abraham sent his servant back to Mesopotamia to find a wife for Isaac. The servant was successful in his search and brought Rebekah, who “became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death” (24:67).

That is a quick summary of Abraham’s long and full life. With his affairs in order and a full and varied life behind him, Abraham’s life ended well. It seems as though the Spirit of God can’t repeat enough the fulness and the blessedness of Abraham’s life, the man who “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God” (James 2:23). And so the final epitaph and benediction on this good and godly man reads: “⁷ These are the days of the years of Abraham’s life. ⁸ Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years and was gathered to his people” (25:7-8). Notice and analyze well this fourfold, repetitive tribute to Abraham…

First, Abraham’s life in retrospect. “These are the days of the years of Abraham’s life, 175 years” (25:7). A life, no matter how long it may be, is made up of days. And Abraham’s days were varied, full of adventure, failures and faith. Let us learn to walk with God, as Abraham did, to be aware of God’s constant provision, protection, and guidance, and to seek to please God every single day.

Second, Abraham’s death recorded. “Abraham breathed his last and died” (25:8a). It seems from the way this is worded, that his end was not a long, drawn-out battle, as it is for some. He simply slipped peacefully and quietly into the presence of God. There is no hint of any bitterness over life’s hard experiences and lessons, no apparent regrets over bad decisions and behavior, no struggle with guilt, but a life at peace with God. His life ended in full communion with God, despite all the ups and downs, just as we would expect a “friend of God” to die. He died in faith and at peace with God.

Third, Abraham’s life reviewed. He died “at a good old age, an old man and full of years” (25:8b). He died in perfect accord with God’s promise, having received the abundance of God’s blessing. God’s promise was: “As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age” (Gen. 15:15). And God’s blessing is indicated in the phrase, “full of years,” which literally and simply reads: “full” – i.e. “satisfied” or “contented.” Thus, his life was not only long in length but “full” in satisfaction and contentedness. How we should long to do the same, to die full of the blessings of God and satisfied in Him.

Fourth, Abraham’s soul reunited. He “was gathered to his people” (25:8c). This probably refers to his reunion with his predeceased loved ones, which reunion takes place immediately upon death, when the soul is separated from the body. Thus, here in the O.T. we have the truth revealed that human beings, despite being mortal and corruptible, have immortal souls that continue on after death.

So, Abraham teaches us how to plan wisely, how to be remembered well, and…

3. How To Be Buried Honorably (25:9-11)

Abraham was buried honorably in two ways. Firstly, Abraham was buried honorably by his two sons. Isaac and Ishmael, whom we last saw in conflict and separation (21:1-17), were reunited in the burial of their father (25:9-10). It’s lovely to see families come together at a time of loss, to set aside their differences and unite at a time when they most need togetherness. Isaac and Ishmael honored their father by reuniting at his burial. Notice that only the sons of Sarah were involved (not the sons of Keturah), Ishmael being considered Sarah’s son by a surrogate mother, Hagar.

Secondly, Abraham was buried honorably at his burial site. The cave of Machpelah was purchased by Abraham on the occasion of Sarah’s death as a family burial plot (Gen. 23:1-20). This was the first acquisition of property in the promised land by Abraham. Abraham made sure that he and his descendants would have a permanent burial place. This is an act of faith that God would fulfill his promise to give them this land. Hence, his careful negotiations and insistence that he own the property by buying it from Ephron the son of Zohar (23:8-16). Abraham would not agree with any of the options offered to him: (1) to borrow a burial place from the sons of Heth (23:3-6); and (2) to accept a burial place as a gift from Ephron the Hittite (23:7-11). Rather, he insisted that he buy the property at the market price and own it by a deed with a detailed description (23:12-16). Not until the deal was concluded to his satisfaction did Abraham bury Sarah in the cave of Machpelah.

“After the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his son. And Isaac settled at Beer-lahai-roi” (25:11). Isaac now becomes the recipient of God’s covenant blessing to his father, Abraham, the blessing of the God who “lives and sees me” (Gen. 16:7-14). God is faithful and true; He keeps his word. He intervenes in our lives to deliver us from trouble, to correct us when we stray, and to give us renewed hope.

Final Remarks

Even though Abraham’s life was dotted with failures, nonetheless, he is included in the Hebrews hall of faith as one who “obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out not knowing where he was going” (Heb. 11:8). That’s a life of faith well-lived for God. When he was already 75 years old, he obeyed God’s call to leave his home in Mesopotamia and go to the land of Canaan, a land he had never visited, knew nothing about, and didn’t even know how to get there (Gen. 12:1-4). That’s obedience and faith. And that’s what marked the entirety of Abraham’s life. That’s the testimony (epitaph) of his life.

So, what will your descendants write on your epitaph, in your memory? What will they say at your funeral? How will history record your life and death? That you lived a full, rich life for God? That you used all your gifts and abilities to bless your family and God’s people? That you left behind an example of how to live a life of faith that all who come behind you will seek to emulate?

How are you using (or going to use) your time at the end of your life, your “retirement” years? For self and pleasure? Or in activities that have spiritual and eternal consequences and benefits? Will you be known as a man or woman of faith who was gathered to your people?

Let us learn and take courage from the life of Abraham. After living for 175 years, a life with failures amidst incredible faith, at the end of his life Abraham’s epitaph reads: “He died at a good old age, an old man, and full of years” (Gen. 25:8).

Perhaps you are tormented over failures in your life, the memory of which keeps coming back to haunt you. Well, remember that while you can’t erase your memory nor the consequences of your actions, nonetheless you can be fully forgiven.

Sometimes, I think that those memories of failures that keep recurring are stimulated by our lack of acceptance and understanding of God’s full and complete forgiveness. Sometimes I think we are just unable (or unwilling) to accept and grasp the extent of God’s grace. We need to take God at his word, which says: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9). We may not be able to forget the past, but God can and does: “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31:34).

So, let us keep short accounts with God, confessing our sins every day so that nothing hinders our full fellowship with Him. Let us enjoy the peace of knowing our sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven because of Christ’s death on the cross. And let us strive to live for the glory of God by faith, for the God “who saved us and called us to a holy calling” (2 Tim. 1:9) also strengthens us with power through his Spirit (Eph. 3:16), thus enabling us “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called (Eph. 4:1; cf. Col. 1:10). Take courage in these great and precious promises and press on for the glory of God until Jesus comes again or until He calls you home to heaven.

Related Topics: Character of God, Christian Life

Q. What does the Bible say to the church, and to the individual Christian, about the role of politics in the church?

Our church is experiencing a great deal of polarization, and even heated debate, over matters of politics. What does the Bible say to the church, and to the individual Christian, about the role of politics in the church?

Answer

You have asked a very important question regarding the political tensions and conflict which exist not only in our country, but also in our churches. There may well be other verses and principles to consider, but here are those which have come to mind. (I am relatively confident that what I write here may not be well received by some Christians.)

First and foremost, the Bible is our highest authority, and always takes precedence over any other documents, including our national constitution, as wise and as wonderful as it may be.

In recent days especially I have frequently heard Christians appealing to our national constitution as the basis for their actions and demands. Our constitution has much to say about our rights; the Bible has much to say about our responsibilities, and about giving up our rights for the sake of the gospel (see Philippians 2; Romans 14 and 15). Whenever and if ever the Bible and the Constitution are in conflict, the Bible wins.

Second, this world is not our home; heaven is:

13 All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. 15 And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16, NAU; emphasis mine).

13 These all died in faith without receiving the things promised, but they saw them in the distance and welcomed them and acknowledged that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth. 14 For those who speak in such a way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 In fact, if they had been thinking of the land that they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they aspire to a better land, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16, NET).

Dear friends, I urge you as foreigners and exiles to keep away from fleshly desires that do battle against the soul (1 Peter 2:11).

Third, in this world we will have persecution.

…and some of that will be brought about by human governments:

“Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name” (Matthew 24:9).

“You must watch out for yourselves. You will be handed over to councils and beaten in the synagogues. You will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a witness to them” (Mark 13:9).

“I have told you these things so that in me you may have peace. In the world you have trouble and suffering, but take courage – I have conquered the world” (John 16:33).

6 Now we do speak wisdom among the mature, but not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are perishing. 7 Instead we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, that God determined before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:6-8).

21 After they had proclaimed the good news in that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, to Iconium, and to Antioch. 22 They strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “We must enter the kingdom of God through many persecutions” (Acts 14:21-22).

Fourth, God raises up kings, and puts them down, and for different purposes.

He changes times and seasons, deposing some kings and establishing others. He gives wisdom to the wise; he imparts knowledge to those with understanding (Daniel 2:21; see also 4:17, 32; 7:25; Psalm 75:6-7).

God raises up some kings (like Pharaoh) to demonstrate His great power:

14 For this time I will send all my plagues on your very self and on your servants and your people, so that you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with plague, and you would have been destroyed from the earth. 16 But for this purpose I have caused you to stand: to show you my strength, and so that my name may be declared in all the earth (Exodus 9:14-16).

God may raise up ungodly rulers to discipline His wayward people:

47 “Because you have not served the LORD your God joyfully and wholeheartedly with the abundance of everything you have, 48 instead in hunger, thirst, nakedness, and poverty you will serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you. They will place an iron yoke on your neck until they have destroyed you (Deuteronomy 28:47-48).

God may raise up kings in order to carry out His promises to His people:

“Who commissions Cyrus, the one I appointed as shepherd to carry out all my wishes and to decree concerning Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and concerning the temple, ‘It will be reconstructed’” (Isaiah 44:28).

1 In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order to fulfill the LORD'S message spoken through Jeremiah, the LORD stirred the mind of King Cyrus of Persia. He disseminated a proclamation throughout his entire kingdom, announcing in a written edict the following: 2 “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: ‘The LORD God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth. He has instructed me to build a temple for him in Jerusalem, which is in Judah’” (Ezra 1:1-2).

Fifth, Satan also seeks to carry out his work through men, including political leaders.

When one reads the Book of Daniel, Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28, we see that behind what is occurring here on earth, there can be a satanic and fallen angel counterpart. Satan has a certain degree of influence and control over this world, and thus we should expect him to seek to achieve his purposes through political means. This is not to suggest that Satan is free to carry out his purposes without God’s permission and ultimate control, so that the outcome always furthers God’s purposes (as we see, for instance, in the Book of Job).

Sixth, pride seems to be a principal cause of failure in kings (and spiritual leaders, too).

Nebuchadnezzar is a classic example of pride (see Daniel 4), along with the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14), and the prince of Tyre (Ezekiel 28). In effect, they begin to attribute to themselves that which belongs only to God. The results can be devastating:

18 At daybreak there was great consternation among the soldiers over what had become of Peter. 19 When Herod had searched for him and did not find him, he questioned the guards and commanded that they be led away to execution. Then Herod went down from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there. 20 Now Herod was having an angry quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon. So they joined together and presented themselves before him. And after convincing Blastus, the king's personal assistant, to help them, they asked for peace, because their country's food supply was provided by the king's country. 21 On a day determined in advance, Herod put on his royal robes, sat down on the judgment seat, and made a speech to them. 22 But the crowd began to shout, "The voice of a god, and not of a man!" 23 Immediately an angel of the Lord struck Herod down because he did not give the glory to God, and he was eaten by worms and died (Acts 12:18-23).

Seventh, the command to honor political authorities, and to submit to them as God’s agency is clear, and is not contingent upon any particular political form or philosophy.

(Democracy is almost unknown in history. In the days of Jesus and the apostles, authoritarian dictatorships were the norm, as is often the case today).

1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-7).

1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, 2 to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men (Titus 3:1-2).

In light of 1 Peter 2:18-25, it seems apparent that Peter’s command (above) to obey human governments would include those that are oppressive.

Eighth, there are some exceptions to this command to submit to ruling authorities, but they are few and far between.

(see Daniel and his friends in Daniel (chapters 3 and 6), and Peter and John in Acts 4:17-20). But in these instances of disobedience, believers were commanded to obey human government in a way that it would require them to disobey a clear command of God.

Ninth, like it or not, the Bible does not advocate or require a democratic form of government.

This is evident in the Old Testament when God gave His law to Israel and later established a government under the rule of a king. Can you imagine governance by a majority vote as Israel’s form of government? Would Israel have passed through the Red Sea by a majority vote? The ideal government is that of a benevolent dictator, the dictatorial rule of a righteous, merciful, and faithful Good Shepherd (see Ezekiel 34; Psalm 2; John 10:11-18).

Tenth, God’s leadership style is vastly different from that of men:

25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28).

Eleventh, the Book of Proverbs is written largely by a king (Solomon), who instructs future leaders how to rule:

1 The words of King Lemuel, the oracle which his mother taught him: 2 What, O my son? And what, O son of my womb? And what, O son of my vows? 3 Do not give your strength to women, Or your ways to that which destroys kings. 4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Or for rulers to desire strong drink, 5 For they will drink and forget what is decreed, And pervert the rights of all the afflicted. 6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing, And wine to him whose life is bitter. 7 Let him drink and forget his poverty And remember his trouble no more. 8 Open your mouth for the mute, For the rights of all the unfortunate. 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, And defend the rights of the afflicted and needy (Proverbs 31:1-9).

Note that political philosophy is not emphasized here; character is. The same can be found in the qualifications for elders and deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

Twelfth, the Bible does not advocate seeking to change political regimes In our Lord’s day, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles sought to overturn or to change even a corrupt government.

My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those who are given to change (Proverbs 24:21, NAU).

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm" (John 18:36).

Thirteenth, a particular political philosophy is not prescribed or required in the Bible, but is rather a matter of personal conviction.

In Romans 14 and 15 Paul teaches believers that convictions are personal. Though they can be strongly held, they are not to be a source of division and debate, which undermines unity. Thus, these matters are not be debated, but are to be kept to oneself.

That is not to suggest that the Bible has nothing to say about what godly leadership looks like, and perhaps its political implications. The Book of Proverbs has much to say on this subject.

One more thing on this subject. I in no way am seeking to discourage concerned Christians from participating in the American political process, either as a candidate, or as a supporter. I would encourage all to vote, rather than to refuse to exercise their freedom and responsibility as a citizen of this country. Engaging in the political process allows one to express their biblical beliefs and convictions.

Fourteenth, according to Proverbs, what gives a person standing before kings and rulers is their skill and wisdom.

This was the case with Joseph in Egypt, and with Daniel in Babylon.

Do you see a person skilled in his work? He will take his position before kings; he will not take his position before obscure people (Proverbs 22:29).

It is especially noteworthy that Daniel’s influence and standing with kings spanned many years, and several administrations.

Fifteenth, one would do well to give serious thought to these words in Proverbs:

21 Fear the LORD, my child, as well as the king, and do not associate with rebels [literally those who are given to change], 22 for suddenly their destruction will overtake them, and who knows the ruinous judgment both the LORD and the king can bring? (Proverbs 24:21-22).

Sixteenth, I believe that a Christian in America today should see our political environment (as wonderful as it is) as exceptional, rather than as the norm.

Throughout the history of the world, exceedingly few Christians have had the luxury of living in a democracy, which protects the rights of Christians, and gives the degree of freedom we experience today (and claim as our right). Let us not think our situation to be the norm, because it is the exception. Indeed, a number of Scriptures dealing with ruling authorities speak in reference to a king (see Acts 9:15; 12:12; 25:13; 1 Timothy 2:2; 1 Peter 2:13, 17).

Seventeenth, I take Jesus' warning seriously, as He speaks of the dangers of the last days, and particularly that of being deceived by false messiahs:

As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, his disciples came to him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 Jesus answered them, “Watch out that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars. Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these things are the beginning of birth pains. 9 “Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you. You will be hated by all the nations because of my name. 10 Then many will be led into sin, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will appear and deceive many” (Matthew 24:3-11).

In the last days, before the return of our Lord, Jesus told us that things are going to go from bad to worse. The first thing Jesus says to His disciples, who have asked Him to tell them when the kingdom will come, is to be careful that they are not deceived. Why is this such a great danger that Jesus makes His warning so emphatic? I think it is because when things get really bad (and they will), Christians will want a deliverer to rescue them, and, as a result, there will be many political “false messiahs” who will claim to fill that role. But the Messiah won’t come until after all these painful and unpleasant things take place. And when He does come, there will be no doubt that it is He. No earthly political leader is the Messiah. Therefore, let us not look to earthly leaders to save us. Let us look to Christ:

7 When the LORD saw that they humbled themselves, he gave this message to Shemaiah: “They have humbled themselves, so I will not destroy them. I will deliver them soon. My anger will not be unleashed against Jerusalem through Shishak. 8 Yet they will become his subjects, so they can experience how serving me differs from serving the surrounding nations” (2 Chronicles 12:7-8).

1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:1-2).

It might serve us well to conclude with the testimony of one of the most powerful kings that ever lived:

29 After twelve months, he happened to be walking around on the battlements of the royal palace of Babylon. 30 The king uttered these words: “Is this not the great Babylon that I have built for a royal residence by my own mighty strength and for my majestic honor?” 31 While these words were still on the king's lips, a voice came down from heaven: “It is hereby announced to you, King Nebuchadnezzar, that your kingdom has been removed from you! 32 You will be driven from human society, and you will live with the wild animals. You will be fed grass like oxen, and seven periods of time will pass by for you before you understand that the Most High is ruler over human kingdoms and gives them to whomever he wishes.” 33 Now in that very moment this pronouncement about Nebuchadnezzar came true. He was driven from human society, he ate grass like oxen, and his body became damp with the dew of the sky, until his hair became long like an eagle's feathers, and his nails like a bird's claws. 34 But at the end of the appointed time I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked up toward heaven, and my sanity returned to me. I extolled the Most High, and I praised and glorified the one who lives forever. For his authority is an everlasting authority, and his kingdom extends from one generation to the next. 35 All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he wishes with the army of heaven and with those who inhabit the earth. No one slaps his hand and says to him, ‘What have you done?’ 36 At that time my sanity returned to me. I was restored to the honor of my kingdom, and my splendor returned to me. My ministers and my nobles were seeking me out, and I was reinstated over my kingdom. I became even greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, for all his deeds are right and his ways are just. He is able to bring down those who live in pride” (Daniel:29-37).

Therefore, let us not put our trust in men, but in God:

1 Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD, O my soul!
2 I will praise the LORD as long as I live!
I will sing praises to my God as long as I exist!
3 Do not trust in princes, or in human beings, who cannot deliver!
4 Their life's breath departs, they return to the ground; on that day their plans die.
5 How blessed is the one whose helper is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the LORD his God,
6 the one who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
who remains forever faithful,
7 vindicates the oppressed, and gives food to the hungry.
The LORD releases the imprisoned.
8 The LORD gives sight to the blind.
The LORD lifts up all who are bent over.
The LORD loves the godly.
9 The LORD protects those residing outside their native land;
he lifts up the fatherless and the widow, but he opposes the wicked.
10 The LORD rules forever, your God, O Zion, throughout the generations to come!
Praise the LORD! (Psalm 146:1-10)

22. Standing Firm in Spiritual Warfare

Related Media

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Ephesians 6:10-13)

How can we stand firm in spiritual warfare?

In this text, Paul talks about the spiritual war every Christian is engaged in. When a person accepts Christ as Savior, he crosses over from the realm of darkness to the realm of light. He enters a spiritual war that includes demons and angels battling over the souls of men.

Sadly, many Christians live without any real awareness of this battle, and are therefore losing it. There are two wrong views of this battle: some see Satan and his demons in every cough, problem at work, or difficulty with their car. He gets far too much credit in many Christian circles. However, in other circles, Christians act as if Satan doesn’t really exist. They know he is there, but they live without any true awareness of his activity in their lives.

We must recognize that Satan is real. He is an enemy of God and an enemy of the church. He tempts, traps, deceives, and kills, and nobody is exempt from his wrath. In light of this, Paul exhorts us to live the Spirit-filled life. In Ephesians 5:18, he calls believers to be filled with the Spirit, and then in the following verses, he looks at the results of the filling, including the Spirit-filled marriage, home, and workplace (v. 19-33, 6:1-9). A believer who is living a life of power—one that affects and changes people—will receive special attention from the evil one. He doesn’t waste his best resources on those far away from God, but the closer a person gets to God and the more faithful he or she is, the more the enemy attacks.

It is not uncommon for me to talk to men and women who experience more problems the closer they get to God. The more they read their Bible, the more involved they get in church or ministry, the more problems they encounter. In fact, I remember one young man sharing the constant problems he experienced when faithfully reading his Bible, and it made him not want to read it at all. This is exactly how our enemy works.

As seen with Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden, he wants people to doubt God and to turn away from following him. There is no greater joy for the enemy than when a believer is angry at God or cursing him. That was his objective when attacking Job—he wanted Job to curse God (Job 1:11), and he wants us to do so as well.

In Ephesians 6, Paul talks about standing firm in spiritual warfare. The phrase “stand firm” (from histēmi), when used in a military sense, had the idea of holding a critical position while under attack.”¹ He mentions our need to stand four times (v.11,13-14). Essentially, he says the wobbly Christian—the one not serious about God and trapped in sin—cannot stand in this war. He will be destroyed. Sadly, many fail to stand in this battle. MacArthur’s comments are helpful in considering this reality:

Countless men and women have faithfully taught Sunday school for years, led many people to Jesus Christ, pastored a church, led Bible studies, ministered to the sick, and done every sort of service in the Lord’s name—only to one day give up, turn their backs on His work, and disappear into the world. The circumstances differ, but the underlying reason is always the same: they took God’s armor off and thereby lost the courage, the power, and the desire to stand firm.²

How can we stand in this treacherous war and not miss our calling, be taken captive, or be destroyed? We’ll consider three ways to stand firm in this spiritual war.

Big Question: How can believers stand firm in spiritual warfare according to Ephesians 6:10-13?

Believers Stand Firm by Being Prepared

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God…(Ephesians 6:10-11)

In order to stand firm, believers must prepare for battle. This is true for any warfare—a soldier cannot be successful without preparation. Governments invest billions of dollars into training their soldiers both mentally and physically, and such commitment should be similar for Christians—no corners should be cut in becoming spiritually prepared. Many lose this battle simply because of failure to prepare.

Paul says to “be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God.” Essentially, Paul wants believers to understand that this battle cannot be won through human strength, but in God’s strength alone. He talks about God’s power throughout Ephesians. In Ephesians 1:18-21, he prays for the believers to know this power.

I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.

This power raised Christ from the dead and put Satan and his demons under his feet (and therefore also under ours according to Ephesians 2:6). We must know that this power is in us. But also in Ephesians 3:16, Paul prays for the believers to be strengthened by it. He says, “I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being.” Finally, in Ephesians 5:18, he calls for us to be filled with the Spirit—meaning to be controlled and empowered by him.

A powerless Christianity is a vulnerable Christianity—in danger of being enslaved and destroyed by the enemy. This is what we see in most churches and in most Christians’ lives—a powerless Christianity. We must constantly pray to know the power that is in us, to be strengthened by it, and to be continually filled with it. That is what Paul again calls for in Ephesians 6:10. “Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power”—the same power that raised Christ from the dead and seated him in heavenly places over the enemy. We must put on the full armor of God so we can take our stand.

Since the verb “strong” is passive present, the verse could also be rendered, ‘‘Strengthen yourselves in the Lord” or (neb) “Find your strength in the Lord.” It is the same construction as in 2 Timothy 2:1 where Paul exhorts Timothy to “take strength from the grace of God which is ours in Christ Jesus” (neb).³

In considering the armor of God, we must realize that throughout Scripture clothing often refers to attitudes and actions (cf. Col 3:12-14, Eph 4:24-25). The armor is God’s clothing, as it essentially represents his character. Isaiah 59:17 says, “He put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak.” Therefore, we prepare for battle by putting on God’s power and God’s character.

Interpretation Question: How can we be strong in the Lord (God’s power) and put on his armor (God’s character)?

1. We must recognize our weakness.

If we don’t recognize our insufficiency for this battle, we won’t put on God’s strength and character. Therefore, to prepare us for a lifetime of battle, God often allows us to go through pain, trials, and failure first to show us our weakness. Paul said this in 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 about God’s response to his request to take away the thorn in the flesh:

But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

Often trials are meant to reveal our weakness so we can see our need for more of God’s power and character.

2. We must be dependent.

Again, Ephesians 6:10 can be translated, “Find your strength in the Lord.” We need to depend on God to stand in this battle. Sadly, too many Christians are independent. You can see this in their lack of desire to read the Bible, pray, or fellowship with other believers. Why is this so common? It is because they are too independent. They believe that they can make it on their own.

However, the very opposite is true. We can do nothing without Christ. We are like sheep without a shepherd. We are like branches apart from the vine. John 15:5 says, “‘I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”

Are you abiding in Christ? Are you drawing near him daily? Or are you independent, and therefore losing this spiritual battle?

3. We must be disciplined.

The present tense of the verb “be strong” means that it is not a once and for all event—be strong—but a constant strengthening through God.⁴ The implication of this is that we need discipline. If it were a one-time event we could stop working, but it is not. We need to continue to strengthen ourselves in the Lord.

Discipline is not only necessary to be empowered by God, but also to put on his character—his armor. 1 Timothy 4:7 says, “discipline yourself unto godliness” or, as it can also be translated, “exercise yourself unto godliness.” We need to practice spiritual disciplines—prayer, Bible reading, fellowship, serving, solitude, and giving—daily in order to become holy.

The Christian with poor spiritual discipline is like the soldier without discipline—unprepared and therefore vulnerable to attack.

4. We must be thorough.

Paul says to put on the “full” armor of God (Eph 6:11). Partial preparation will not do. If there are any chinks in our armor—which symbolizes our character—that is exactly where the enemy will attack. If we commonly struggle with unforgiveness, lust, anger, or lack of self-control, the enemy will attack in those areas. We must be thorough in this battle. In physical warfare, little compromises can get someone captured or killed, and it is the same in spiritual warfare. We must constantly repent of our sins and seek to get right with God. We must be thorough—putting on the full armor of God.

If we are going to stand in this battle, we must be prepared by knowing our weakness, depending on God, being disciplined, and being thorough.

Application Question: How is God calling you to seek his power and character in your life? What are your spiritual disciplines like? How can you strengthen them?

Believers Stand Firm by Knowing the Enemy

Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:11-12)

A crucial part of every army is the intelligence branch. Those who work in intel gather information about the enemy so the army can be equipped and prepared. In Ephesians 6:11-12, Paul gives intel about our enemy so we can be equipped to stand firm in this war.

Paul mentions the devil’s schemes (v.11). The word “schemes” in the Greek is methodia, from which we get the English word “method.” It carries the idea of craftiness, cunning, and deception. It was used of a “wild animal who cunningly stalked and then unexpectedly pounced on its prey. Satan’s evil schemes are built around stealth and deception.”⁵

Paul refers to awareness of the devil’s schemes in 2 Corinthians 2:11: “in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.” In order for believers to not be outwitted and to stand firm, they must know their enemy and his schemes.

Interpretation Question: What are some of the devil’s schemes—his methods?

1. The devil uses accusation.

The name “devil” actually means “accuser.” One of the devil’s primary tactics against believers is to accuse and condemn. He accuses God to our ears—slandering his goodness and his faithfulness. Many people struggle with worship because they have accepted the enemy’s accusations of God. As in Satan’s attack on Eve, the enemy tempts us to doubt God’s goodness so we will fall into sin.

But Satan also accuses us. He does this primarily through condemnation. After he successfully tempts us to sin, he then says, “Feel bad—feel really bad!” in order to further pull us away from God. Because of their stumbles, many Christians don’t feel worthy to read the Bible, go to church, or serve. In contrast, the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin so we will draw near to God; he doesn’t condemn us and push us away from God.

Finally, Satan accuses other people. He continually brings up the failures of others and seeks to draw us into anger, discord and unforgiveness. Many Christians have left the church because they listened to the devil’s accusations.

One of his methods is accusation. He accuses God, us, and others.

2. The devil uses deception.

Very similar to accusation is the devil’s tactic of deception. Jesus says the devil is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). He lied to Eve about God’s Word and God’s intentions. Since the devil oversees the world system, it is a system built on lies. He lies about what humanity is, what success is, what beauty is, and many other things. Satan lies in order to lead people away from God and his best for their lives.

He wants people to think they are an accident of evolution instead of the purposeful creation of God. He wants people to think that something is wrong with them—they are not pretty enough, smart enough, tall enough, tan enough, light enough, etc. We live in a world full of discouragement and depression because it is based on Satan’s lies.

He also deceives people about the Word of God. The church is full of false teachings and cults because of the lies of the devil. 1 Timothy 4:1 calls these lies “doctrines of demons.” Second Corinthians 11:14-15 says, “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.” He and his servants twist God’s Word—creating false teachings or leading people to doubt the accuracy and inerrancy of the Word. He ultimately does this to lead people away from believing in Christ and God all together.

3. The devil uses persecution and fear of persecution.

Though the devil’s favorite tactic is to use deception like a serpent, he often shows up as a lion to incite fear and to destroy. First Peter 5:8 says, “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”

In many nations around the world, he works to quiet believers or turn them away from God through fear and persecution. He roars so believers will be quiet about their faith instead of being the bold witnesses they are called to be. Christ describes the end times as a time of persecution, and a time when many will fall away from the faith because of it. In Matthew 24:9-10, he says:

“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,”

4. The devil uses the world.

Since the devil is not omnipresent, he uses the world system to draw believers away from God. It is essentially a system without God—meant to lead and corrupt people. Satan uses this system to deceive and to conform people to his image. First John 5:19 says, “We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.”

We must be aware that Satan is over the fashion industry, the entertainment industry, education, government, and religion. When he offered Jesus the kingdoms of this world, it was a literal offer (Matt 4:8-9).

When Christians are aware of this reality, they keep themselves from befriending the world (James 4:4), loving the world (1 John 2:15), being spotted or polluted by it (James 1:27), and ultimately being conformed to it (Rom 12:2)—where they look just like the world (1 Cor 3:3).

5. The devil works through our flesh.

Our flesh is the unredeemed part of our bodies—it desires to sin and rebel against God. Though saved, we still carry this part of our nature, which came from Adam. When we give in to the flesh, we open the door for the enemy to work in our lives. Ephesians 4:26-27 talks about how anger gives the devil a foothold. But this is also true of lying, stealing, lust, unforgiveness, corrupt talk, and worldly thoughts. The devil works through our flesh.

We get a good picture of this in the account of Christ rebuking Satan while talking to Peter. Matthew 16:21-23 says:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

What gave Satan the door into Peter’s life? It was his secular, worldly thinking. He was mindful of the things of men and not the things of God. Man doesn’t want to sacrifice—he wants prosperity, wealth, and health. Acceptance of death and sacrifice are not part of his old nature. Therefore, many people open doors to the enemy simply because their minds are still secular—their thinking has not been transformed through the Word of God (Rom 12:2).

6. The devil works through an army of demons.

Paul says this in Ephesians 6:12: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

Scripture teaches that demons are fallen angels. Revelation 12:4 says that at Satan’s fall a third of the angels fell with him.

How many demons are there? We don’t know. But we do know that Satan could spare up to 6,000 of them to focus on one person. In the story of the demoniac in Mark 5:9, the demons said their name was Legion. As a Roman legion consisted of up to 6,000 men,⁶ the fallen angels appear to be innumerable. Satan has no shortage of allies, and all of them are seeking to destroy the people of God and the plans of God.

Paul doesn’t teach us everything about demons, but there are many things that can be discerned from this passage.

Observation Question: What characteristics of demons can be discerned from Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 6:12?

Demons are supernatural.

Paul says we don’t battle against flesh and blood. This means that demons are supernatural, and that our primary opponents are not evil people, but the power that works behind them. Wiersbe’s comments are helpful here:

The important point is that our battle is not against human beings. It is against spiritual powers. We are wasting our time fighting people when we ought to be fighting the devil who seeks to control people and make them oppose the work of God… The advice of the King of Syria to his soldiers can be applied to our spiritual battle: “Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king” (1 Kings 22:31).⁷

Demons are wicked.

Again, Paul says our struggle is against “the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Darkness symbolizes evil in the Bible. That is the demons’ character—there is nothing good in them. They are the spiritual forces of evil. John Stott says this about demons:

If we hope to overcome them, we shall need to bear in mind that they have no moral principles, no code of honour, no higher feelings. They recognize no Geneva Convention to restrict or partially civilize the weapons of their warfare. They are utterly unscrupulous, and ruthless in the pursuit of their malicious designs.⁸

Demons are organized.

The demonic categories that Paul uses are not explained, but they seem to represent “differing degrees of authority, such as presidents, governors, mayors, and aldermen, on the human scale.”⁹

“Rulers” in the Greek is the word kosmokratoras or, with an anglicized rendering, “cosmocrats.”¹⁰ It can be translated literally as “world rulers.” This probably refers to demons that are set over nations or regions. In Daniel, we see powerful demons called “princes” over Persia and Greece (Daniel 10:20). The angel who spoke with Daniel was involved in a battle with two of these demons. In the same way, there are demons that rule like princes and generals over nations and cities—seeking to turn the people and the culture away from God. It is very interesting to consider that when Christ cast the demons out of the demoniac (Mark 5), they begged him not to send them out of the country. It seems that even the minions are territorial—focused on whatever territory or person they are assigned to.

“Authorities, powers of this dark world, and spiritual forces of evil” also seem to reflect varying ranks. MacArthur says this about the “spiritual forces of evil”:

The spiritual forces of wickedness are possibly those demons who are involved in the most wretched and vile immoralities—such as extremely perverse sexual practices, the occult, Satan worship, and the like.¹¹

What else can we discern about our enemy?

7. The devil wants to kill us.

Paul says our “struggle is not against flesh and blood.” The word “struggle” was used of hand to hand combat—especially wrestling. However, wrestling in the ancient world was often a fight to the death.¹² This wrestling wasn’t just for sport; it was deadly combat. The devil and his demons don’t want to just tempt us and lead us into sin; they ultimately want to kill and destroy us. Jesus says this about Satan in John 10:10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

When Satan leads people into ungodly language, secular thinking, selfishness, or compromise, though they may seem harmless at the time, he ultimately wants to lead them to their destruction. The devil is nobody to play with—he is a destroyer.

The only reason he has not killed us is that God is the ultimate sovereign. As in the story of Job, God sets boundaries on how far the enemy can go. If Satan cannot kill us, he is content to attack our bodies, our sleep, our joy, our peace, our testimonies, our callings, and our relationships—with the hope of destroying them. Our enemy is a murderer, and our only hope is our Shepherd—Jesus.

8. The devil often attacks in an overwhelming manner.

Paul says for us to put on the full armor of God so that we may stand in the “day of evil,” or the “evil day,” as it’s called in the ESV (Eph 6:13). MacDonald says this about the evil day:

The evil day probably refers to any time when the enemy comes against us like a flood. Satanic opposition seems to occur in waves, advancing and receding. Even after our Lord’s temptation in the wilderness, the devil left Him for a season (Luke 4:13).¹³

Job experienced the “evil day” when the devil attacked his body, his family, his finances, and his friends for a season. This happens with many believers. Satan desires to make people give up, get angry at God, and turn away from him. A believer that is not being filled with the Spirit, who is not strong in the Lord, will fall prey to our enemy on this day.

Application Questions: What are some other characteristics of our enemy? What is a healthy perspective for Christians to have regarding the devil and spiritual warfare? What is an unhealthy one?

Believers Stand Firm by Fighting

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Ephesians 6:13)

Paul writes of the need to stand firm four times in Ephesians 6; however, it must be remembered that this standing is not a passive, defensive stance. It is, in fact, active and offensive. Ephesians 6:17 and 19 tell us so.

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God…Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,

The sword was not primarily a defensive weapon, but an offensive one. As we share the Word of God with others, we are on the offensive. In fact, Paul prays for grace in sharing the gospel with others (v. 19).

It has been said that the best defense is a great offense. When the enemy is constantly being attacked, it is hard for him to mount an effective offense. Similarly, when Paul was going throughout the Gentile world spreading the gospel, he was fighting against the darkness. He was setting captives of Satan free by leading them to Christ. He was exposing the Roman world to light so that the darkness began to flee, and it must be the same for us.

We also see this in Christ’s words about building his church in Matthew 16:18. He says, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” The gates of Hades not prevailing is a picture of the church on the offensive. Believers are taking the battering ram of the gospel and breaking down the gates of Hades in communities, cities, and nations. This is a proper picture of God’s battle plan for the church in this war.

Application Question: How can believers fight this spiritual battle?

1. We must know what we are fighting for.

In a war, a soldier fights to protect his home, his family, his country, and his freedom. These things motivate him, and it must be the same for believers. If we don’t know what we’re fighting for, our spiritual lives often become dreary and lifeless.

What do believers fight for?

Believers fight for the souls of the lost.

Jesus says this to Paul about his calling as an apostle in Acts 26:17-18:

“I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”

Similarly, Christians must recognize that they are on a rescue mission to save the lost from eternal darkness.

Believers fight to please God and be rewarded by him.

Consider these verses:

Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. (2 John 1:8)

No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Corinthians 9:27)

John calls Christians to be careful to not lose their reward, but rather to seek a full reward from God. Similarly, Paul was not afraid of losing his salvation, but he feared losing his reward and ultimately his usefulness. We fight to please God and to be rewarded by him. Believers with no desire to please God will not fight—they will remain spiritually lethargic.

Believers fight to glorify God with their lives.

First Corinthians 10:31 says, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” Even our fighting in this war is for the glory of God. When Christ went into the temple and turned over tables, he was consumed with zeal for God’s house (John 2:17), and with the glory of God. Similarly, we fight because we are consumed with the glory of God. A person not consumed with God’s glory—God being exalted throughout the world—will not fight.

How else can believers fight this battle?

2. We must know that the war has already been won, and we must fight with Christ’s authority.

Another important reality that every believer must understand when fighting this battle is that the war is already won. Therefore, we are not fighting to win, but because we’ve won. We see this taught in many texts, including the following:

And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (Colossians 2:15)

This is important to understand so that we don’t become discouraged and quit. Christ has already won this battle on the cross. Satan—the serpent—bit his heel, but Jesus crushed the serpent’s head by his own death and resurrection (cf. Gen 3:15). He disarmed the evil powers and authorities, and was raised up in authority over them. Christians must remember this.

This is why when Paul encountered those possessed with demons, he cast them out in the “name of Jesus” (Acts 16:18). He declared Christ’s authority over them. We must walk in this reality as well. Christ is seated in authority over the demonic powers; he disarmed them and has placed us in authority over them as well—because we are in Christ (Eph 2:6).

As Paul did, there may be times where you need to rebuke the devil in “the name of Jesus”—declaring Christ’s authority. You may have to pray in authority over people stuck in spiritual depression (cf. 1 Sam 16:15), habitual sin (cf. Eph 4:26-27), or some type of demonic illness (cf. Lk 13:11). You may need to speak and stand on this reality in your own life, as you feel assaulted by the enemy emotionally, physically, and socially. Yes, the flesh and the world tempt and attack us, but we also must recognize this very real evil force—the devil and his demons—and the authority Christ has given us in his name (cf. Matt 28:18-19).

Application Questions: Why is it important to be on the offensive in spiritual warfare? What is your motivation to fight?

Conclusion

How can believers stand firm in this spiritual war?

Believers Stand Firm by Being Prepared (with God’s Power and Character)
Believers Stand Firm by Knowing the Enemy
Believers Stand Firm by Fighting

Unless otherwise noted, the primary Scriptures used are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked KJV or AKJV are from the King James Version or Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible.

All emphases in Scripture quotations and commentators’ quotations have been added.

¹ MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1986). Ephesians (pp. 337–338). Chicago: Moody Press.

² MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1986). Ephesians (p. 344). Chicago: Moody Press.

³ Stott, J. R. W. (1979). God’s new society: the message of Ephesians (pp. 266–267). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

⁴ Foulkes, F. (1989). Ephesians: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 10, p. 175). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

⁵ MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1986). Ephesians (p. 338). Chicago: Moody Press.

⁶ Accessed 10/31/2015 from http://global.britannica.com/topic/legion

⁷ Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (Vol. 2, p. 57). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

⁸ Stott, J. R. W. (1979). God’s new society: the message of Ephesians (p. 264). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

⁹ MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (p. 1952). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

¹⁰ Hughes, R. K. (1990). Ephesians: the mystery of the body of Christ (p. 215). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

¹¹ MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1986). Ephesians (p. 341). Chicago: Moody Press.

¹² MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1986). Ephesians (p. 340). Chicago: Moody Press.

¹³ MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments. (A. Farstad, Ed.) (p. 1952). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

64. David's Son (Luke 20:41-21:4)

Matthew 22:41-46 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Luke 20:41–21:4 Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” 45 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 46 “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.” 1 As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

Mark 12:35-44 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ 37 David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with delight.

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling His disciples to him, Jesus said, I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Introduction

A friend of days gone by used to tell the story of his uncle, who had just purchased a new convertible, and was enjoying a ride in the Ozark Mountains (as I recall the story). He had the top down and the radio up. He did not notice the man in car behind him, eager to pass, and getting more and more irritated. Nor did he hear the man’s horn, blaring obnoxiously at him. Finally, the man behind had had enough. He found room to get by the uncle, but instead of going on by, he forced the fellow off the road, jumped out of his car and came alongside in a very hostile mood.

The uncle was quick to apologize. He was sorry, he said. He had been driving too slow and he had not been observant to see that the man behind wanted to pass him. He had said all that one could say to apologize, but the angry driver was not satisfied. He told him that he was going to yank him from the car and thump on him. Only that would appease his anger. The uncle realized that words would not suffice, and so he reached under the seat and pulled out his service 45 pistol, and pointed it at the enraged driver. It didn’t take that fellow very long to have a change of heart. Without hesitation he said, “I accept your apology,” turned and drove off.

That 45 changed things considerably. It did not change the hostile motorist’s attitude, but it did end the discussion. Jesus did not pull a 45 on His adversaries, but when our Lord drew His opponent’s attention to the 110th Psalm, it did end the discussion. Matthew informs us that from this time on no one dared to ask Jesus a question (Matthew 22:46). The debate was over.

The final words of chapter 20 are the powerful argument that could be raised in response to the challenges of this “tempest in the temple.” It was not just the words of Jesus, but the words of David in Psalm 110 that were produced with stunning force. The more I read this psalm, the more I am amazed at its message. And, the more I wonder at the restraint our Lord used, not drawing attention to all of the painful particulars which were there. For example, Jesus did draw attention to the fact that David referred to “his son,” the Messiah, as “his Lord,” but He did not ask the teachers of the Law (Mark 12:35), the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41), who the enemies of the Lord were. What a powerful passage! What remarkable reserve! Let us look more carefully to consider what Jesus intended to accomplish by bringing it to the attention of those who had gathered at the temple.

Background

Jesus had entered Jerusalem as the “King of Israel,” but His entry was not altogether triumphal. The people of Jerusalem and the leaders there were not so enthusiastic as were the masses who had come temporarily to that city. Some of the welcoming crowds were those who had followed Jesus there, while others seem to be pilgrims to the city for the Passover celebration. The leaders of the nation had already purposed to put Jesus to death (cf. John 11:47-51; Luke 19:47). The matter had not yet become personal, however. This all changed when Jesus marched on the temple, threw out those who violated its purposes, and appeared there daily to teach (Luke 19:45-48). It is the Lord’s possession of the temple in its cleansing and His subsequent teaching there daily which is the backdrop, the setting for all that occurs in chapters 20 and 21 of Luke’s gospel.

It was while Jesus was teaching in the temple that He was confronted by the leaders of the people. These Jewish leaders came from a broad spectrum of doctrinal and applicational points of view, from the Pharisees on the far right, to the Sadducees on the far left. They first of all confronted Jesus directly as to His authority. “Who do you think you are, and by whom were you sent?” was the essence of their two questions. Jesus first of all refused to give a direct answer, based upon their refusal to commit themselves on the issue of the authority of John the Baptist. If they regarded John as from God, then they had to accept Jesus as the Messiah, for John had thus introduced Him as such. If they rejected John’s authority—which they were inclined to do, but unwilling to take the heat for—they would incur the wrath of the masses, who believed John to be a prophet, sent by God and who spoke for Him.

In His parable of the vineyard and the vine-growers (Luke 20:9-18), Jesus did answer the question of the leaders, but in an indirect way, and to the people who believed Him to be from God. From the parable, He indicated that He was not merely a prophet, like John, but actually the Son of God. As such, He had the authority of God Himself, for He was God, and He also had the authority of the Father, who had sent Him. But there was more. He went on to indicate that His rejection by the leaders of Israel would lead to their removal and destruction, and, horror of horrors, that their leadership roles would be filled by Gentiles.

Now the rejection of Jesus was fueled by great personal animosity. It was a very personal issue with the leaders of Israel. If they had coolly planned to destroy Jesus before hand, now they could not wait to get their hands on him immediately. They tried, but were unsuccessful, and thus they resorted to a more devious and indirect approach (Luke 20:19-20). They had come to the decision that they could not handle Jesus, especially in light of the broad support which Jesus still had among the masses. They therefore planned a course of action which would legally kill Jesus, in spite of the support of the masses. They conspired to catch Jesus in His words, to entrap Him in some statement against Rome, so that the political authorities—the governor (Luke 20:20)—would arrest Him and put Him to death for treason.

The first question looked like it could not fail to incriminate Jesus. They asked Jesus, as One claiming to be Messiah, whether or not they, as Israelites, should pay taxes to Caesar (Luke 20:21-22). Would the King of Israel, who was foretold to be coming to throw off the shackles of Gentile rulers, advocate paying taxes to such a pagan? They Jews could not conceive of such thing. Jesus’ answer rocked them. Because it failed to achieve their intended purpose, because their hypocrisy was exposed, and because Jesus actually taught that taxes should be paid to pagan kings.

The Sadducees viewed the stunned silence that followed as their golden opportunity. They would seek to prove their point, that there was no resurrection, and they would “use” Jesus, the greatest teacher of that day, to do so. So they thought, at least. But Jesus’ answer showed that they had not thought their theology through very carefully. They based their whole argument on a passage from the law of Moses, from a temporary covenant, rather than on the basis of the new covenant and the promises made to Abraham. They had wrongly assumed that life in the kingdom would be like life on earth, and thus they had assumed that marriage would continue on in that future age. Jesus corrected this error. He also demonstrated that Moses could not be cited as rejecting the truth of a resurrection from the dead, showing from His own writings that He viewed God as the God of those who had died, but yet whom He considered alive, still. Moses not only failed to fit into their theological scheme, he refuted it.

The Pharisees and the Herodians had posed the first question, about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-16); the Sadducees had raised the issue of the resurrection of the dead. The teachers of the law, whom I assume to be Pharisees, cannot but praise the Lord for His answer (Luke 20:39). But now, Jesus has a question for them. It is a question about Scripture, a Scripture which I believe to be popularly understood as messianic—speaking of the Messiah. It was a Scripture which the Pharisees seemed to know well, and to teach on. Jesus was about to show the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41), the teachers of the law (Mark 12:35), how their theology failed to square with the Scriptures. Jesus turned the attention of His audience to Psalm 110, a psalm written by David, which spoke of Messiah to come. This is the same psalm to which Peter will forcefully use at the conclusion of his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:34-36).

How Can David’s Son Be David’s Lord?
(20:41-44)

41 Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?”⁶⁸

The Pharisees enjoyed the way that Jesus had silenced and their opponents, the Sadducees, when they sought to entrap Jesus in such a way as to give credence to their rejection of the resurrection of the dead. Thus they could not restrain themselves from praising Jesus for His response, even though they had set out on a course of trying to catch Jesus in His words. But the Pharisees did not handle the Scriptures skillfully either, as Jesus is about to show. They failed to take the Scriptures seriously enough, as could be seen by their handling of Psalm 110, a psalm which Judaism held to be messianic.⁶⁹ Let us begin by looking at the psalm in its entirety:

The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.” The LORD will stretch forth Thy strong scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of Thine enemies.” Thy people will volunteer freely in the day of Thy power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Thy youth are to Thee as the dew. The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, “Thou art a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” The Lord is at Thy right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore He will lift up His head (Psalm 110).

In Matthew’s account, Jesus is reported as having asked the Pharisees directly about whose son the Christ was (22:41-42). In Mark and Luke, Jesus seems to be speaking to others about the teaching of the Pharisees. I see no contradiction. Jesus was daily in the temple, teaching the people. It was also here that our Lord was confronted and challenged by the leadership of the nation. I believe that Jesus asked the Pharisees directly, at this time of confrontation, and then referred to it in His subsequent teaching. They had all heard the question posed to the Pharisees by Jesus, and the answer that was given. Now, Jesus would challenge the crowd to think about what they had heard, and to come to their own conclusions.

When the Pharisees were asked, “Whose son was Messiah, the Christ?,” there was no hesitation in their response. Everyone who looked for Messiah’s coming believed he was to be the “son of David.” This was indicated by the prophets, who said that the Messiah would come through the line of David, and who would reign on the throne of David (cf. 2 Samuel 7:8-29; Isa. 9:5-7; Mic. 5:2). At the birth of our Lord, it was emphasized that Jesus was of the line of David, and that He had come to reign on His father’s throne (Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4). In Luke 18:38, the blind man on the outskirts of Jericho called to Jesus as the “Son of David.” The Messiah was to be David’s son. This seems to have meant two things to the Israelite. (1) Messiah would be of the Davidic line; and (2) Messiah would be a man—human. It was not carried through so as to be consistent with other revelation—that Messiah would also be divine, that Messiah was to be both man and God:

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this (Isaiah 9:6-7, NASB).

Jesus did not appeal to Isaiah to prove His point, but rather to the 110th psalm, a psalm of David. This psalm does not stress the humanity of Messiah. David did not refer to the Messiah as “his Son,” but rather reveals the words of the Father Himself (“The LORD,” v. 1), who speaks to Messiah, His Son and David’s Lord (“my Lord,” v. 1). It was taught in Scripture that Messiah would be the “son of David,” and yet David himself refers to Messiah as “his Lord.” How can this be? There was a clear, simple, but miraculous answer—the incarnation. Jesus Christ was, as the Old Testament Scriptures foretold, and as the New Testament writers attested and confirmed, both God and man, human and divine, through the miracle of the virgin birth. Before the birth of our Lord, the two aspects of His character and nature—the divine and the human—seemed in conflict, but not after His birth. The incarnation was a miracle, but it is the all-powerful God who promised it, and who brought it to pass.

I believe that Jesus chose Psalm 110 over all other available texts for several reasons:

(1) Since the Messiah was commonly understood to be a “son of David,” who could speak with more authority on his son than David?

(2) The 110th Psalm went far beyond the issue of Messiah’s humanity and His deity, referring to His coming in power to overthrow His enemies. In addition to speaking of Jesus as Israel’s King, it also taught that He would be her priest, of an entirely different order than the Aaronic priesthood. This must have been a rather disconcerting thought to the priests.

(3) Psalm 110 reveals the attitude of David, as Israel’s leader, to the superiority of his Son. In ancient times, some kings killed their offspring, so that they could not take over their throne. Other kings would have taken great pride in their son, saying repeatedly, as it were, “That’s my son!” David gratefully anticipated the day of his Son’s enthronement, and he wrote a psalm of worship in response to God’s revelation to him. David welcomed His Son’s greatness, his superiority to himself.

(4) Psalm 110 confronts the Israelite with a very perplexing problem, a problem which is central and foundational to the Israelite leaders’ rejection of Jesus as the Christ. The Psalm clearly teaches both the humanity of Messiah (a son of David) and His deity (David’s Lord). This was the fundamental problem which the leaders of Israel had with Jesus. If you could sum up the grievance of the Jewish leaders with Jesus, I believe it would be this: ALTHOUGH JESUS WAS MERELY A MAN (in the eyes of the Jews who rejected Him), HE HAD THE AUDACITY TO ACT LIKE GOD

From the very early portions of Luke’s gospel, the issue of our Lord’s humanity and His deity were stressed. In the birth narratives, Jesus’ birth was a miraculous one, so that the offspring of Mary and of the Holy Spirit—the virgin birth of Christ—was an utterly unique person, the God-man, Jesus the Christ, who was at one and the same time, fully man and fully God. In the fifth chapter of Luke’s gospel, Jesus told the man lowered on his pallet through the roof that his sins were forgiven. The Pharisees immediately objected, on the basis that only God could forgive sins (Luke 5:21). They reasoned, “How can a man claim divine prerogatives?” The answer was simple: “Jesus could claim to forgive sins because He was both man and God.”

This issue persisted throughout the life and ministry of our Lord, and came to its climax in the final week of our Lord’s earthly life and ministry, commencing with the triumphal entry, aggravated by the Lord’s cleansing of the temple, and by His teaching there. The question of Jesus’ authority, as recorded by Luke in chapter 20 (verses 1 & 2) was an outgrowth of the Israelite leadership’s rejection of our Lord’s claim to deity.

By citing this passage from Psalm 110, Jesus made it clear that they not only had a grievance with Jesus, who claimed to be both human and divine, but more so, they were inconsistent with the Old Testament Scriptures, even those written by King David, which spoke of Messiah as a man and as God. The citing of Psalm 110 by our Lord brought the central issue into focus, and showed it to be a truth taught clearly by the Scriptures.

Finally, David’s response to the fact that His son was superior to him was to provide a contrast with the attitude of the leaders of Jesus’ day, who resented Jesus superiority, and whose jealousy was so strong they purposed to put Him to death. That contrast becomes clear as we move to the next section, where the real motives of the Pharisees are exposed by our Lord.

The Messiah’s Foes
(20:45-47)

45 While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 46 “Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.”

The problems of Jesus’ foes were, in the first place, theological ones. For the Sadducees, it was the issue of the resurrection. For the Pharisees, it was the issue of Jesus’ deity that was the central bone of contention. Jesus has now addressed both of these issues in the preceding verses. He now moves on to the practical problem of the Pharisees, who are His principle focus. One problem was the that of abused authority, of wanting those things which belong to God, and to His Christ, who is God. They loved the position, prominence, power and prestige of leadership. They resented Jesus for “outranking them” and for rightfully becoming the object of men’s worship and praise.

Another problem of the Pharisees was that of hypocrisy. They wanted to appear righteous, to practice that kind of “righteousness” which could be seen and applauded by men (Luke 16:15). But the greed of the Pharisees led them to abuse their authority in another way: they used their power and position to take advantage of the weak and the powerless. In Jesus’ words, they “devoured widows’ houses.” To mask this, they made a great show of their “righteousness” by praying lengthy prayers. (It is interesting, by way of contrast, to note how short the recorded prayers of our Lord are.)

For their wickedness and hypocrisy, the Pharisees would be even more severely punished, for they had abused their stewardship of leadership. But what is the logical connection between what Jesus has just asked, pertaining to David’s son being also his Lord, and this? There is a very clear connection, I think. Consider it with me for a moment.

Look once again at that portion of Psalm 110 which our Lord has cited: “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ Not only has David called his son his Lord, but he has cited the Father’s words to the Son, which speak of a time of waiting, and then the overcoming of His enemies, whose overthrow paves the way to the establishment of His eternal throne.

Jesus’ question was an obvious and potent one, but there is an unstated question here, one which our Lord’s enemies could hardly have missed: “Who are Messiah’s enemies?” If Jesus were the Messiah, as He claimed, and as John had testified, then they were His enemies. They were the ones whom God would overthrow. And this is precisely what Jesus had suggested in the parable of the vineyard and the vine-growers earlier in this chapter (vss. 9-18).

These words of indictment, which are very briefly stated by Luke, are given in much greater detail in Matthew 23. But the indictment in both cases comes immediately after the question about David’s Lord. The enemies of Messiah are the enemies of Jesus, and these enemies are not Gentiles, but Jews, indeed they are the leaders of the nation, who have prostituted their power and position for their own gain, at the expense of the most vulnerable. The outcome was that the widows, those whom the law instructed Israelites to protect, were the victims of the leaders of Israel. No wonder they resisted Jesus, and no wonder God was about to destroy them.

Now, the contrast between David’s response to the revelation that his Son would be greater than he, and the attitude of the leaders of the nation Israel toward Jesus can be seen. David, upon hearing that his son would be his Lord, rejoiced. It was a day David longed to see. It was different with the leader of Israel and Jesus. The Lord’s words indicate that they came to enjoy the position, the prominence, the power, and even the riches that came with their position. They did not wish to relinquish this to anyone, not even Messiah. Thus, while David rejoiced at the knowledge that Messiah, his son, would be both God and man. The leaders of Jesus’ day rejected the deity of Messiah flat, especially in the person of Christ. Jesus’ citation of Psalm 110 forced them to reject this doctrine—the doctrine of Messiah’s deity—from the Scriptures themselves.

Note one more thing about Psalm 110. The second (unquoted) stanza of the psalm talks of the Messiah, not as Israel’s King, but as her Priest. How would you have felt, if you were one of the priests of that day, to have been reminded of this psalm, which spoke of a new order of priest, an order of which you were not a part? As Jesus had warned in the parable of the vine-growers, the position of the leaders would be taken away. The priesthood of a few would become the priesthood of all believers, especially (in this age) of Gentiles. And the Great High Priest would be Christ Himself, who is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. These would be sobering words to one who sought to preserve his position, and at the same time sought the destruction of Messiah.

The Contribution of
the Weak and Powerless
(21:1-4)

1 As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

It is somewhat perplexing as to why these first four verses of chapter 21 are divided, so that there is the suggestion that they relate more to the disciple’s comments on the glory of the temple (21:5ff.) than to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, at the end of chapter 20. The NASB version seems to leave them connected to chapter 20, while the NIV does not. In Mark’s account, however, the “widow’s offering” is kept as a part of chapter 12, with chapter 13 beginning with the disciples’ words about the temple.

It would seem to me that these four verses are placed here by Luke in contrast to the Pharisees, to show how God’s ways differ so greatly from those of men. The Pharisees loved riches, and they viewed wealth as an evidence of piety. God, in their minds, would be impressed by the wealthy, and would be especially pleased by the size of their contributions. In these last verses of Jesus has condemned the “rich and famous” and He commends the insignificant gift of a widow. While the Pharisees have “devoured widows’ houses,” it is the gift of one such widow which is the focus of our Lord’s praise and instruction. An insignificant amount of money greatly pleased Jesus, because of what it meant to her. It was her life, her livelihood, all that she had to live on. In giving this money, she evidenced her trust in God to provide for her needs, and to sustain her life. Her trust was in her God, not in her money. Poverty was no reason to cease in her giving to God. How many of us, on the other hand, are sure to have all of our needs met, first, and then to give God the left-overs?

What a rebuke to those of us who excuse ourselves from obedience to God because we have so little to give. You will recall that the one steward who “hid his master’s money” was the one who thought he had so little, while those with greater amounts did more. It was not the size of the gift, but the sacrifice and the faith which prompted it which Jesus praised. How different is our Lord from those who are in leadership and in large ministries today.

Finally, there is an implied contrast between the widow’s offering in verses 1-4 and the disciples’ admiration for the temple in verses 5 and following. Jesus was impressed with what took place in the temple—with the widow’s offering; the disciples were impressed with the temple itself—with its beauty and splendor. Man truly looks on the outward appearance, and God on the heart, here, as always.

Conclusion

We have now come to the “bottom line” in the on-going opposition of the Jewish leaders to Jesus. Their real contention is with Jesus’ self-acclaimed authority. This authority was different from and higher to any that they possessed, as was quickly perceived by the masses:

The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

Jesus’ authority to forgive sins was challenged in Luke chapter 5. His authority to enter Jerusalem as its King, and to possess the temple was just challenged. And the basis for His authority is rooted in His identity. Thus, the question of the religious and political leaders, as we might paraphrase it, “Just who do you think you are, anyway, claiming to have the authority to forgive sins, receiving men’s praises, and possessing the temple?”

If Jesus was the Messiah, He did have the authority to do everything He did. And if He was the Messiah, then according to the Scriptures, He was both man and God. Other texts clearly taught the humanity of Messiah—that He was to be the “son of David.” The psalm which David wrote, and to which Jesus referred, also taught the deity of Messiah, for David’s son could only be David’s Lord if He was Lord, if He was God.

The problem which the leaders had with Jesus was His authority, which was rooted in His identity. Jesus was a man who acted like God because He was the God-man, God incarnate. If the Jewish leaders did not like this, they must take the matter up with God and with His revealed Word, for this is not just what Jesus claimed, it is what the Scriptures taught. Even David, whose son was to be the Messiah, spoke of Him as His Lord. If the deity of Jesus Christ were granted, everything which He did and said would be explained and vindicated. The incarnation of our Lord is the bedrock foundation of everything which He did and said. Reject this truth and Jesus’ authority is nullified. Accept it, and we must submit to Him as Lord.

In a very excellent chapter in his book, Knowing God, J. I. Packer writes about the crucial role played by the incarnation of our Lord, and how the truth of His deity, mixed with His humanity, explains all that Jesus said and did:

But in fact the real difficulty, because the supreme mystery with which the gospel confronts us, does not lie here at all. It lies, not in the Good Friday message of atonement, nor in the Easter message of resurrection, but in the Christmas message of incarnation.… This is the real stumbling-block in Christianity. It is here that Jews, Moslems, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many of those who feel the difficulties above mentioned (about the virgin birth, the miracles, the atonement, and the resurrection), have come to grief. It is from misbelief, or at least inadequate belief, about the incarnation that difficulties at other points in the gospel story usually spring. But once the incarnation is grasped as a reality, these other difficulties dissolve.

If Jesus had been no more than a very remarkable, godly man, the difficulties in believing what the new Testament tells us about his life and work would be truly mountainous. But if Jesus was the same person as the eternal Word, the Father’s agent in creation, ‘through whom also he made the worlds’ (Heb. 1:2, RV), it is no wonder if fresh acts of creative power marked His coming into this world, and His life in it, and His exit from it. It is not strange that he, the author of life, should rise from the dead. If He was truly god the son, it is much more startling that He should die than that He should rise again. `’Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies,’ wrote Wesley; but there is no comparable mystery in the Immortal’s resurrection. And if the immortal son of God did really submit to taste death, it is not strange that such a death should have saving significance for a doomed race. Once we grant that Jesus was divine, it becomes unreasonable to find difficulty in any of this’ll it is all of a piece, and hangs together completely. The incarnation is in itself an unfathomable mystery, but it makes sense of everything else that the New Testament contains.⁷⁰

The leaders of the nation did not reject Jesus’ deity because they failed to understand His claim to be God, nor because the Old Testament failed to indicate that Messiah would be both divine and human, but because to do so would have required them to submit to His authority, to obey and worship Him, to repent of their sin, to cease receiving the glory, praise, and preeminence which their leadership roles had come to provide for them. They, unlike the humble widow, and unlike David, would not place their trust in Jesus, nor render to Him the worship and adoration He deserved. Like Satan, they would glory in their position and power, and uncontent with what God had given to them, they would seek to usurp that which belongs only to God. Their animosity toward Jesus was so great that they would rather have a pagan—Caesar—for their king, than Messiah.

In the light of the character and conduct of the Jewish leaders, take note of the way in which they had come to handle the sacred Scriptures. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees limited the Scriptures to that which they could grasp and were willing to accept. The Sadducees did not wish to think of an afterlife and they could not envision how it would work out (marriage and all), and so they rejected it, even though a number of Scriptures clearly taught it. Similarly, the Pharisees believed in one God, and thus they rejected the clear claims and inferences of Jesus (e.g. the statement, “Your sins are forgiven, …” Luke 5:20-23) to be God. They also believed that since Messiah was a man, he could not also be God, yet He was.

In addition to limiting divine revelation to that which can be humanly grasped and understood, the Pharisees and Sadducees limited themselves and others to an “either/or” mentality. Either you obeyed God, or you obeyed government, but surely you could not do both. Thus, the question about paying taxes. Jesus differed by saying that both God and government should be obeyed. Either Messiah was man or He was God, but it never entered their minds that He might be a God-man.

These two errors—(1) limiting divine revelation to that which is humanly comprehensible, and (2) limiting to one of two options—when joined together led to a fatal flaw in dealing with divine revelation. Problems posed by the Scriptures led to the rejection of truth, only because it could not be understood fully, but not because it wasn’t clearly revealed.

The confrontation between the Jewish leaders and Jesus in our text reveals the fact that there were two major factors involved in their rejection of Jesus, and especially of His authority (rooted in His deity). The first factor was their practice, their lifestyle. The wickedness of the Pharisees, as summarized by Jesus in verses 45-47, explains from a particle point of view why they would not want to submit to the authority of Jesus as Messiah. Jesus would “clean up” their lives, just as He cleansed the temple, and they wanted none of this. It was the holiness of Jesus which they most loathed. Their excuses for rejecting Jesus were hypocritical, and theological. They sought biblical reasons for their rejection, but they were all shown to be distortions of the truth.

A recognition that the theology of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees was the basis (the excuse) for their denial and rejection of Jesus as the Christ forces me to reevaluate the role of theology. Let me begin by saying that theology—the systematic study of God and of biblical revelation—is a vitally important matter. Most of us are not nearly the students of theology that we should be.

But let us also remember that theology is distorted by our sin and our human limitations. Theology is, at best, the summation of biblical truth as we understand it. Theology differs from biblical revelation as the truth does from our interpretation of it. When Jesus came to the earth and did not conform to the theology of the Pharisees, or of others, men should have conformed their theology to Christ, rather than to insist that Christ conform to their theology. I fear that for some of us we have forgotten how distorted our theology can become, and we begin to view it as having an equal footing with the Word of God itself. Theology, by its very nature, is limited to our level of understanding, but God’s Word surpasses our understanding, not often understood until its fulfillment, and not ultimately understood until eternity, for we now “see through a glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Let us therefore hold our theology a bit more loosely, a little more tentatively, especially in those areas where evangelicals disagree. The fundamentals we must hold fast, but let us be on guard against “straining gnats and swallowing camels.”

How often we, like the Pharisees and the Sadducees, are guilty of narrowing the possibilities to one of two options, of going through life with an “either/or” mentality. The Pharisees thought that Messiah was either God or man; Jesus declared from Scripture that He was both. Some thought one must obey either human government or God; Jesus taught that we must do both. We often fight about the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, as though either one or the other can be true, but they are both true.

As I have pondered this text and the questions which the enemies of our Lord have put to Him, it occurred to me that the One to whom all the questions were asked was Himself the answer. I am sure that you have often seen or heard the expression, “Christ is the answer,” but I have never seen that statement so relevant or applicable as I have in the setting of our text. Christ was bombarded with questions, all of which He handled beautifully, but the tragedy and irony of these things is that Jesus, the One who was questioned so vigorously, was the answer. The reason why they persisted with their questions is because they refused to accept God’s answer to their problems.

Stop to ponder this for a moment. The Jews were stunned to hear Jesus teach that Jews must render obedience both to God and to a pagan government. How could this be? Christ is the answer. He surrendered to the will of the Father, and so doing surrendered Himself into the hands of Rome, to be nailed to the cross of Calvary. Jesus lived out the answer to the problem of the Jews. How could Messiah be both God and man? Christ is the answer. Christ is both God and man; He is God incarnate, or, as the Old Testament prophet foretold, He is “Immanuel”—God with us (Isaiah 7:14; cf. Matthew 1:23). There were yet other questions. For example, the question which Peter will raise later on in his first epistle (1 Peter 1:11). The problem with which the prophets struggled was this: “How can the Christ be One who suffers, and yet who triumphs? How can He be a sufferer and also a triumphant ruler? How can one harmonize suffering and glory, in the same Savior?” Christ, I repeat, is the answer. We now can see that He came first to suffer so as to save, and He will come again to reign in righteousness and power, subduing His enemies.

The longer I live, and observe life, and study the Scriptures, the more I am convinced that the one solution to all of life’s problems, to all of life’s questions, is Christ. I do not believe that there is any question to which He is not the final and ultimate answer. Christ is not only the solution, He is the resolution of life’s unanswered questions and problems. Our Lord brings together those inscrutable and seemingly incompatible aspects of life. He brings together, for example, a righteous God and sinful men. He reconciles Jews and Gentiles, the most irreconcilable of foes (Ephesians 2). He joins together humanity and deity, divine sovereignty and human responsibility. He is the Great Reconciler of those things which seem irreconcilable. To come to Him in simple repentance and faith is to find the solution to all of life’s problems. To turn from Him is to face countless irreconcilables with the most feeble attempts at human resolution.

This text confronts us with a very important insight into the problems of life, and into the problems which we find in the Scriptures (problems, I might add, which are there by design). This insight may be expressed as a principle: EITHER OUR PROBLEMS WILL DRAW US TO CHRIST, OR THEY WILL DRIVE US FROM HIM

It is a very simple truth, but a vitally important one. To the Pharisees and Sadducees, problems were their pretext for drawing their own conclusions, in direct denial of the Word of God. To Jesus, problems were intended to draw men to God. It was those with great problems who came to Christ for help and healing. The seemingly unsolvable problems raised by the Scriptures caused men of faith to turn to God and to wait for His resolution to the seeming contradictions of the prophetic promises, which pertained to two comings, not one. It was the problems of prophecy which pointed to Christ as the marvelous resolution of them by God, in a way that men could not have predicted, could not understand, and were even reluctant to accept when He stood in their midst. Problems are designed by God to draw men to Himself. If we reject God’s purposes for problems, they will ultimately turn us away from Him, rather than to Him, due to our own willfulness and sin.

My prayer for you, my friend, as well as for myself, is that we shall find Christ a sufficient answer for all of our questions. Those questions which are vital and eternal have a clear answer now, in Christ. Those questions yet unanswered, have a future and certain answer, in Christ. Christ is the answer. I pray that you have found Him so, and that you will continue to do so.

68 “The critique of their theology is addressed to the scribes (vs. 41, cf. vs. 39); the critique of their way of life is addressed to the disciples (20;45). (a) Luke 20:41-44 poses a puzzle for the scribes very much in the same manner the Sadducees had presented Jesus with a riddle. The pericope assumes first that ‘the Lord’ is God, that ‘my Lord’ equals the Messiah, and that David is the author of the psalm (vs. 42); and second, that, according to oriental mores, a son did not surpass his father. Given assumption two, how could the Messiah be David’s son (vs. 44)? David would not address a son of his as Lord… . The one who is David’s son (1:69; 2:4; 3:23-38) became David’s Lord by virtue of his resurrection-ascension-exaltation (Acts 2:34-36; 13:22-23, 33-37).” Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1984), pp. 195-196.

69 “Strack-Billerbeck show in a detailed digression on Psalm cx (op. cit., part iv, pp. 452-65) that during New Testament times Jewish scholars regarded Psalm cx as a Messianic psalm, but that subsequently, when the Christians used this psalm so generally to prove the Old Testament had prophesied that they messiah would be a divine Redeemer, they rejected its Messianic interpretation. so from about A.D. 100 to 250 they applied this psalm to Abraham! But afterwards they again accepted it as a Messianic psalm (for then the conflict with the Christians was no longer so violent, since the church then consisted mostly of non-Jewish members and the church and the Jewish community each went its own way).” Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 517, fn. 3.

70 J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), pp. 45-47.

4. The Fellowship Offering (Leviticus 3:1-17; 7:11-34; 19:5-8; 22:29-30)

Introduction

As I have studied the Book of Leviticus this past week, I have come to realize several things which greatly motivate and enhance my study. Let me share these with you as we commence our study of the “Fellowship” or “Peace” Offering.

First, I have begun to appreciate the opportunity to consider the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice one-by-one. A friend of mine tells the story of the woman who is trying to decide how she should confess her sins. She asks, “Shall I ’fess ’em as I does ’em, or shall I bunch ’em?”

The problem of “bunching” is very much related to our study of the offerings. The offerings of the Old Testament are something like the tools in John Maurer’s shop: He has a particular tool for each particular task, and you never use the wrong tool for the task.

The Old Testament seems to have more offerings than we can count. That can lead to a fair bit of frustration on the part of the New Testament saint. There is a very important lesson to be learned here, which may help to motivate us in our study of these offerings. There is no one Old Testament offering which sums up the work of our Lord, and thus we must see that Christ’s death, burial and resurrection served to accomplish many different functions, not just one. I believe that it is Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer who lists over thirty things which the death of Christ accomplished.

We tend to “bunch” the benefits of the work of Christ, rather than to deal with them one at a time, and in so doing we miss much of the blessing which could be ours. One great contribution of the offerings in the Book of Leviticus is that they portray the blessings of the death of Christ, the Lamb of God, individually. The Old Testament saint would sacrifice the various offerings and would grasp, to some degree, the blessings God had given him. With each offering was associated some particular blessing. For us, all the blessings of God are realized by one offering, made once for all, the death of Christ at Calvary. In the Old Testament offerings, we are given the privilege to pause and to focus on the particular benefits and blessings we have received in Christ’s death, and to do so one at a time.

Second, every sacrifice that an Israelite offered was of a certain type, and for a specific purpose. Every offering has very exacting rules as to what is offered, how it is offered, and by whom it is offered. For example, the Peace Offering could be eaten on the day it was sacrificed, or on the day after, but not on the third day. To eat this sacrificial meat on the third day would have serious consequences (Lev. 19:5-8). A burnt offering had to be a male, while the Peace Offering could have been a male or a female, but not a bird. An ox or a lamb with an overgrown or stunted member could be offered for a freewill Peace Offering, but not for a votive Peace Offering (Lev. 22:23). Because of the consequences for failing to observe the “laws” of the offerings, one must be very certain what offering he was making, and then do it in accordance with all the laws God had laid down.

If you would, the law prescribed the plan, the way in which every offering was to be made. Before men could follow the plan, they had to determine the purpose, that is they had to decide which offering they were about to make, and why. Thus there was a built-in safeguard against mindless ritual, in which one went through the motions of making an offering without really thinking about what he was doing or why. The Israelite’s worship was to involve his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. The precise regulations encouraged the Israelite worshipper to engage his mind in his worship.

Third, the only meat which an Israelite ate from their cattle was that which was offered as a Peace Offering. I know this is hard to believe, but listen to the command of God as given in Leviticus chapter 17:

“Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox, or a lamb, or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside the camp, and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of the meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people” (Lev. 17:3-4).

These are strong words indeed! Any animal that was slaughtered had to be offered to God as a sacrifice. Any blood that was shed, was shed as a part of a sacrifice. Thus, any meat that was eaten (at least from the cattle of the Israelites) had to be that which was first offered to God as a part of a sacrifice at the tent of meeting. And since the Peace Offering was the only sacrifice of which the Israelite could eat, every time the Israelite wanted to eat meat for dinner, he had to offer a Peace Offering.

There are three principle passages in the Book of Leviticus which deal with the Peace Offering. They are:

A. Leviticus 3:1-17—the mechanics of the sacrifice

B. Leviticus 7:11-34—the meaning of the sacrifice

C. Leviticus 19:5-8—The “law of leftovers”

Leviticus 3 is structured similarly to the first chapter of Leviticus. The regulations for the sacrifice of the Peace Offering are dealt with in terms of the kind of animal sacrificed. Thus, in chapter 3 we find the following structure:

A. Leviticus 3:1-5—offerings from the herd

B. Leviticus 3:6-17—offerings from the flock

1. a lamb (vv. 7-11)

2. a goat (vv. 12-17)

Leviticus chapter 7:11-34 is structured differently:

A. Lev. 7:11—Introduction

B. Lev. 7:12-14—Grain Offerings which accompany the Peace Offering

C. Lev. 7:15-34—The flesh of the Peace Offering

1. Its Defilement— vv. 15-27

a. By delay, vv. 15-18

b. By contact with unclean thing, vv. 19-21

c. By definition, vv. 22-27

2. Its Distribution—vv. 28-34

The Peace Offering

Imagine for the moment that you are an Israelite in the days of Moses, and that you are about to make a Peace Offering, according to all of the regulations in the Pentateuch. You could offer a Peace Offering as an act of thanksgiving (Lev. 7:12; 22:29-30), or to fulfill a special vow (Lev. 7:16; 22:21), or as a freewill offering (Lev. 7:16; 22:18, 21, 23). These were all optional offerings, which an Israelite could offer at any time, except for the feast of Pentecost (Lev. 23:19) and the fulfillment of the Nazarite’s days of separation (Num. 6:13-20), when the offering was mandatory.

You would begin by selecting an animal without any defect, either male or female, from the herd or from the flock (Lev. 3:1, 6). You would then bring this animal to the doorway of the tent of meeting, where you would lay your hand upon its head (3:2, 8, 13), thus identifying your sin with this animal, and yourself with its death. When you have slain the animal, the priests will collect the blood which is shed and sprinkle it around the altar (3:2, 8, 13).

The animal would then be skinned⁴⁶ and cut into pieces. The priests would then take the fat of the animal, along with the kidneys and the lobe of the liver, and burn it on the altar of burnt offering (3:3-5; 9-11; 14-16). God’s portion of the Peace Offering would be the blood and the fat (Lev. 3:16-17; cf. 17:10-13). The priests would be given the breast and the right thigh of the animal (cf. Exod. 29:26-28; Lev. 7:30-34; 10:14-15). Aaron and his sons receive the breast (7:31), while the thigh goes to that priest who offers up the Peace Offering (7:33).

Along with the fat which is offered up to God there would also be the appropriate offering of grain. In the case of a thanksgiving offering both leavened and unleavened cakes were to be offered, some of which was burned on the altar, and the rest of which was to go to the priests (7:12-13). This was not the only grain offering which was leavened, for the celebration of Pentecost included the offering of leavened bread (Lev. 23:17). Those who would tell us that leaven is always a symbol of evil, and that, as such, it can never be used in conjunction with Israel’s worship or offerings, have some explaining to do here.⁴⁷

Since the fat⁴⁸ and blood are offered to God and the breast and the right thigh are given to the priest, the rest of the sacrificial animal is left for the offerer to eat. Thus, after the offering of the fat portions on the altar, the Israelite would eat a meal,⁴⁹ partaking of the portions of the sacrificial animal which remained. Not much is said about the meal that is eaten. In contrast, there is considerable emphasis placed on the disposal of the meat of the Peace Offering (cf. Lev. 7:15-18; 19:5-8). I call this, “the law of the leftovers.”⁵⁰ The meat of the thanksgiving Peace Offering must be eaten on the day it is sacrificed (7:15); if it is a votive offering or a freewill offering, it can be saved and eaten on the next day, but then must be burned (7:16-18; 19:5-8). The one who disobeys this regulation must be cut off from his people (19:8).

Distinctives of the Peace Offering

There are several distinctives of the Peace Offering, as compared with the Burnt and Grain Offerings of chapters 1 and 2. It is these distinctives which provide us with the key to the unique role of this offering.

First, the animal sacrificed in the Peace Offering could be from the herd or from the flock (but not a bird), whether male or female.

Second, the offering was shared by God, by the priests, and by the offerer. All of the Burnt Offering was the Lord’s (except for the skin). Most of the Grain Offering was for the priests. But the Peace Offering was shared by all, each receiving their appointed portions.

Third, three of the occasions on which the Peace Offering was appropriate were for thanksgiving, for completing a vow, and for a freewill offering.

Fourth, the Peace Offering was unique in that there was a meal associated with this offering.

Fifth, the thanksgiving Peace Offering included leavened bread (Lev. 7:13).

The Origin and Meaning of the Peace Offering

Sacrifices were not new to the Israelite, nor to the pagan, for that matter. The laws of Leviticus which pertain to the offerings do not initiate sacrifice, they merely seek to regulate it. The reason for these regulations, as for most all laws, is that men are abusing certain privileges. Before we seek to discern the meaning of the Peace Offering, let us take a moment to trace the history of sacrifice from the biblical data we are given.

Sacrifice was first offered by Adam and Eve and by their sons. Animals had to be slaughtered for the skins which covered the nakedness of Adam and his wife (Gen. 3:21).⁵¹ Then, in Genesis chapter 4, Cain and Abel made offerings to God (Gen. 4:1-5). Abel offered a blood (animal) sacrifice. It is especially interesting to note the wording here: “And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions” (Gen. 4:4a, emphasis mine).

In the first recorded animal sacrifice by men, we are told that the “fat portions” are offered. And thus we read in Leviticus, “… all fat is the LORD’s” (Lev. 3:16b). Then, after the flood, Noah offered animal sacrifices to God as burnt offerings (Gen. 8:20), and as a result, God made a covenant never to destroy mankind in this way again (Gen. 8:21-22). God then pronounced a blessing on Noah and his sons, and gave the animals to them for food, seemingly for the first time (Gen. 9:1-3). There was the stipulation, however, that the blood of the animals could not be eaten (Gen. 9:4-5), which, if it is not the precedent for this command in Leviticus, is surely somehow related: “‘It is a perpetual statue throughout your generations in all your dwellings; you shall not eat any fat or any blood’” (Lev. 3:17). The prohibition against shedding man’s blood is then stated, along with the institution of capital punishment, as the penalty for murder (Gen. 9:5-7).

It is my speculation that from this time on, no animal was sacrificed apart from some kind of sacrificial ceremony, at which time the blood was poured out, and perhaps the fat was offered up in fire to the Lord. I believe that this practice persisted, in a perverted form, by the pagans who descended from Noah and his sons. I say this on the basis of two biblical texts:

So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play (Exod. 32:6).

“The reason is so that the sons of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they were sacrificing in the open field, that they may bring them in to the LORD, at the doorway of the tent of meeting to the priest, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the LORD. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and offer up the fat in smoke as a soothing aroma to the LORD. And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute to them throughout their generations” (Lev. 17:5-7).

Before Moses had descended from Mt. Sinai with God’s instructions, which included the sacrifices, the Israelites were offering “peace offerings” as a part of their heathen worship. They did not learn to make peace offerings from Moses, and so they must have known similar offerings from their past. The text in Leviticus 17 is even more explicit. The reason why God ordered the Israelites to slaughter every animal as a sacrifice before the tent of meeting (Lev. 17:1-4) was because they were slaughtering their animals outside the camp in the open field, not in a neutral way, but as a part of a heathen ritual which involved the worship of “goat demons” (17:7). Thus, the regulations of Leviticus pertaining to the offerings were to deal with the corrupted form of offering, which I believe stems from the sacrifices of Abel, and later of Noah.

The killing of animals by the shedding of their blood thus was originated by God, and was normally associated with atonement (covering sin) and with God’s blessing, as expressed in His covenants. The Book of Genesis thus laid a vital foundation for the origins of worship and of sacrifice, intended to correct the distortions and perversions of it over time by sinful men. Much of Israel’s understanding of the Peace Offering (and the rest) was therefore based on the divine revelation of Genesis.

In the Book of Exodus we find further revelation concerning the Peace Offering, which would assist the Israelite in understanding the significance of this offering. God spoke specifically of the Peace Offering in Exodus 20:24: “‘You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.’”

Again, in Exodus chapter 24, we find the Peace Offering. You will recall that God has just proclaimed the details of the Mosaic Covenant to Moses, and in chapter 24 this covenant will be formally ratified. Thus, we read:

And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD. … Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank (Exod. 24:4-5, 9-11, emphasis mine).

Numbers chapter 7 is an account of the gifts and offerings which were initially offered by the leaders of Israel (7:2), which includes peace offerings. It seems to me that in both Exodus 24 and Numbers 7 the leaders are acting representatively for the people in making their peace offerings. While it is not stated per se in Exodus 24, it would seem to me that the meal which was eaten by the leaders of Israel in God’s presence was the prototype and predecessor of the peace offering which would be made in conjunction with the tabernacle. Where did the leaders of Israel get the food which they ate in God’s presence? I think that it was that which remained from the peace offerings of 24:5.

It is against the backdrop of Genesis and Exodus, in the light of the previous sacrifices and peace offerings of God’s people, that the Israelite was to understand the peace offering. But this is not all the information we have concerning the meaning of the Peace Offering. In addition, we have (1) the meaning of the original term employed for the Peace Offering, (2) the instructions and regulations pertaining to the Peace Offering, (3) biblical examples of the Peace Offering, and, (4) the ability to distinguish this offering from the others (knowing the primary significance of the other offerings at least enables us to discern what facets of Israel’s relationship to God have not yet been enacted by their sacrificial ritual). Let us briefly consider each of these, so that we can discern the meaning of the Peace Offering to the Israelite of Moses’ day.

(1) The meaning of “peace.” There is considerable difference of opinion as to exactly what the Hebrew term employed for the “Peace” Offering actually means. Nevertheless, there is some help to be gained from a consideration of the general meaning of the root word. Essentially “peace” has the connotation of “wholeness” or “completeness.”

An illustration of biblical “wholeness” can be seen in marriage, specifically in the marriage of Adam and Eve. When God made Adam, he was initially alone. When Adam named the animals, they all passed before him—in pairs! There was Mr. and Mrs. Sheep, Mr. and Mrs. Ox, and so on. Adam began to feel incomplete, and rightly so. God said that Adam’s aloneness was not good, and so he made a mate for him—Eve. When the two were joined together, they became one flesh. Adam became “whole” when he became one with Eve.

So the Israelites became whole when they become one with God in worship. “Peace” describes this wholeness. I believe “peace” refers to the condition of acceptance (cf. Lev. 19:5, “So that you might be accepted”) which the Israelite experienced with God by virtue of the sacrifices, resulting in an inner peace on the part of each Israelite. Since the offerer places his hand on the animal that is sacrificed, the element of sin is clearly present. This offering assures the offerer that he has peace with God, based upon the shedding of innocent blood.

(2) The instructions pertaining to the Peace Offering. In particular, the most striking features of this offering are that the offerer personally partakes of the sacrificial meat by means of a festive meal. I take it, that in so doing the focus here is more upon the experiential benefits to the offerer than in the previous offerings. In the Burnt Offering, the offerer received none of the sacrificed animal at all. In the Grain Offering, the same was true, although the priests fared better here. But it is in the Peace Offering, indeed, only in the Peace Offering, that the offerer gets something back, something like a rebate. I believe this suggests that the emphasis falls on the benefits to the offerer, that the offerer is here more in view than previously has been the case.

(3) The biblical examples of the Peace Offering. In 1 Samuel chapter 1, Hannah made a vow to the Lord that she would dedicate her son to the Lord if He would but give her a boy child. When God answered her prayer, she fulfilled her promise, thus completing her vow. Thus, in obedience to the instructions found in Leviticus pertaining to the Peace Offering, Hannah went to Shiloh and gave her son to the Lord, offering her Peace Offering at this time (1 Sam. 1:22-28). As she had experienced the “wholeness” of child-bearing and of being able to fulfill her vow, she offered her “peace” offering.

In many other instances the Peace Offering was offered in the history of Israel. Interestingly, this offering was made both in times of great sorrow (e.g. Judg. 20:26; 21:4) and in times of great joy (e.g. Dt. 27:7; Josh. 8:31; 1 Sam. 11:15). In each instance the Peace Offering focuses on the benefits, the wholeness, which Israel is experiencing, or which she had lost (and for which she hopes), the offering then being an act of faith, a looking forward to a future wholeness or peace, which God will grant His people.

(4) The Peace Offering as contrasted to the Burnt and Grain Offerings. I said at the outset of this message that each of the sacrifices focuses on one particular facet of God’s grace and of the benefits which God’s people experience through the sacrifices. The Burnt Offering focus on the satisfaction of God’s righteousness because of the sacrificial death of the animal offered. Here, as it were, the emphasis falls on God, and the satisfaction of His anger, due to the general fallen condition of man. The Grain Offering focuses on the Israelite’s dependence upon God, not only for forgiveness and spiritual life, but for physical life. The Peace Offering focuses on the Israelite’s “peace with God,” the joys and the peace of mind which comes from knowing that God is at peace with us. Thus, whether it is the joy that God has enabled the Israelite to fulfill his vow, or in thanks for some gracious act of God, or a freewill offering, the Israelite’s peace with God is in view.

The Peace Offering and the Contemporary Christian

(1) Christ is our Peace Offering. The primary significance of the Peace Offering of the Old Testament is to be found in its antitype, Jesus Christ. In the offering of the Peace Offering the Israelite was benefited by the peace of knowing and experiencing God’s forgiveness. In fact, it was more than this. God’s anger was not just appeased, God was no longer angry with the offerer, His favor was with him. There is the sense in which Christ’s death appeased (propitiated) God’s anger, but the “Peace Offering” aspect of Christ’s work went beyond this. Because of Christ, God is no longer angry with the one who has identified with Him by faith, He is favorably disposed to Him. And because this is true, we can experience the inner peace that comes from knowing God’s favor is directed toward us. Just as our love for God is reflected in a love for man, so our “peace with God” also manifests itself in a peace with men. This is the message which Paul proclaimed:

But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. and He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father (Eph. 2:13-18).

Some versions have translated the “Peace Offering” the “Fellowship Offering.” Both terms, “peace” and “fellowship” are appropriate, in my opinion. Through Christ’s death we have peace and fellowship with God and peace and fellowship with man. The meal that the offerer of the Peace Offering enjoyed, along with his fellow-Israelites, whom he invited, signified the peace which the sacrifice brought about.

Years ago, Dr. Billy Graham wrote a book entitled, Peace With God. There are a lot of expressions used for conversion which I do not care for, because they are not really biblical, but this expression, “peace with God” expresses, perhaps better than any other, the blessing which salvation brings to the believer. Have you experienced this peace with God my friend? The Bible tells us that we are born at enmity with God. That is our natural state (cf. Eph. 2:1-3). That condition of hostility, Paul tells us in the second chapter of Ephesians, is remedied and removed by the blood of Christ, and enmity with God is replaced by peace with God, and with our fellow men.

We are hearing a lot of talk these days about “fulfillment” and “self-realization” and the like. We can read much about “reaching our full potential” and having a “positive self-image,” but all these goals fall far short of the joy of having peace with God, through faith in our great Peace Offering, Jesus Christ. I urge you, if you have never received this gift, do so today, by simply trusting in Jesus Christ as your Peace Offering to God. When you receive Christ as your Peace Offering you will be able to sing with conviction and assurance, “It Is Well With My Soul,” for this is the peace which God offers us in Christ.

(2) The meaning of a meal. Throughout the Bible, the meal has a meaning much greater than that which our culture attributes to it. I believe that for the people of God, and often for the pagans (cf. Exod. 32:6; Num. 25:1-3), the meal had a deeply religious significance. I do not think that the Peace Offering was the origin of this significance, but rather a reflection of it. Before Leviticus, Abraham offered meat and a meal to his unknown visitors (Gen. 18), as did Lot (Gen. 19). Later on, it was significant when the Levite was seeking a meal and a place to lodge without success (Judges 19). The festive meal which was a part of the Peace Offering simply added to the significance which the meal already had. Here, the meal was a symbol of the peace which the Israelite had with God and with men, through the sacrifice of the innocent victim.

When you stop to think of it, the New Testament is saturated with stories and teachings related to the dinner table. In Luke chapter 14 the entire chapter is dealing with “meals,” precipitated by the fact that our Lord associated with the “wrong kind of people” at the table, at least in the minds of the scribes and Pharisees (cf. Mark 2:16). Our Lord taught, for example, that one should not invite those to dinner who are wealthy and influential, and who can thus return the favor to us in some way (Lu. 14:12-14). Was not this especially applicable at the meal associated with the Peace Offering, when the poor would only be able to participate if the more affluent invited them? (Remember, there was no “poor people’s” alternative for the Peace Offering, as there was for the Burnt Offering, for example.)

The story of the “prodigal son” takes on even more significance once we understand the nature of the “Peace Offering.” What was it that the prodigal son missed so much in that foreign land, when he was longing to eat the pods which the pigs were eating, but his father’s table? And what was it that angered the older brother, if it was not the father’s slaying of the fatted calf? Now, in the light of what we know of the Peace Offering, what would the father have had to do, before the fatted calf could have been eaten? It would have been offered first as a Peace Offering. What, then, did the fatted calf signify, if not the fact that the son had been accepted by the father, and that there was “peace” in the family again? The Peace Offering deepens our grasp of the significance of meals in the New Testament.

So, too, the significance of meat and of meals enhances our grasp of the problem which Paul dealt with in 1 Corinthians of eating meats, especially those eaten in the home of an unbelieving neighbor, who may very well have obtained meat which was involved in a pagan ritual, or which might take place in the meal itself.

The Peace Offering helps the Christian to understand the significance of a meal, especially since the Lord’s Table was initially conducted as a part of a meal (cf. 1 Cor. 11). The Lord’s Table, or Communion, is, in large measure, the New Testament version of the Peace Offering festive meal. The Peace Offering sacrifice is not offered, for our Peace Offering is Christ, who died once for all, to make peace between men and God, and between men and men. The celebration goes on, however, and so in the communion service we are reminded of our unity with others, as well as our unity with God: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

Because of the significance of the Lord’s Table, as it pertains to the peace which Christ has accomplished on the cross, misconduct at this table is taken most seriously, even as infractions of the regulations pertaining to the Peace Offering are sobering.

The newly born church manifested its life and fellowship by sharing meals from “house to house” (Acts 2:46). One of the greatest barriers between the Jewish believers and the Gentile saints was that of eating (cf. Acts 10 & 11). Thus, when Peter departed from what God had taught him in this passage, Paul rebuked him for departing from the very essence of the gospel (Gal. 2:11-21).

The coming of our Lord and joy and peace experienced by true believers at this time are thus appropriately described in “banquet terms”:

And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude and as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready … And he said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God” (Rev. 19:6-7, 9).

The dinner table has become much more secular to us than it ever was to the people of earlier times. I suspect that some of this is due to the pace of our lives, and to the instant “TV” dinners, which are eaten before the TV, rather than at the table, or which are gulped down at a “fast food” chain outlet. How much we can make of the meal table is suggested by the Peace Offering meal of the Old Testament, and by the Lord’s Table of the New. May God enable us to make more of the meal table, and to meditate more on the peace which Christ has won for us on the cross.

⁴⁶The skinning of the animal is not mentioned anywhere that I can find, but it is surely implied, as in the case of the other sacrifices (cf. Lev. 7:8).

⁴⁷I am not certain what significance leavened bread has here, but I do know that we dare not insist that leaven is a symbol of sin, either.

⁴⁸The fat is what is offered primarily here; all the fat is the Lord’s (cf. Lev. 3:16-17; 6:12; Amos 5:22; 1 Ki. 8:64; 2 Chron. 7:7; 29:35).

⁴⁹The fact that a meal was associated with the Peace Offering helps to explain why the size of this offering is often significantly larger than the other offerings. Cf. Numbers 7:17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47, 53, 59, 65, etc.; 1 Ki. 8:63.

⁵⁰No reason is given why the meat cannot be kept for a longer period of time. Perhaps it is because there was the possibility of it spoiling, and thus negating the value of the offering (cf. Lev. 7:18-27). It is also possible that the necessity of totally consuming the animal quickly encouraged the one who was making this offering to invite as many as possible to share with him in the sacrificial meal. (If you could keep the leftovers, you might not invite as many to share the meal with you.)

⁵¹Is it possible that God burned up the rest of the animals from which these skins were taken? Something had to be done with their carcases, and it seems that men did not yet eat meat (cf. Gen. 9:1-7). It is interesting to note that in the first sacrifice the skin was used and the rest was disposed of, while in later sacrifices it is almost the opposite.

Français

1. The Uniqueness of Ephesians Among the Epistles

Introduction

While I was a student in college, I took a class in economics. The professor was a gracious and dignified scholar. He seldom laughed, but on one occasion, I managed to evoke a genuine laugh. He was lecturing on the desert, and at one point he referred to the horse as the “Rolls Royce of the desert.” This was my chance. I raised my hand, and said to him, “Sir, I believe that the camel is the ‘Rolls Royce of the desert.’” I then went on to explain that the camel should be given the higher status because it, and not the horse, had ‘bucket seats.’

Apart from the Epistle to the Romans, few who have studied Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians would challenge the statement that it is the “Rolls Royce of the epistles.” F. F. Bruce, noted New Testament scholar, calls Ephesians “the quintessence of Paulinism.”¹ C. H. Dodd called Ephesians “the crown of Paulinism.”² According to William Hendriksen, Ephesians has been called “the divinest composition of man,” “the distilled essence of the Christian religion,” “the most authoritative and most consummate compendium of the Christian faith,” “full to the brim with thoughts and doctrines sublime and momentous.”³

I was tempted to sub-title this lesson, “Kicking the Tires of Ephesians.” If you’ve ever looked at cars, especially used cars, this is one of the first things you do—kick the tires. In this lesson, we will commence our study of the Book of Ephesians. We will begin by briefly noting the author and recipients of the epistle. We will then turn to the characteristics of Ephesians, focusing our attention on the distinctive contribution of the epistle. It is hoped that this will set the tone for our entire study, and will motivate you to take the message of this epistle very seriously.

Author and Destination of Ephesians

Unless you read the commentaries, you probably would not even expect the authorship and destination to be mentioned, other than as a part of the exposition of the very first verse of the Book of Ephesians:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus, and who are faithful in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:1).

Who would have thought that there was a need to debate the veracity of this statement? You will discover, if you have not already, that the critics want to discuss everything. And so, while time is largely wasted in debating the obvious, our attention is diverted from the weightier matters. As Jesus put it long ago, men who like to think of themselves as students of the word are often guilty of “straining gnats and swallowing camels” (Matthew 23:24).

One must deny the undisputed text of Ephesians to question the authorship of this epistle. The recipients of the letter is not, in my opinion, a matter of great importance, but at least it is an issue which arises out of the text itself. In verse one, there is a marginal note in some versions like the NASB, which indicates to us that some manuscripts omit “at Ephesus.” There are a very few (three to my knowledge) which omit it, and hundreds which do not. The problem is that these few manuscripts also happen to be the oldest. Some conclude that because they are the oldest, they are also the most reliable texts. There are those who would dispute this fact (and, to some degree, I agree with them).

In the final analysis, it really doesn’t matter that much, because the epistle is a very general one. Its message and its application apply as directly to us as it did to its first recipients. It is my personal opinion that the epistle was probably sent first to Ephesus, and from there sent to all the churches of Asia, certainly including the 7 churches addressed in Revelation 1:20–3:22.

Ephesians does seem to be written to a broader group of individuals than just a few individuals or a particular church. As you can see in Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, in the 7 letters to the churches of Asia (one of which is the Ephesian church), and as is evident in certain of Paul’s epistles (e.g. Corinthian epistles, or Philippians), some epistles are addressed to a specific church. This letter has a broader, more universal, feel. Just as the gospel was preached in Ephesus, and from there resounded to all Asia (Acts 19:10, 26). so Paul’s epistle was first sent to Ephesus, and from there it was likely circulated among the other churches in Asia (for this practice, see Colossians 4:16).

We should also note that Ephesians is not the first epistle written to the Ephesians (or, if you would, to this group of believers). Paul refers to a previous, shorter, epistle, which was written some time before this epistle:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief (Ephesians 3:1-3).

Historical Setting

In the Book of Acts, the history of church at Ephesus begins with the ministry of Paul on his second missionary journey, as recorded in Acts 18:18-28. Paul, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, arrived in Ephesus. Paul went to the synagogue in Ephesus and proclaimed Christ, and was asked to stay on and teach further. Paul declined, promising to return later in the will of the Lord, leaving behind Priscilla and Aquila. During Paul’s absence, Apollos arrived, and began to preach those things which pertained to Jesus, based on the Old Testament and on the preaching of John the Baptist. Apollos seems to have been an Old Testament saint, but does not seem to have known about or trusted in Jesus Christ personally. Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside and filled him in on that which was lacking in his preaching. In time, he was sent to Achaia, where he powerfully and publicly refuted the Jews, showing that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah.

After strengthening the believers in “the Galatian region and Phrygia” (18:23), Paul returned to Ephesus, where he spends nearly three years, preaching and teaching. For three months, Paul taught in the synagogue, but then opposition caused him to change his meeting place to the school of Tyrannus, where he reasoned daily for two years (Acts 19:8-10). During this time, God gave supernatural witness to the ministry of Paul by empowering him to perform many miracles (19:11-12). As a result of the chastening of the seven sons of Sceva, many in Ephesus renounced their magical practices, which was demonstrated when they publicly burned their magical books, worth a considerable amount of money. This, in turn, had a great impact on the city (Acts 19:13-20).

Paul planned to leave Asia, planning to visit Macedonia and Achaia, where he would gather a collection for the poor in Jerusalem and Judea, and then deliver the gift to the church in Jerusalem, and then press on to Rome. He sent Timothy and Erastus ahead, staying behind in Asia for a while (19:21-22).

It was during this brief stay that a serious crisis arose in Ephesus, as a direct result of the preaching of the gospel. The gospel had not only caused many to turn from their magical practices, it also turned many from the worship of Artemis, the goddess whose elaborate temple was constructed in Ephesus, over a period of more than 200 years. This specifically impacted the idol-making industry which had developed in the city. A near riot was instigated by Demetrius, which was finally dissipated by an appeal from the town clerk. This incident caused Paul to move on to Macedonia (Acts 19:23–20:1).

On his way to Jerusalem, Paul’s travels took him to Macedonia, and then Greece, where he spent three months (Acts 20:2-3). His eagerness to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost caused him to sail past Ephesus and to make port at Miletus, not far from Ephesus. And so he called for the elders of the church at Ephesus, giving them a final word of encouragement and admonition. After a tearful farewell, Paul sailed on toward Jerusalem (Acts 20:17-38).

As Paul had purposed, he did reach Jerusalem, and then Rome, but not in a way that we would have anticipated.⁴ When Paul reached Jerusalem, he took the advice of the (Jewish) leaders of the church there, and as a result was arrested on false charges. Through a sequence of events, Paul felt compelled to appeal to Caesar, and thus he was taken to Rome for trial. There in Rome, he was granted considerable freedom of access, and thus he continued to minister. It is here, in Rome, that the history of the Apostle Paul (and the church) ends in the Book of Acts (see chapter 28).

While in prison,⁵ Paul penned several epistles, which came to be known as the “prison epistles:” Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Philippians was delivered by Epaphroditus, who was sent home by Paul after his recovery from a serious illness (Philippians 2:25-30). Tychicus (see Acts 20:4), accompanied by the returning slave, Onesimus, would deliver the Epistle of Colossians and the letter to Philemon (Colossians 4:7-9), and also the Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 6:21-22).

Characteristics of Ephesians
(What Makes Ephesians So Special?)

A few years ago, I was given an “automobile” that most of you would not even recognize as a car, either by name or appearance. The car was a Messerschmidt (I am not even sure any more how to spell it). If all you can think of is a German war plane, you’re not that far from the truth. This “car” was made from the surplus of parts for the Messerschmidt aircraft. The car had three wheels, two in front and one in back. It was powered by a one cylinder motorcycle engine. It was the predecessor, as I recall, of the Isetta, another three-wheeler. To enter the car, you tilted up the cockpit cover, which was from the fighter plane.

I mention all this because the Messerschmidt was a very distinctive motor vehicle, different from any other automobile. While Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians is but one of 66 books of the Bible, its contribution is directly related to its distinctives, those characteristics which set it apart from every other book of the Bible.

The Bible teaches that every Christian is unique, and has a particular contribution to make to the body of Christ. I believe that the same is true of each book of the Bible. Each book has its own setting, audience, and message. If we are to appreciate a particular book of the Bible, we must first come to recognize its unique contribution. As we begin our study of the Book of Ephesians, I would like to draw attention to some of its characteristics, and then to attempt to identify its unique identity and contribution to the revelation of the Scriptures. Let us consider, then, the characteristics of the Book of Ephesians.

(1) Ephesians is a “prison epistle.” Ephesians was written by Paul when imprisoned in Rome. His ministry may have appeared to have been hindered. His character and perhaps even his teaching seem to have been questioned by some, as a result of his imprisonment (Philippians 1:15-17). While he had been given considerable freedom, the possibility of his execution was very real (Philippians 1:19-26). Apart from a couple very general references to his imprisonment (3:1; 4:1; 6:20), no one would have ever guessed that this epistle was penned by a man in chains. Even if Paul’s body was in the dungeon (unlike as this is, see Acts 28:30-31), his heart, mind, and spirit were in the heavenlies.

As I read the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, recalling the circumstances of the apostle when he wrote, and then considering the elevated tone of the epistle itself, I am rebuked. I am also informed that it is possible for one whose circumstances are less than desirable to dwell on a much higher plane. The content of Ephesians not only tells us that Paul was a man filled with praise, and with the knowledge of God, but what it was that gave Paul such confidence and optimism.

As we look about, it is indeed difficult to find much cause for optimism in this world in which we live. Our environment is slowly being polluted, the ozone layer is disappearing, diseases like aids are on the verge of decimating the population of some nations, our economy is faltering, politicians are corrupt, and government is not able to solve the problems facing it. There is room for hope, for confidence, for joy, but it is not in the world around us, it is in the God whom Paul served, the God of whom he writes, whom he worships, and to whom he prays in Ephesians. The truths of this great epistle can transform your life, and the God of this epistle can give you faith, hope, and love.

(2) Ephesians is not a personal epistle. The message of Ephesians is much more general, and much less personal than some of his other epistles. First and Second Timothy and Titus were written personally to Timothy and Titus. Philemon was written to Philemon, concerning the return of his slave, Onesimus. Philippians deals with the personal affairs of Paul (chapter 1), Timothy, and Epaphroditus (chapter 2), and Euodia and Syntyche (chapter 4). In the 15th chapter of Romans, Paul spells out his personal plans for his ministry. Ephesians does not deal with personal matters.

(3) Ephesians is not a “problem-solving epistle.” Some epistles were occasioned by problems, which the letter seeks to correct. Galatians is a “hot letter” shot off to rebuke the Galatians for giving in to the legalism of the Judaisers. Philippians deals with the problems occasioned by Paul’s imprisonment, along with the scrap which was going on between Euodia and Syntyche. The Corinthian epistles are oozing with problems which required correction by letter, including divisions, conflict, lawsuits, immorality (chapters 1-7), and abuses in worship (chapters 11-13), not to mention an attack on the doctrine of the resurrection (chapter 15). Ephesians, on the other hand, is not a problem-centered epistle.

(4) Ephesians is not a didactic (teaching) epistle. The Epistle to the Ephesians is written to one of the most well-taught churches that ever existed. Paul spent nearly 3 years teaching in Ephesus. Apollos had ministered there as well. And in Paul’s absence he wrote two epistles to this group of believers. He also sent Timothy to minister at Ephesus as his representative (some would call Timothy an ‘apostolic legate’). While He was at Ephesus, Paul wrote two personal letters to Timothy, which contained instructions that applied to this church (1 & 2 Timothy).

One would hardly think that another epistle was needed to further teach the Ephesian saints. As you read and study the Epistle to the Ephesians it becomes increasingly evident that it is not a teaching document. Paul writes to those who have been well taught. He uses terms with very precise theological meanings, terms like “chose” (1:4), “predestined” (1:5), “redemption” (1:7), and “sealed” (1:13). Yet Paul neither defines, develops, or defends these theological concepts, he simply declares them. He calls these truths to the attention of his readers, knowing that they understand what he means by them.

In contrast to the simple declarations of Ephesians, Paul’s epistle to the Romans very carefully defines his terms and develops his arguments. He even raises objections which could be made, and answers them

(5) Ephesians is not a “need-meeting” epistle, nor is it a book which tells us how to be successful or effective. In writing Ephesians, Paul breaks the rules of homiletics,⁶ as often taught today. Generally, sermon introductions try to address a “felt need” in the listener, which the preacher tries to convince his audience his message will address and meet.

I believe that it is accurate to say that no book of the Bible is written primarily to “meet our needs.” It is the false teachers who appeal to the flesh, perverting and distorting the truth so as to cater to our fleshly desires. And they succeed at it because this is what we want to hear. All of us, to some extent, have “itching ears,” and are therefore more drawn to those teachers who tell us what we want to hear.

A few years ago, I read a book entitled The Total Man. It was a book addressed to husbands, about the marriage relationship. It was not until chapter 5 that the author addressed the sexual relationship of the husband and the wife. I’ll never forget how that chapter began. It went something like this: “I have the sneaking suspicion that some of you have turned to this chapter first.” Now there’s a man who knows his reading audience. He knew that men would be more interested in what he had to say about sex than about most anything else. I think he was right.

You and I read the Bible in the same way that author knew his readers would approach his book—looking for what they wanted to hear and ignoring the rest. The Bible may be abused by those who read it selectively, but it was not written to cater to our wants or our perceived “needs.” It was written to challenge us to evaluate, and in many cases, to renounce our fleshly “needs.” It calls us to “take up our cross” and to crucify the flesh. It declares a whole new system of needs, needs which are primarily spiritual, and which can only be met in God. We are assured that these needs will always be met because of the sufficiency and faithfulness of our God, who has promised to provide for them.

(6) Paul is not preaching or teaching in Ephesians as much as he is praising, praising God for who He is and what He has done, as evidenced in the person and work of Jesus Christ and in the gospel. After a brief greeting in verses 1 and 2, Paul’s first words in Ephesians begin, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ …” The tone of Ephesians, and especially the first three chapters, is one of praise toward God. The first three chapters are addressed to God as much as to men, with the reader being given the privilege of overhearing Paul’s response to God in both praise and petition, and then having the opportunity to join with him. In the midst of chapters 1 and 3, Paul turns to prayer.

(7) Ephesians is the “Waterloo of biblical commentators.” This characterization of Ephesians by E. J. Goodspeed⁷ suggests to us that this book has proven to be greater than the minds of those who have studied it. Ephesians is one of those books which, like the God of whom it speaks, is beyond the grasp of the finite minds of men.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known (1 Corinthians 13:12).

It is not that Ephesians is unclear, but that the truths of which it speaks are beyond our grasp. We should not be frustrated by the fact that we cannot “master” this epistle (or any other book of the Bible), but we should be humbled by the vastness of God’s being, and of the finiteness of our own existence and intelligence.

(8) Ephesians is the “high road” of New Testament revelation, changing our perspective from that of a citizen of this world to that of a citizen of heaven. Faith in Jesus Christ, often spoken of as being “born again” (see John 3:3ff.), brings about a radical change. If salvation brings one from “death” to “life,” from the “kingdom of darkness” to the “kingdom of light,” then one would expect that conversion would likewise bring about a vastly different way of viewing life.

And so it does. In brief, becoming a Christian requires us to think not so much in physical terms, but in spiritual terms, not so much in earthly terms as heavenly terms, not only in terms of time, but also in terms of eternity. No epistle penned by the Apostle Paul is so extensive in the change of perspective which it challenges us to adopt.

Some years ago, the drug culture was born. As I remember those early days of this devastating phenomenon, hallucinatory drugs were advocated by the radical fringe for their “mind expanding” effects. The Book of Ephesians is mind-expanding, yet without any harmful effects. (It may become habit-forming, however.) It seeks to expand our thinking in virtually every dimension. Listen to what Paul himself says about this matter:

For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you, and your love for all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe (Ephesians 1:15-19).

For this reason, I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man; so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God (Ephesians 3:14-19).

Our spiritual “center of gravity” is too low, too human, too temporal, too material, too earthly, too self-centered. Ephesians is written to challenge and to change our “center of gravity.” In this epistle, Paul writes to change our perspective, to see earthly appearances in the light of heavenly realities, time in the light of eternity, the spiritual life as a struggle a spiritual warfare, not merely with human opponents, but with a host of heavenly forces.

(9) Ephesians seeks to change our orientation from one which is man-centered to one which is God-centered. We smile to ourselves when we think of the ancient view that the world is flat, or that the earth is the center of the universe. And yet, we see man as the central focus, rather than God. Ephesians unapologetically challenges this view, and calls us to a God-centered focus.

I have recently been reading a very excellent book by John Piper, entitled, The Pleasures of God. In this book, he speaks of this need to change our perspective from one which is man-centered to one which is God-centered:

We begin with the most fundamental truth, namely, that from all eternity God has been supremely happy in the fellowship of the Trinity. From this inexhaustible fountain of self-replenishing joy flows the freedom of God in all his sovereign work, creating the universe, spreading his fame, choosing a people, and bruising his Son.

… We need to see first and foremost that God is God—that he is perfect and complete in himself, that he is overflowingly happy in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity, and that he does not need us to complete his fulness and is not deficient without us. Rather we are deficient without him; the all-sufficient glory of God, freely given in fellowship through his sacrificed Son, is the stream of living water that we have thirsted for all our lives.

Unless we begin with God in this way, when the gospel comes to us, we will inevitably put ourselves at the center of it. We will feel that our value rather than God’s value is the driving force in the gospel. We will trace the gospel back to God’s need for us instead of tracing it back to the sovereign grace that rescues sinners who need God.

But the gospel is the good news that God is the all-satisfying end of all our longings, and that even though he does not need us, and is in fact estranged from us because of our God-belittling sins, he has, in the great love with which he loved us, made a way for sinners to drink at the river of his delights through Jesus Christ. And we will not be enthralled by this good news unless we feel that he was not obliged to do this. He was not coerced or constrained by our value. He is the center of the gospel. The exaltation of his glory is the driving force of the gospel. The gospel is a gospel of grace! And grace is the pleasure of God to magnify the worth of God by giving sinners the right and power to delight in God without obscuring the glory of God.⁸

(10) To sum up the essence of the contribution of Ephesians, this epistle draws our attention to the glory of God. The glory of God is not only the motivation, but the goal of God’s sovereign work among men. There is no more majestic theme, no more noble pursuit than the glory of God. Moses’ highest ambition and most noble request was to see the glory of God (Exodus 33:17–18:8). The first coming of Christ was a display of the glory of God (John 1:14; see also Matthew 16:27–17:8). The Apostle Paul was encouraged and sustained by his awareness of God’s glory (see 2 Corinthians 3:7-18; 4:3-6, 16-18). The apostle Peter found the revelation of the “Majestic Glory” of our Lord a witness to the truthfulness of the prophetic word revealed through the apostles (2 Peter 1:16-19). Our Lord’s second coming will be a revelation of His glory, and the cause for the saints’ rejoicing (1 Peter 4:12-13). Every supreme goal of our every action is the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). The Epistle to the Ephesians is all about the glory of God.

Overview of Ephesians

I was fascinated to read in Piper’s introduction how he had organized the material in his book. The first six chapters speak of the pleasure of God in His own person, and in the outworking of His plans and purposes, especially in the sending of the Son to provide salvation for lost sinners. The final chapters focus on the pleasure of God in the responses of His people.⁹

The parallel of Piper’s structure and that found in Ephesians is strikingly similar. Ephesians 1-3 concentrate on the glory of God as brought about by the gospel—the glory of God in His church. Ephesians 4-6 focus on the glory of God in man’s obedience to the gospel—the glory of God through His church. Consider, then, this very simplistic outline of the content of Ephesians, remembering that this epistle is the “Waterloo of commentators”:

Chapters 1-3	The Glory of God in the Church
Chapter 1	The glory of God of God in Redemption
Chapter 2	The glory of God in reconciliation
Chapter 3	The glory of God in the revelation of the mystery of the church
Chapters 4-6	The Glory and Pleasure of God through the Church
Chapter 4	The glory of God in the unity and growth of the church
Chapter 5	The glory of God in the imitation of Christ by the saints
Chapter 6	The glory of God in victory of Christ

Chapters 1-3 of the Epistle to the Ephesians urge us to be more heavenly minded so that, in obedience to the instruction laid down in chapters 4-6, we may be of more earthly good, to the glory of God.

May God grant us an appetite for the “meat” of this great epistle, and may He also grant us the ability to grasp the breadth and length and height and depth of God’s glory, as seen in Christ and in His church.

1 As cited by F. F. Bruce in The Epistles To The Colossians, To Philemon, and To the Ephesians (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), p. 229.

2 Ibid.

3 William Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967), p. 32.

4 This is not to say that we should find the means by which Paul reached Rome altogether surprising. At his conversion, Paul was informed that he would bear the name of Christ “before the Gentiles and kings …” (Acts 9:15). And on his way toward Jerusalem, Paul was informed of his coming arrest (Acts 20:22-23; 21:10-14).

5 There is considerable discussion as to where this prison was located. Some believe it was in Rome, others, Caesarea, and some elsewhere. From the information which the New Testament provides, I have no difficulty in accepting Rome as the place of his imprisonment. The place of his incarceration is of little importance to our understanding of his epistles.

6 Homiletics of the study of the development and delivery of sermons.

7 As cited by Bruce, p. 229.

8 John Piper, The Pleasures of God (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1991), pp. 18-19.

9 Piper, p. 18.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

6. Peter’s Capitulation and Paul’s Correction (Galatians 2:11-21)

As today is my father’s birthday, I am inclined to reflect upon some of my memories of my father and me. Even though my dad and I had our confrontations, they never lasted long. For example, I remember one occasion at the dinner table when I had corrected my younger brother. Since he was nearly ten years younger than I, I felt that he should obey me. Needless to say, he did not agree with me, and he told me to “shut up.” I then attempted to physically enforce my authority with what I considered to be some needed discipline, but my father intervened. What troubled me at the time was that Dad didn’t seem to think punishment was required in this case. (Now, years later, I have to admit he may have been right.) I had felt our differences should be settled on the basis of whether or not it was right for my brother to tell anyone to “shut up,” and I was angry that my father did not back me up.

As I was obviously losing the argument, I made one last effort and blurted out to my father, “Well, then, you shut up!”

My brother’s comment did not get a response from Dad, but mine certainly did! For a split second I weighed the option of a dramatic act of protest, and actually considered flipping the dinner table upside-down.

Although Dad and I were at odds during this incident, within an hour our differences had been resolved. Dad and I were able to laugh about that incident, and never again was it brought up in a context of debate or disagreement. While our differences at times were intense, they were short-lived.

Some biblical scholars have felt that there was a lasting conflict between Paul and Peter. The 19th century German scholar, F. C. Baur of the University of Tubingen, hypothesized a new “dialectic” method for interpreting the New Testament. It became known as the Tubingen School of Theology. Baur reasoned that there was a deep seated conflict between Peter, the apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. He determined the authenticity of the New Testament books in accordance with the criteria of this theory. Any book which exhibited tension between Paul and Peter, between law and grace, he considered to be authentic. Furthermore, he interpreted each in light of the alleged tension between Paul and Peter and their divergent doctrinal views.

Galatians 2:11-21 was cited by those in this school as the origin of the conflict between Paul and Peter which intensified as time passed. (I must tell you that few hold Baur’s view on this point today.) However, the two apostles’ differences were few, and those were short-lived. I understand that this incident took place before the Jerusalem Council, described in Acts 15. Since Peter defended Paul at the Jerusalem Council, it is clear that Peter quickly responded to Paul’s rebuke. As a matter of fact, Peter and James, who are both prominent in Galatians 2, are prominent in Acts 15 as well.

The incident which Paul recounts is not portrayed as a long-standing debate between himself and Peter; instead, it is reported as proof of Paul’s independence as an apostle. In chapter 1 Paul defends his claim of apostleship; it was not of any human origin or commission, but by divine appointment (1:1). Those who challenged that apostleship had circulated among the Galatian churches preaching a distorted gospel, and these false teachers were worthy of being accursed (1:6-9). These Judaizers, who forced circumcision and law-keeping upon Gentile converts (cf. Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 2:3-4), condemned Paul’s gospel as man-made and man-pleasing (1:10).

Paul counters this charge in the remainder of chapter 1 and in chapter 2. He declared that his conversion was virtually independent of men, since Christ revealed Himself to him and in him (1:13-16). Rather than looking to the apostles in Jerusalem for his message or for approval for his ministry, Paul had little contact with them, visiting Jerusalem and the church leaders only twice in 17 years (1:18; 2:1). On these occasions he did not stay long, and he met with only three of the apostles—Peter, James, and John (cf. 1:18-19; 2:2, 9). Paul did not ask for their approval, but he did seek to work in harmony with them. In contrast to the Judaizers who insisted Titus be circumcised, the apostles did not demand it; on the contrary, they fully accepted Paul and Barnabas as partners in the gospel, giving them the “right hand of fellowship” (2:1-10).

The incident recorded in 2:11-21 is Paul’s final documentation in support of his independence as an apostle. Not only did he not seek the approval of the apostles (1:18-2:10), Paul actually dared to publicly rebuke them when they were inconsistent with the gospel (2:11-21). This is Paul’s last historical proof of his independence as an apostle. In chapters 3 and 4, Paul uses theological proof to show that the Judaizers were seeking to use the Old Testament law in a way that it was never intended to be used. Finally, in chapters 5 and 6, Paul shows how the gospel can produce lives which are godly, something the law could not accomplish.

The Incident and Paul’s Indictment
(2:11-14)

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter’s visit to the church at Antioch probably occurred before the Jerusalem Council. He had apparently been there for some time,⁴⁴ long enough for it to be observed that his custom (at least while he was with these Gentile Christians) was to live like them, rather than to live as a Jew. Such customs were not new to Peter, for that was the way he had been instructed to associate with Cornelius and the other Gentiles who had gathered at his house (cf. Acts 10).

In time, a party of Jews from Jerusalem arrived. Paul referred to these men as having come “from James,” rather than “from Jerusalem.” Perhaps we should not make too much of Paul’s choice of words here. He may have only meant to refer to the fact that James was recognized as the dominant leader in Jerusalem and that to come from Jerusalem was, in effect, to come from James. On the other hand, James must at least have been informed of this visit and might even have been the initiator of it.⁴⁵

A sequence of events was set in motion by the arrival of the party “from James” which culminated in Paul’s confrontation of Peter. Peter gradually⁴⁶ began to withdraw from the Gentiles and to avoid them. This behavior was most evident at meal time. The subtlety of the change in Peter’s conduct is similar to the change in one’s behavior in response to learning that a loved one is terminally ill. Joseph Bayly describes some of the changes which occur in the behavior of the loved ones of those who are dying:

Nurses have mentioned a pattern of behavior to me: first a wife will kiss her husband on the mouth, then on the cheek, then the forehead, and finally she will blow him a kiss from the door. The change is not lost on him.⁴⁷

A similar change occurred at the dinner table at Antioch. Apparently the party “from James” ate at first by themselves, while the rest, both Jews and Gentiles, ate together. Then these Jewish guests were joined by Peter and eventually by all the other Jewish Christians (except Paul). Finally, there were two groups at meal time, the Jewish party and the Gentile party. If the church at Antioch observed communion with a common meal as we would expect (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-34), the problem then was intensified for their worship had become divided.

When Paul recognized the seriousness of the situation⁴⁸ he confronted Peter personally and publicly (vv. 11, 14). Peter was corrected before all because the Jews had been wrong to follow him, and the Gentiles had been injured by their actions. Peter was singled out because even in his wrong-doing he was a leader. To correct Peter’s conduct was to correct the problem.

The actions of Peter and those who followed him were clearly identified as sin. Peter was rebuked because he “stood condemned” (v. 11). Paul’s boldness in rebuking Peter and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch was due to the seriousness of this sin. There were several reasons why their relationship to the Gentiles in Antioch (or should I say their response to the Jews from Jerusalem) could not be taken lightly.

(1) The actions of Peter and the others were wrongly motivated. Peter, we are told, acted out of a fear for the “party of the circumcision” (v. 12). It is safe to say that the others were also motivated out of a desire not to offend, either the Judaizers or Peter. Peter, as well as those who followed him in his capitulation to the circumcisers, was guilty of acting as “men-pleasers.”

(2) The actions of Peter and the others caused some to stumble. Verse 13 informs us that Peter’s actions set an example which was followed by the “rest of the Jews,” and that their hypocrisy caused “even Barnabas” to follow. What Peter did, others did after him, following his lead.

(3) The actions of Peter and the others were hypocritical. In verse 13 Paul wrote that the rest of the Jews, including Barnabas,⁴⁹ “joined him [Peter] in hypocrisy.” The hypocrisy of their actions was based on the fact that what they still believed, they had ceased to practice. They had not deliberately departed from right doctrine: they had simply deviated from it in practice.

(4) The actions of Peter and the rest were a practical denial of the gospel. Paul acted decisively when it became apparent to him that “they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). What Peter did compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews (v. 14), which was, in Paul’s words, “another gospel” (cf. 1:6-7). The major argument of this section is concerned with this deviation.

The Issue Defined and Defended
(2:14-21)

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

As previously stated there were several reasons why Peter’s actions (and those who followed him) were wrong. The principle reason, however, is that the truth of the gospel had been forsaken. The gospel in practice had violated the gospel in principle. Verses 14-21 contain three arguments⁵⁰ which show that such actions deserved rebuke.

The first argument (verse 14) is directed against Peter. Paul stands toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball with Peter, charging him with acting hypocritically. Though Peter was a Jew, he lived as a Gentile, at least during his stay in Antioch. The lesson Peter had learned by means of a divine vision had enabled him to associate with the Gentile Cornelius and the other Gentiles who were gathered in Cornelius’ home (Acts 10). When Peter arrived in Antioch, he lived there according to the customs of the Gentile, and not as a Jew. After the arrival of those who came “from James,” all of this changed. Peter began to live as a Jew, compelling the Gentile believers to live like him (as a Jew) in order to have fellowship with him and the other Jewish believers. What inconsistency! What hypocrisy! If Peter, a Jew, did not need to live like a Jew, why did he demand by his actions that Gentile Christians live like the Jews?

Let me attempt to illustrate the inconsistency of Peter in a way that may be more relevant to us. It is my understanding that Ross Perot’s computer company in Dallas (EDS) has a dress code for its employees. The men who work there are required to have short hair and to dress in a dark suit and tie. Let’s suppose that Mr. Perot suddenly has a change of mind and that he liberalizes the rules so that employees are now permitted either to dress as formerly in shirt, suit, and tie, or, they may now come to work in jeans and T-shirts. It quickly becomes evident that there are two different categories of employee, both of which have the approval of Ross Perot. One is the “old guard” which likes things as they were. They continue to wear dark suits and ties, which is, of course, completely in compliance with the new policy. The other group consists of those wearing T-shirts, jeans, and sneakers.

Soon, problems begin to develop between the two groups. The old guard (like the Pharisees) continues to dress as formerly in suits and ties and begins to pressure the other employees to do likewise. One employee, whom we will call Peter, has belonged to the “old guard,” but when he meets a group of the “avant-guard” who hold a weekly Bible study and prayer time during their lunch break, he becomes a member of their Bible study. To make them feel more at ease, he keeps a change of clothes in his locker so each week he can change into jeans and sneakers before attending the study.

Some of Peter’s friends, members of the “old guard,” ask to attend the study with Peter, but they refuse to dress like the rest, and, offended by Peter’s dress, tell him so. In fact, they refuse to even sit near him when he is wearing a T-shirt and sneakers. In order to remain on good terms with his old friends, Peter not only reverts to the former dress code but slowly withdraws from the other Christians who still dress casually. As a result, the newer group is forced to follow the old dress code or suffer the loss of Peter’s fellowship. Peter is wrong and is worthy of rebuke because he has acted hypocritically. He not only has given up the freedom he once enjoyed in his manner of dress, but he also functionally has forced others to surrender as well.

Verses 15-17 move from Peter’s problem (actually just a symptom) to the very root of the problem, the pride which the Judaizers had in their Jewishness that caused them to feel smugly superior to the Gentile Christians. Verse 15 is virtually the slogan of the Judaizers, mirroring the arrogance which was at the root of the refusal of the men “from James” to eat with the Gentiles: “We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles.”

When I was young, a rhyme we used to repeat went something like this:

Rootie, toot, toot,
Rootie, toot, toot,
We’re the boys from the institute.
We don’t smoke,
And we don’t chew,
And we don’t run around with the girls that do.

Behind this rhyme there is a note of smug superiority. There is likewise a strong sense of superiority behind the words of verse 15. Paul cited these words to reveal the attitude underlying the Jewish withdrawal from fellowship with the Gentile Christians. The Judaizers felt they could not eat with the Gentiles because they were sinners and would continue to be until they were converted to Judaism.

At the root of the Judaizers sense of superiority was a deep-seated racial prejudice. Jews felt that by nature, by birth, they were somehow endowed with a spiritual superiority. This mentality is evident in the Gospels as well (cf. John 4:9; 8:33). The carnal Jew concluded that by virtue of being Jewish he was pious, while the Gentile, by virtue of his birth, was sinful. The only way that such pride could be maintained within Christianity was for the Jewish Christians to insist that the Gentile converts adopt Judaism in addition to trusting in Christ.

Verse 16 corrects this fallacious reasoning, as indicated by the initial word “nevertheless.” Paul reminds Jewish Christians that they were not able to earn justification through law-keeping; rather, like the Gentile Christians, the Jewish believers, too, were justified by faith in Christ.⁵¹ Spiritual superiority could not be claimed by the Jewish Christians if they were saved in exactly the same manner as the Gentiles. Thus the smug superiority of some of the Jewish Christians, which caused them to look down their spiritual noses at the Gentiles as sinners, was founded on a misconception.⁵²

In verse 17a Paul drives the point of verse 16 home, which leads to a further question (v. 17b) and answer (v. 18). Those who seek to be saved (justified) by faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, acknowledge their sinful state. Salvation by faith in Christ is only necessary for those who cannot be saved by self-effort, by the “works of the law.” The gospel is based on the fact that all men are equal before God, contrary to the smug statement of verse 15. Acceptance of the gospel is admission of sin and human inability for both Jews and Gentiles.

By nature, both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, so that neither group has any grounds for feeling superior to the other. This argument is also found in the epistle to the Ephesians:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Eph. 2:1-3).

In this passage Paul refers to the Gentile believers as “you” and to the Jewish believers as “we.” His point is that both Jews and Gentiles are dead in their sins, servants of Satan, until they have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

The fact that the gospel views Jews, as well as Gentiles, as sinners, caused the Judaizers much grief. If this were true, they reasoned, then their standing before God was really better under the old covenant than under the new. It seemed to them that the gospel promoted sin, for in the previous dispensation, under the law, the Jews were righteous, and the Gentiles were sinners. However under the new covenant (the gospel), both Jews and Gentiles are each sinners. Doesn’t this mean that if the gospel increases the number of sinners, that Christ must be a minister of sin, promoting sin rather than causing it to cease?⁵³

Such a conclusion is in error. As Paul will demonstrate in Galatians 3 and 4, the law never did save, nor sanctify. The law set a standard which no man (except the Lord Jesus) has ever been able to attain to. Paul’s immediate answer is found in verse 18: “For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.”

In order to understand Paul’s answer to the ridiculous charge that Jesus Christ was responsible for increasing sin, we must first understand the mentality of the Judaizer. To the Judaizers, a gospel which repealed the law was responsible for promoting sin, since they believed that the law was able to overcome sin’s power. For the gospel to repeal the law for Gentile converts was to promote sin. When the Judaizer required law-keeping of Gentile converts, he felt he was reducing sin.

Paul’s answer in verse 18 showed that just the opposite was true. To return to a righteousness based upon law-keeping (in Paul’s words, “to rebuild what one had once destroyed”), was to reveal one’s own sinfulness. Instead of Paul’s gospel making Christ a minister of sin, accepting the “different gospel” of the Judaizers proved the one who turned back to be a transgressor. The repeal of the law freed one to live righteously, while a return to the law made sin inevitable.

In verses 19 and 20 Paul establishes the argument of verses 17 and 18 by reviewing what takes place when a sinner turns to faith in Christ. Paul speaks of this in the first person (“I”), but it is evident that he speaks generally of what takes place when any sinner trusts in Christ by faith.

In Christ one dies to the law. The condemnation which the law has pronounced on the sinner is fully borne by the sinner, in Christ. The result is that the sinner dies to the law, so that it can no longer condemn him. The process is carried out “through the law,” reminding us that the gospel is the fulfillment of the law. The law can take the sinner only to the point of condemnation and to the sentence of death. The redemption which the law promised, and of which the sacrificial system was a prototype, could only be accomplished by Christ, the Lamb of God. The result is that the sinner, powerless to live righteously under the law, is now free to live to God (v. 19).

Verse 20 is perhaps the best known passage in the entire book of Galatians, and yet few have come to appreciate it in light of the context of Paul’s rebuke of Peter, whose behavior was inconsistent with the gospel which it summarizes. The thrust of this verse is not so much the need for sanctification, but rather the futility of seeking to live righteously under the law to which the saint has died.

The reason why the gospel has repealed the law is that the law has done its job. It has shown man his sin and has promised him salvation through the shed blood of a coming Savior. The law was never intended to save, nor to sanctify. Verse 20 outlines, in brief, what the gospel has done to save and to sanctify. When a man is saved by faith in Christ, he has died in Christ to the law; Christ now lives within him, enabling him to live righteously. He is now able to live a new life by faith, not by works. This is vastly superior to the old way of life.

The conclusion of Paul’s argument is found in verse 21. There are only two choices in the final analysis, either of which is exclusive of the other: one can live by faith in Christ and experience God’s grace, or he can strive for righteousness under the law and forsake grace. The reason the Judaizers were wrong in insisting that faith should be buttressed by law is that when you choose one, you must forsake the other. Some things (like “love and marriage”) may go together (“You can’t,” as the song says, “have one, without the other”), but not so with law and grace. If the law is sufficient to save and to sanctify, the death of Christ becomes needless.

Conclusion

Surely Paul has proven his point. Neither he nor his gospel was deserving of the label “man-pleasing.” After all, whom would Paul rather please than the leaders of the Jerusalem church? How could the rebuke of Peter (and, by inference, any who agreed with him) possibly be construed to be the result of a compulsion to please men? It was exactly the opposite. The Judaizers sought to please their colleagues, the Pharisees. They were unwilling to “take the heat” for accepting the Gentile Christians on an equal basis with Jewish believers. Conversely, Paul was willing to stand absolutely alone for the truth of the gospel without even Barnabas at his side.

Paul’s authority as an apostle is fundamental to the argument of the book of Galatians, but there are other lessons for us as well. Let us conclude our study by considering the implications of the gospel suggested by this passage.

First, we should learn from this text that much of evangelical error is inferential. Peter had no idea that he was denying the gospel, but he was. He did so, not by his affirmations, but by his actions. By his actions, Peter sided with the Judaizers, who insisted that Gentiles were sinners unless they converted to Judaism in addition to turning to Christ by faith. Christians need to become much more conscious of the implications of their actions, for we can deny in practice what we believe in propositional form. Let us seek to understand the gospel more fully and to live it more consistently.

Second, we should learn that we should expect to be tested on those very points which we believe most emphatically and which we may teach dogmatically. Who, more than Peter, had come to know that eating with the Gentiles was consistent with the will of God? In Acts 10 God instructed Peter to abandon the ceremonial food laws in order to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter defended his actions before his Jewish brethren in Acts 11. In Antioch Peter lived according to the lesson he had learned in Acts 10. Later when some Jewish brethren arrived “from James,” he capitulated.

Under testing Peter abandoned what he believed. The same may be true of James. In the first half of the second chapter of his epistle, James addresses the evil of showing partiality within the church. Did not he himself support this? It is at least possible, since Paul records that the men who came to Antioch were from James. If nothing else, James learned a valuable lesson from Paul which he later conveyed to others in his epistle.

Although these men may have acted inconsistently with the truth, let me be quick to commend them for the change which is evident following Paul’s rebuke of Peter. I believe that the Jerusalem Council followed shortly after this rebuke; yet it was there that Peter and James were the two strongest supporters of the gospel as preached by Paul. They spoke out clearly in defense of Paul’s gospel, and they denied the teaching of the Judaizers (Acts 15:24). The practical prohibitions placed on the Gentiles were intended, I believe, to prevent any further recurrences of division and strife. These men, James and Peter, were great men, for they were willing to respond in a godly way to rebuke.

Third, this passage provides us with a footnote for the matter of private rebuke. We are all aware of the teaching of our Lord in Matthew 18, which instructs us to confront an erring brother privately. Our text in the second chapter of Galatians should inform us that some correction must be done publicly. Public correction is necessary where public error has corrupted others.

The underlying principle of private rebuke, I believe, is that sin should always be dealt with on the smallest possible scale. If we can deal with sin privately, so much the better. According to Matthew 18, it is only when private rebuke fails that public rebuke should follow. Matthew 18 concerns an offense committed by one brother against another. In Galatians 2, Paul publicly rebuked Peter on a different basis. Peter had publicly sinned, not actually against Paul, but against the gospel and against the Gentile Christians. Because Peter’s actions were public and he was a leader, many followed him in his sin. Thus, Paul rebuked him publicly, in order to correct a corporate problem.

A few years ago, after Bill Gothard’s ministry had become public and popular, Joe Bayly publicly challenged Bill to answer some specific questions, which would clarify his teaching. Initially Bill refused, claiming Matthew 18 in his defense and appealing to Joe to speak privately with him. Joe’s response was that Bill had in no way sinned against him personally, but that Bill’s teaching ministry had been public, and some of his students had taken his teaching to ridiculous extremes. Because his teaching and its impact were far reaching, private rebuke would not correct the wrong which had resulted. Fortunately, Bill eventually agreed to clarify his teaching, which Joe published. Joe was right, I believe, and he took a stand when Bill was second only to Moses in the minds of many. Those who err in public may require correction in public.

Let me give you a practical application of this. Every Sunday our church observes the Lord’s Table and provides the men with an opportunity to speak publicly. I am well aware of the sensitivity of some men about public correction. Believe me, there is not one elder who is eager to correct anyone publicly after he has spoken in the church meeting. However, when a man exercises his responsibility to speak, he must also assume responsibility for what he says. If the error is minor, correction may not be needed; however, when the error is serious and far-reaching in its implications, it must be corrected. Those who assume leadership, must be dealt with like leaders—publicly. I say this with great hesitation, realizing fully that this applies to me more than most of you. We are all accountable for what we say and do, but leaders are more so. No one knew this better than James (cf. James. 3:1).

Fourth, we are reminded of the fallibility of the giants of the faith. I sometimes hear preachers speak of Peter’s fallibility as though it somehow terminated in Acts 2, when Peter along with others, was filled with the Holy Spirit. There were great changes in his life, of course, but the gift of the Spirit did not make Peter infallible. Let us be reminded that no matter how spiritual a man may be, he is always capable of sin.

Fifth, we should learn that serious problems can have very beneficial ends. I believe that this incident served to shape the decision of the Jerusalem Council as much or more than any other. It did not, as Baur said, create a rift between Peter and Paul which would only intensify in time. The Jerusalem Council suggests the opposite. The conflict here, as that incident between my father and I many years ago, lasted only a short time, but it led to an ever deepening love and respect for each other. God is always able to take unpleasant incidents and turn them into life-changing lessons.

Finally, we should learn from this passage that our authority comes from biblical principles, more than it does from our position. Stop and think about Paul’s confrontation of Peter. Why do you think Paul was able to stand toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, with Peter? Was it because Paul was an apostle? I think not. This incident certainly established Paul’s independence as an apostle, but it was not the basis for his apostleship. Nor was his apostleship the basis for Paul’s confrontation of Peter. The authority for what Paul did was the gospel. He tells the Galatians that he rebuked Peter when he saw that he and the other Jewish believers were not acting in a straightforward way with the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14). Paul’s actions were therefore based upon principle, not upon position.

Over and over I hear people coming to the elders of our church, asking what the elders are going to do about a certain problem in someone’s life. We try to point out that the Bible never lays the responsibility for correction on the elders, per se, but on the individual who is aware of the sin. It is this brother or sister who is to go to the sinning saint and rebuke him and only then take it to the church if they refuse to repent. Underlying the passing of the buck of correction to the leaders of the church is the assumption that correction is not “their place.” The issue involved in correction is not your position, but God’s principles. In this instance in Galatians, the principles of the gospel warranted rebuke, even when those in error were those who held the position of authority. Let each of us seek to be men and women of principle and seek to protect the truth of the gospel, regardless of our position, and regardless of the position of those whom we must rebuke. Let me remind you, however, that rebuke is to be based upon principle, not on personal convictions, or on personal preferences, or perspectives.

It is my opinion that the Christians of this generation lack courage, the kind of courage manifested by Paul. One reason for this is that we are not people of principle, and we understand inadequately the principles of the Word of God. Let us strive to be men and women like Paul, people of principle and of courage, willing to stand on and to stand by the Word of God, regardless of who we must oppose.

May God enable you to submit to the truth of the gospel by personally trusting in Christ for salvation. Then may He enable each of us, as Christians, to seek to practice and to preserve the truth of the gospel, even when this requires rebuke.

44 The tense of the Greek verb, translated “used to eat” by the NASB, is imperfect, which implies that some time had passed and that this was the habit of Peter—to eat with the Gentiles, like a Gentile.

45 It is difficult to determine what part, if any, James may have had in the arrival of this party. On the one hand, it is possible that James knew nothing whatever of the mission of these men, but this seems unlikely in light of the fact that Paul chose the expression “from James,” rather than “from Jerusalem.” These men may have claimed to have come “from James” in order to enhance their influence and to further their Judaistic views. On the other hand, it could be that James actually sent these men to Antioch. Acts 21:17-26 is informative concerning this matter. On Paul’s returned to Jerusalem here, he was met by James and all the elders (v. 18). They expressed the concern of some of the believing Jews, who were zealous for the law (v. 20), that Paul was teaching the Jews who lived amongst the Gentiles that they should cease to live as Jews (v. 21). This was very close to the conduct of Peter while in Antioch, and word of this may have reached Jerusalem so that a delegation was sent by James to investigate the matter. This delegation was likely more zealous for the law than James, similar to the group described in Acts 21:20-21. The party “from James” may have taken it upon themselves to straighten out Peter and Paul. We are not told the reason for the arrival of this party, and thus it was not vital to the point which Paul was making.

46 Both verbs are in the imperfect tense, which suggests a gradual change in Peter’s conduct, rather than a glaring, instantaneous, change. Also, Paul informs us in verse 14 that he publicly rebuked Peter when he “saw” what had happened, suggesting that the change in Peter’s actions, as well as the other Jewish believers, was gradual and only finally recognized (“seen”) by Paul.

47 Joseph Bayly, The Last Thing We Talk About (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1973), p. 36.

48 Some have suggested that Paul may have been gone at the time Peter arrived and the problem originated. Thus, he would have dealt decisively with Peter and the others when he returned. I think it is more likely that the problem gradually developed and that Paul finally saw the matter for what it was. Thus, the apostle tells us he “saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). The implications of this incident took some time to come into focus, at which time Paul acted decisively.

49 It is with particular dismay that Paul is forced to inform us that “even Barnabas” was guilty of falling in line with the Judaizers. From verse 13 we know that Barnabas was influenced by the hypocrisy of the whole group, while the other Jews merely followed Peter (compare “their hypocrisy” in verse 13b with “the Jews joined him in hypocrisy” in 13a). Barnabas may thus have been the last to fall into this error. The shocking thing about his capitulation is that he had been so enthusiastic about God’s work among the Gentile converts (cf. Acts 11:22-23). Remember, however, that it was the apostles from Jerusalem who had first sent Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:21). Barnabas may have felt some obligation to the party which had come “from James,” and after everyone fell into line with the circumcision party, he may finally have felt compelled to join them as well. We learn from this incident that Paul, alone, stood against the other Jews on behalf of the gospel. While he and Barnabas had stood together in refusing to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3-5), Paul stood alone against Peter. This adds weight to Paul’s claim to have been independent of the other apostles and to his defense that he was not a man-pleaser.

50 I believe that the change in pronouns in these verses is a significant clue to the development of Paul’s argument. In verse 14, the argument is directed toward Peter, and thus the pronoun is “you.” In verses 15-17 the principle pronoun is “we,” indicating that Paul is now speaking to the Jews. In verses 18-21 the pronoun changes to “I,” where the principles of the gospel become much more personal. Paul thus argues from the general (“you” and “we”) to the specific (“I”).

51 The “we” of verse 16 refers to the Jewish Christians.

52 There is a great deal of difference between “privilege” and “superiority.” In Romans 3:1, 2 and 9:4-5 Paul lists some of the privileges which were bestowed upon the Jews, but this did not suggest superiority, for “to whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:48).

53 There are numerous attempts to explain the question of verse 17, but this seems best to me. Whenever Paul uses the expression,”May it never be!” (cf. Rom. 6:2, 15; Gal. 3:21), it is response to a question which has been asked, which is a wrong conclusion, based upon a correct premise. The gospel did prove the Jews to be sinners, like the Gentiles, but this did not mean that Christ could be accused of promoting sin.

The Net Pastor’s Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 37 Fall 2020

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Biblical Interpretation
“How To Read And Understand The Bible” (Pt. 4)

Introduction

This is part 4 of our continuing study of “Strengthening Biblical Interpretation: How to Read and Understand the Bible.” In the previous three parts of this study (issue numbers 34, 35, and 36 of this Journal) we have looked at the following subjects:

Part 1

1. Three basic tasks in Biblical interpretation

2. Two important hermeneutical questions

Part 2

1. Literal interpretation

2. Interpreting certain literary genres and devices

3. Single mean; multiple applications

4. The impact of culture on our understanding – ancient and contemporary cultures

Part 3

1. Two extremes of cultural vs transcultural interpretation

2. Two examples of cultural vs transcultural interpretation

a) Foot washing

b) Head coverings for women

3. Four guidelines for understanding and interpreting cultural issues

Now, in this part 4, we will outline Ten Simple Rules Of Biblical Interpretation. For this subject, I have found R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 63-99 to be very helpful.

RULE #1: Interpret Scripture In Accordance With The Author’s Originally Intended Meaning

If you have properly and adequately studied the text, you should be able to write down what the author intended to say to his original audience. You must be able to state this before you move to what it means for your audience today. I recommend that you write out the passage in your own words (paraphrase it). This will reveal whether you know the meaning of the passage. If you don’t know what it means, you won’t be able to write it out in your own words. Try to write it out by amplifying the meaning of the words and phrases, explaining the imagery in your own words.

RULE #2: Interpret Scripture In The Light Of Other Scripture

Since we believe that Scripture is divinely inspired, we also believe that no part of Scripture can contradict or be in conflict with another part of Scripture since God cannot contradict himself.

This principle (interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture) is very important for two reasons. First, because of attacks against Scripture by unbelievers. One of the primary attacks against Scripture by unbelievers is the assertion that Scripture contradicts itself. Since the Bible was written by over 40 authors over a period of 16 centuries, if it were not a divinely authored book, contradictions and inconsistencies would be very possible. By interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture, you can show that the entirety of Scripture is consistent with itself.

Second, interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture is an important principle because of the attitude with which Christians read Scripture. Christians do not read and interpret the Bible with the intent of finding inconsistencies in the text (as a non-Christian would). Rather, we look for inconsistencies in our interpretation of the text, which would be revealed by this rule of “interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture.” Furthermore, we read and interpret Scripture with an attitude of submission to the inherent authority, accuracy, integrity, and cohesion of the text so that if there is a contradiction or inconsistency with our interpretation, the problem is with us, not the text.

Therefore, a basic principle of sound biblical interpretation is that to correctly understand one passage of Scripture, you must bring in other texts that are either comparative or contrasting texts. If your interpretation of the passage under study conflicts with the teaching of another comparative or contrasting passage, then your interpretation is not correct. Or, if a verse or passage has several interpretive options, and the one you have chosen is not consistent with other comparative or contrasting passages, then that interpretive option must be rejected and one that is consistent with the other passages must be chosen.

Following this rule of biblical interpretation helps in several ways:

(1) It expands your study and exposition of the text by bringing more light to it from other texts.

(2) It acts as a safeguard to ensure that you are not interpreting the text in a way that is inconsistent with other texts.

(3) It ensures that you understand the progressive unfolding of God's revelation in Scripture. As time progressed, God revealed more and more of himself, his will, his purposes etc. to us through Scripture.

(4) It helps you see the different bases on which God related to and dealt with people at different times. So, Scripture is not only a progressive unfolding of divine revelation but also a progressive unfolding of God's relationship to mankind.

RULE #3: Use The Clear, Major, and Numerous Scriptures To Explain The Less Clear, Minor, and Few.

Since revelation in Scripture is progressive, it is understandable that early revelation may be less clear than later revelation because it is partial and sometimes obscure. Scriptures which are partial or minor in their treatment of a topic do not have interpretive authority over those which are fuller and clearer. The clear and major revelations clarify those that may be less clear and minor.

This, again, emphasizes the need for rule #2: Interpret Scripture in the light of other Scripture.

RULE #4: Be Careful In Making “Logical” Deductions And Inferences.

This rule is closely related to the previous rule. What may seem like a logical deduction or inference from Scripture may not necessarily be true. What is logical to us may not be logical in God’s ways or thoughts. Obviously, if explicit teaching contradicts your inference or what you think is implicit, then the explicit teaching rules. It is important, therefore, to look for explicit instruction that supports what you may think is implicit in the text.

It’s so easy to adopt interpretations and applications of Scripture based on logical deductions, or assumed implicit instructions or inferences that you draw from the text, which may not be what the author intended to convey at all.

While we need to be careful with making deductions and inferences, we do need to identify the general principles that arise from the specific details in the text under our study. Be very careful that the conclusions you draw from your text are the underlying, universal, timeless principles that are being revealed in the text.

RULE #5: Do Not Make Scripture Meet An Unreasonable Literary Standard

By “unreasonable literary standard” I mean a standard that you would not require of any other literature. R. C. Sproul calls this “reading the Bible like any other book” (Knowing Scripture, 63). One commentator puts it this way: “In interpreting the Bible we do not ask any favors which we do not believe are proper rules for the reading of any serious literature” (Mal Couch, ed. A Biblical Theology of the Church, 15).

Of course, the Bible is not just like any other book because: (1) it is unique (no other book like it); (2) it is divine (no other Author like it); (3) it is inspired (no other source, communication, revelation, or power like it).

But, we must read it like any other book in the sense that it is constructed using written words, like any other book - words which had a commonly understood meaning at the time; words which need to be interpreted and understood in accordance with the common rules of grammar at the time and which are designed to be understood on that basis. Also, we must not attribute to it literary liberties that we would not allow for any other literature.

But note this caveat: though we may understand the meaning of the words and grammar correctly, that does not mean that anyone who reads the Bible will necessarily arrive at the correct conclusions about what it says and how it applies to our lives. For that, we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which is the exclusive possession of believers only. Unbelievers can understand the words on the page; they can analyze its grammar; they can engage in the same literary analysis that they would do for any other piece of literature. But unbelievers do not arrive at the correct conclusions about it because they do not have the illumination of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:18) - their ability to understand the Bible is limited to the level of literature only. Though they may have intellectual comprehension they do not have spiritual comprehension. Thus, unbelievers do not submit to the authority of Scripture; they come to wrong conclusions about it; they cannot see the spiritual significance of Scripture; they do not assign proper value to it; they do not accept the implications of Scripture for faith and practice; and they will not accept the application of Scripture to their lives. If we are to assign to the Bible proper value, arrive at the correct conclusions about what it says, and apply it relevantly to our lives, we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

The point I am trying to make here when I say “do not make the Scriptures meet an unreasonable literary standard” is that its grammatical construction (words, phrases, clauses etc.), its contexts (historical, cultural, political etc.), and its literary genre (poetic, narrative etc.) must be examined in the same way you would examine and read any other literature, but with the enablement of the Holy Spirit. This objective method of biblical interpretation prevents subjective, mystical interpretation that is not rooted in scholarship and can be made to mean anything the reader wants or thinks.

RULE #6: Read and Interpret The Bible From A Personal-Application Perspective.

Do not ask “What does this mean to me?” but “How does this apply to me?” In asking this question, we not only bring out its current and relevant application, but we find out first how it was applied to the people to whom it was originally written. By seeing how the author crafted his argument and how he applied it to the real life situation of his original audience (i.e. why he was writing, what problem he was addressing etc.), we discover how it may apply to ourselves within the limitation of its original intended meaning.

Please note this limitation: Even though we may make many applications from one truth, those applications are still limited by the teaching of the author as he originally intended it. You are not authorized to apply Scripture any way you want, just as you are not authorized to interpret it any way you want. As someone has said, “There is more heresy taught in the area of application than in explanation.”

So, we need to read and interpret the Bible from a “personal-application” perspective by identifying with the author’s intended meaning (and what his original audience would have understood); by identifying the life situation of the original audience (and how what was written applied to them); and then applying it appropriately to our own life situation and culture (i.e. in a way that is consistent, and corresponds, with the original situation).

RULE #7: Identify Literary Devices and Genre And Interpret Them Accordingly.

I have already defined what I mean by literal interpretation, particularly when it comes to literary devices (such as figures of speech) and literary genres (such as poetry, apocalyptic, allegory etc.). Each literary genre must be interpreted accordingly. For example, Hebrew poetry must be interpreted in accordance with its patterns and customs - e.g. parallelisms etc. (e.g. Ps. 2:4; Prov. 1:20; Gen. 4:23; Isa. 55:6-7). We need to distinguish between proverb and law. Like our English proverbs, Hebrew proverbs are not intended to be universal truisms for all people at all times, but general principles that are generally true for those living godly lives.

RULE #8: Study The Grammatical Construction and Meaning Of Words Carefully

You cannot interpret Scripture accurately if you do not pay close attention to the grammar – (1) the parts of speech (e.g. noun, verb); (2) the form of each word (e.g. singular or plural; present or future tense etc.); (3) the meaning and use of words in their context and their relationship to each other (i.e. syntax) to form phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. Do not make words mean what you want them to mean or what you think they mean based on contemporary usage. You must understand the word as it was used in its original literary, cultural, and historical contexts. Remember that sometimes words change in their meaning over time.

Pay attention to repeated, significant, and key words. Repeated words and phrases usually tell you something about what the author is trying to emphasize, and / or the theme of the text (e.g. Phil. 1:27; 2:2,3,5; 3:15,16; 4:2,7). Significant words might be: (1) Theological terms (e.g. justification); or (2) The main verb in a sentence; or (3) Conjunctions and prepositions. Words cannot be interpreted in isolation from their usage. So, be sure to always determine what a word means by analyzing its form and its usage in its context.

When you have a word with multiple possible meanings, you have to look at its context and at the various usages in the Bible in order to determine its meaning.

RULE #9: Read and Interpret The Bible Christologically.

By this I mean, read the Bible from a N.T. perspective. Every message should point to Christ or the Christian life in Christ. Each sermon should be governed by the redemptive focus of the Scriptures (cf. Bryan Chapell’s “Fallen Condition Focus” (FCF) in Christ Centered Preaching, 1994). This focus is not only the salvation of the lost but also the growth of believers so that they become all that God intends them to be. Chapell asserts that “proper understanding of a passage and focus of a sermon require a clear FCF” (Bryan Chapell, 42).

Theologically, every sermon must have as its purpose the same purpose as the passage, which is “an aspect of the human condition that requires the instruction, admonition, and / or comfort of the Scriptures” (Chapell, 43). By having this as its objective, every sermon will be unified in its purpose.

RULE #10: Read and Interpret The Bible Theologically.

Look for indications in the text of the essential truth(s) that the author is expressing. Ask yourself: (1) What doctrine (theology) is the original author expressing? (2) What is the overriding truth that emerges from the text? Don’t impose your doctrinal bias onto the text. Don’t read into the text what is not there. Ask yourself: (1) What is the text saying about God? (2) What is it saying about man’s relationship to God? (3) What is it saying about how to live for God? If you can’t find the answer to these questions in the text, you probably don’t know what the theological point of the text is.

The difficulty of this task often depends on the literary genre. The non-didactic genre can be challenging to uncover the truth that is being taught – e.g. the Song of Solomon, or, the book of Jonah. Is Jonah about how God deals with a wayward prophet? Or, is it about God's sovereignty in all circumstances, whether acts of nature (storms, plants, and worms), pagan sailors, wayward prophets, or wicked Gentiles etc.?

In this regard, you have to be very careful interpreting narratives in order to be sure you understand the theology that is being taught. You have to extract the theological point from the narrative detail.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership
“Serving Our Master In A World That Hates Him: An Exegetical Study Of John 15:18-27”

As Christian leaders we often face rejection both in our churches and in the world. Living as a Christian is challenging and often intimidating, isn’t it? The world is so antagonistic to the gospel and to Christ himself. Sometimes their animosity makes us afraid to stand up for Christ. But here’s the encouragement - Jesus said, “In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (Jn. 16:33).

So, what do we do, as leaders of God’s people, to encourage our congregations to testify for Christ when the surrounding culture is so hostile? That’s our subject in this article: “Testifying for Christ in a world that hates him” (Jn. 15:18-27). I hope that this Bible study will help you and encourage you as it becomes increasingly difficult to publicly profess Christ in this world.

In our passage, Jesus has just exhorted the disciples to abide in him (15:1-11) and to love one another (15:12-17). Now Jesus moves on to warn them of the hatred of the world against himself and therefore against them, his followers (15:18-25) and to encourage them to testify for him in the midst of such hatred (15:26-27).

The principle that we learn from this passage is that “Despite opposition from the world, we can faithfully testify for Christ.” We notice three theological principles in this text…

I. The World Hates Followers Of Christ (18-20).

Notice that 1. The world hates followers of Christ because it hated Christ himself first (15:18). “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you” (15:18). When Jesus says, “if” the world hates you, he is not inferring that the world may or may not hate you. This is an “if” of reason, not an “if” of doubt. There is no doubt that the world hates followers of Christ.

The disciples themselves had already experienced this. They knew what had happened to the man born blind and his parents in ch. 9. They knew the blind man’s parents “feared the Jews because the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue” (9:22). This was sheer intimidation by the Jews against these people because they had experienced the healing power of Jesus. The Jews were bound and bent to shut down their testimony of what Jesus had done for their son. In the days to come the disciples would experience an even greater degree of hatred from the world. There is an innate hatred that springs from those who are bitterly opposed to Christ. The truth is that the world hates Christians because it hated Christ. The world is filled with wicked men and women whose Satan-inspired hatred for Christ is manifested in their hatred for followers of Christ.

Jesus comforts his disciples by saying, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you (15:18).” The comfort in this is that Christians who experience the world’s hatred are suffering alongside their Saviour. Jesus suffered the world’s hatred first, and Christians suffer for Christ now. The apostle Paul calls this a privilege, a gift: “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Phil. 1:30). Jesus does not call us to experience anything that he has not experienced himself first. Because of suffering and opposition, many of Jesus’ disciples stopped following him (Jn. 6:66). They couldn’t take the intolerance, the rejection, the humiliation, the physical punishment. That’s the challenge many Christians face today.

So, 1. the world hates followers of Christ because they hated Christ himself first; 2. The world hates followers of Christ because we have been chosen by Christ (15:19-20). “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (15:19). To be “of the world” means to be identified with the world, to hold the world’s beliefs and morals, to adopt the world’s habits and character. If you did that, Jesus says, “the world would love” you as one of “its own.” If you were motivated and characterized by the world’s standards, the world would accept you as one of its own. But the truth is, the world does not accept you. In fact, the world hates you “because you are not of the world.” The reason you are not of the world is because Jesus “chose you out of the world.”

Did you get that? Jesus is saying there is only one reason why you are not accepted by, nor subject, to the world and that’s because “I chose you out of the world.” That is his sovereign grace and mercy toward his followers. The reason the disciples were separate and apart from “the world” was not because there was anything good or meritorious before God in them, but because they had been sovereignly chosen by Jesus. And just as Jesus sovereignly called them so he sovereignly calls all believers today to himself to be his followers and his spokespersons. That’s what makes us different from the world. We have been called out of it by God and separated to him for his exclusive use and purpose.

Repeating what he had already told them in 13:16, Jesus says “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’” (15:20a). Jesus’ followers cannot expect better treatment than Jesus himself received. Just as he was not exempt from persecution, neither are we. “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also” (15:20b). In other words, however the world responds to Jesus will be their response to us, his followers. If they persecuted him, they will persecute his followers. Conversely, if they obeyed his word, they would obey the word of his followers also. In short, the world will respond to you the same way they responded to Jesus.

The world hates followers of Christ - 1. because it hated Christ himself; 2. because Christians have been chosen by Christ out of the world, and, 3. The world hates followers of Christ because the world does not know God (15:21). “But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me” (15:21). The world will persecute and hate those who take the name of Jesus “because they do not know Him who sent Me.” You can only know God through Jesus Christ. If you hate Jesus, it’s because you do not know God – “the One who sent Him.” Anyone who truly knows God knows that Jesus is his one and only eternal Son whom he sent into the world. If they had known that Jesus was the sent One from God, they would not have treated him as they did. For the Bible says that “the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 Jn. 4:14).

So the first theological principle in this passage is that the world hates followers of Christ. But notice the second theological principle…

II. There Is No Excuse For The World’s Hatred Of Christ (15:22-25).

1. There is no excuse for hatred of Christ because of the words He spoke (15:22-23). “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin” (15:22). The truth is they should have known who Jesus was. He came to make God known to them and he did so in word and deed. If Jesus had not revealed to them who He was in his teachings, then they would not have committed the sin of rejecting him as their Messiah because they would have been ignorant - “they would have no sin.” But since Jesus did reveal to them who he was, “now they have no excuse for their sin.” To reject Jesus is inexcusable; they are guilty. Why? Because Jesus clearly spoke the truth to them about who he is and who God is. Yet they still rejected him. And for that there is no excuse. No person ever born into this world has any excuse for rejecting Jesus when they stand before the Great White Throne of God’s judgement - nothing to say, no excuse, no self-justification. Why? Because they have heard the truth and rejected it.

“He who hates Me hates My Father also” (15:23). You cannot know God except by knowing and believing in Jesus. If you hate Jesus you hate the Father also. The Jews in Jesus’ day claimed that God was their Father but they rejected Jesus as God’s Son, the Messiah. That’s impossible because Jesus and the Father are one. You can claim to know God, but if you reject Jesus the Son of God, you reject God the Father also. So, people and religious groups who claim to worship God but deny the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement for sins, his resurrection from the dead etc. cannot and do not know God.

So, 1. there’s no excuse for hatred of Christ because of the words he spoke. And, 2. There is no excuse for hatred of Christ because of the works he did (15:24-25). “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin” (15:24a). Not only are Jesus’ words (15:22) irrefutable evidence of who he is but so are Jesus’ works. He was unique in what he said and what he did. If he had not performed the miraculous signs that he did, then, he says, “they would have no sin.” But Jesus did perform “works which no one else did” and for that everyone is responsible for their response to him. “But now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father” (15:24b). The people of Jesus’ day showed their response by rejecting him during his lifetime and at his death. Such rejection was inexcusable for the evidence was irrefutable as to who Jesus was. In rejecting him they rejected the One who sent him as well.

Now, this isn’t any different from today. We have the evidence of Jesus’ words and works right in front of us in the Scriptures. So, everyone is responsible for how they respond to the evidence. What we see in this passage is that the evidence often isn’t enough to convince some people of their sin and need of a Saviour. Such is the hardness of the human heart.

“But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’” (15:25). That’s a tragically sad truth – “they hated me without a cause.” People who may hate us usually have a reason. But in the case of Jesus, they hated him for no reason. This just goes to show the incredible hardness and wickedness of the human heart! Jesus came doing good to people without money and without price. He did good to people who didn’t even know him, healing those who were sick, feeding those who were hungry, raising some from the dead. He came speaking words of grace and mercy. He came to make God known to us.

By hating Jesus without a cause, Jesus’ opponents unknowingly accomplished two things: (a) they were responsible for his death; and at the same time (b) they fulfilled God’s eternal redemptive purposes. God used man’s wicked acts to accomplish his perfect will so that human beings are responsible for Jesus’ death while at the same time, through his death, God offers eternal life to the human race. That’s the magnificent love and grace of God!

What have we learned so far? First, the world hates followers of Christ (15:18-20). Second, there is no excuse for hatred against Christ (15:22-25). So, how then do we, as Christ’s leaders in His church, faithfully serve Him and testify for Him in such a hate-filled world? Well, here’s the encouragement…

III. Despite The World’s Hatred, We Can Testify For Christ (15:26-27).

1. We can testify for Christ because of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (15:26). In 15:18-25, Jesus has warned the disciples of coming persecution and he explained the reasons why they would be persecuted. Now, in 15:26-27, Jesus exhorts and comforts the disciples by telling them where our source of strength would come from to testify for Him in the midst of opposition and persecution. Just as he had told them at the beginning of chapter 14, Jesus reminds us again that our comfort and power in the face of opposition is the Holy Spirit. “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (15:26). Jesus promised that when he went back to heaven, he would send to them the “Helper (Comforter)… from the Father.” This, of course, is what happened at Pentecost.

The nature of the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth” (15:26b). Just as the word of God is truth and Jesus is the truth, so the Holy Spirit is truth because the Trinity is one. So, the nature of the Holy Spirit is truth itself and the work of the Holy Spirit is to “testify of Me.” That is one of the Holy Spirit’s primary roles today in the world. “When he has come,” Jesus says in 16:8, “he will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement.” In the world, the Holy Spirit testifies to the utter sinfulness of the human race, the utter graciousness of God, and the utter marvel of Christ’s redemption. The Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of truth” who testifies to God’s truth.

So, 1. we can testify for Christ because of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and 2. We can testify for Christ because of our relationship with Him (15:27). “And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (15:27). Very soon the disciples would experience their utter lack of witness for Christ when they all forsook him and fled. But upon the coming of the Holy Spirit they would be emboldened and empowered to do so without any fear. Men who deserted Christ in fear would soon be men of courage, who fearlessly testified for Christ even to the point of death because of their relationship with him from the beginning.

Like the disciples, because we have an intimate relationship with Christ, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to testify to the grace of God without fear. We can testify to the pitiful moral condition of the human race. We can testify to the saving grace of God in Christ. And all this in the midst of the world’s opposition. As church leaders, our responsibility today is to set the example of how to testify for Christ even in the face of opposition. As his followers, we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and placed in the world to testify to who Jesus is, why he came, what he did, where he is now, and his soon-coming return. We testify for him every time we pray for our food. We testify for him every time we speak a word for Christ to others. We testify for him when we take a stand against those who demean Christ. We testify for him by our lifestyle, our speech, our deeds, our priorities, our associations, our habits. Whatever we say or do must be with the goal that we bring glory to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Final Remarks

What have learned in this passage is: 1. The world hates followers of Christ because they hated Christ himself (15:18-20); 2. There is no excuse for hatred against Christ because of (a) the words that he spoke, and (b) the works he did (15:22-25); yet, 3. Despite the world’s hatred, we can faithfully testify for Christ, (a) because of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (15:26), and (b) because of our relationship with Him (15:27). That’s our comfort and encouragement.

May this word today be an encouragement and challenge to us all, especially those of us who lead and pastor God’s people. Jesus has warned us that testifying for him will not be easy. And he has encouraged and equipped us to do so even despite the world’s hatred. May we stand firm for Him in a world that hates him.

III. Sermon Outlines

Title: Letters To The Seven Churches: Sardis- Nominal Christianity (Rev. 3:1-6)

Theme: A church may maintain a façade of Christianity even when it is about to die

Point I: There is a difference between reputation and reality: “I know your works that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead” (3:1)

1. By reputation (“name”) this church was “alive”

2. But in reality it was “dead.”

Point II: There is a connection between waking and working (3:2)

1. This church needed to “wake up” – “be watchful”

2. This church needed to “work out” – “to strengthen the things that remain”

Point III: There is a necessity to remember and repent (3:3-6)

1. It’s necessary to remember the past – “remember therefore how you have received and heard” (3:3a)

2. It’s necessary to recognize the present – “hold fast and repent” (3:3b)

3. It’s necessary to refocus on the future

a) Many sleepers will be surprised by Christ’s judgement – “If you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you” (3c)

b) A few saints will be satisfied by Christ’s approval – “You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments” (3:4a)

To these faithful but few saints, Christ promises…

- “They will walk with Me in white for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed int white garments.” (3:4b-5a)

- “I will never by any means blot their names out of the Book of Life” (3:5b-c)

Conclusion: “He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (3:6).

The Net Pastor’s Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 36 Summer 2020

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Biblical Interpretation
“How To Read And Understand The Bible” (Pt. 3)

Introduction

This is Part 3 of our continuing study of “Strengthening Biblical Interpretation: How to Read and Understand the Bible.” In the last edition of the NET Pastor’s Journal, we concluded with a discussion on “The Impact of Culture on our Understanding” – both ancient culture and contemporary culture. In this edition, we are going to look at more aspects of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) that impact our understanding of the text as we study the Bible in preparation for preaching.

In addition to the differences between the ancient culture and our contemporary culture, which greatly affect how we read and understand the Bible, there is also the issue of what practices in the Bible are limited to the ancient culture (i.e. “cultural”) and what are applicable for all cultures at all times (i.e. “transcultural”). First, let’s consider…

Two Extremes

The two extremes which impact our understanding of Scripture are: (1) Every practice in the Bible is transcultural and prescriptive. In this view, every biblical practice is timeless and binding on all people for all times. (2) Every practice in the Bible is cultural and non-prescriptive. In this view, every biblical practice is limited to its culture and time and, therefore, only prescriptive for those to whom it was written - i.e. it is culture and time bound.

My conviction is that somewhere in between those two extremes is the correct position – namely, that some practices in the Bible are permanent and unchangeable while other practices in the Bible are temporary or changeable. Our task is, first, to distinguish between “cultural” and “transcultural” practices, customs, and traditions; second, to discover the timeless principles that the ancient cultural practices reflect; and third, to determine how those principles can be expressed in ways that are meaningful in our culture today.

Be aware, this task is not easy. That’s why there have been many books written and why there continues to be much debate over this issue. One of the big problems with this issue in biblical interpretation is that, as cultures and worldviews change over time, pressure arises within the Christian community to change our interpretation of the text to conform with those changing cultural views. Examples of this would be modes of dress (1 Pet. 3:3-5), forms of worship (instruments, songs etc.), and the role of women in public ministry in the church.

While there may be an argument, from time to time, to change certain practices (if they are cultural and non-prescriptive) in order to better communicate those abiding principles, we are never authorized to change our interpretation of the text simply to suit our culture. Therein lies the problem. To help you understand this cultural vs. transcultural issue further, let me give you…

Two Examples

Example #1: Foot Washing (Jn. 13:14). This is practised by some Christians but not by others. There are three possible interpretive options on this matter. Option #1: No principle and limited cultural practice. This interpretive option argues that this instruction and practice was limited to 1st century Palestine because of their dusty roads and the practice of washing people’s feet when they entered your home. Option #2: Transcultural principle and universal practice. In this view, foot washing is both the expression of an abiding principle and the prescribed method of practising that principle – i.e. foot washing is prescribed as an abiding practice regardless of culture, one that should be practised by all cultures throughout all times. Option #3: Transcultural principle and varying cultural practices. According to this interpretive option, foot washing is merely the cultural expression of an abiding principle, which may be expressed in different ways from culture to culture and from time to time, ways that are relevant to the contemporary culture and time.

In seeking to resolve this issue, we need to ask two questions: Question #1: What is the timeless, abiding principle? Answer: The principle is that we should express humility and servant-hood to one another. Question #2: How is the principle expressed in practice? Answer: In first century Palestine it was expressed practically by washing one another’s feet because (a) this was one of the household’s lowliest jobs (and, thus, expressed humility) and (b) because they wore sandals and walked on dusty roads (and, thus, expressed servant-hood). But in other cultures the principle may be expressed in other more relevant, meaningful, understandable terms – i.e. it is a practice that, in other cultures, would be better reflected in customs that are relevant to that culture. Thus, in this instance I would lean towards interpretive option #3 above.

Example #2: Head coverings for women (1 Cor. 11). Here there are also three possible interpretive options (see R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 107). Option #1: No principle and limited cultural practice. This interpretive position argues that this instruction is limited to the 1st century Palestinian culture in which Christian women were to be subordinate to men and they showed their subordination by the 1st century Palestinian custom of veiling their heads, which practice showed (a) their modesty, and (b) their submission to the men. However, in our contemporary culture, women are not required to veil their heads, nor are they considered subordinate to men.

Option #2: Transcultural principle and universal practices. This interpretive position argues that this instruction represents a transcultural principle, which requires that Christian women anywhere and everywhere at all times demonstrate their submission to men by veiling their heads. But is it true that in all cultures at all times, women veiling their heads indicates their submission to men? I think not. In fact, in western cultures not only would that practice be considered strange, but it might communicate the exact opposite of what is intended, by women drawing attention to themselves.

Option #3: Transcultural principle and varying cultural practice. According to this interpretive option, the submission of Christian women to men is a transcultural principle (based on creation order), but how that is expressed in practice may vary from culture to culture – i.e. it may be a head covering but not necessarily a veil, or may not necessarily be a head covering at all. I would lean towards this interpretive option.

The subject of women’s head coverings has been and, in some Christian spheres continues to be, a divisive issue. The exegesis of the passage is hotly debated, largely because it contains some difficult language. At one point Paul seems to say that a woman’s hair is her head covering, so why does she also need a veil (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:15)? And the application is hotly debated. In some cultures today, women (whether Christian or not) still wear head coverings of various sorts (e.g. full veiling for Muslim women; babushka head scarves for eastern European women).

While many of these cultural vs. transcultural issues do not impact fundamental doctrinal beliefs, they nonetheless can be and are, in some circles, divisive. So what do we do to unravel this dilemma of understanding and interpreting cultural vs. transcultural practices in the Bible?

Obviously, a good starting point is to know something about ancient practices, history, worldview, and communication (or, at least, have resources that we can consult to find out about them). In addition, we need some guidelines to help us correctly and consistently understand and interpret these culturally influenced texts.

Four Interpretive Guidelines

These four interpretive guidelines will help you in understanding and interpreting cultural issues in the text (adapted from R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 108ff.).

Guideline #1: Examine the Bible itself for changing customs. This guideline is particularly helpful in identifying changes from the O.T. to the N.T. Though many of the O.T. practices and requirements (e.g. dietary laws, sacrificial system, modes of dress, language, money) changed in the N.T., the principles were still valid. These changes were not necessarily due to cultural changes (e.g. the change from the O.T. Jewish culture to the N.T. Gentile culture), but, sometimes, to the progress of revelation in God’s redemptive plan.

We need to make a distinction between God’s laws (e.g. sacrificial), which he himself changed, for they were not intended to be permanent (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 13; Heb. 8:7ff.), and cultural institutions (e.g. marriage, slavery). Some have argued that since the attitude to slavery was already changing in the N.T. (e.g. Onesimus was not to be put to death but treated as a brother), is it not legitimate to conclude that the marriage relationship is also subject to change (e.g. the wife is not under the authority of the husband) and that the role of women in the church is also changeable (e.g. women can be pastors of the church)? But as R. C. Sproul points out, “we must be careful to distinguish between institutions the Bible merely recognizes as existing, such as ‘the powers that be’ (Rom. 13:1, KJV), and those which the Bible positively institutes, endorses and ordains” such as marriage. He goes on to say that, “the principle of submission to existing authority structures (such as Roman government) does not carry with it a necessary implication of God’s endorsement of those structures but merely a call to humility and civil obedience. God in his ultimate secret providence may ordain that there be a Caesar Augustus without endorsing Caesar as a model of Christian virtue. Yet, the institution of the structures and authority patterns of marriage are given in the context of positive institution and endorsement in both Testaments. To put the biblical structures of the home on a par with the slavery question is to obscure the many differences between the two. Thus, the Scriptures provide a basis for Christian behavior in the midst of oppressive or evil situations as well as ordaining structures that are to mirror the good designs of creation.” (Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 109).

So then, be alert to “changing” customs in the Bible - those which God himself changed (e.g. abandoning slavery, since the N.T. indicates that it was not an abiding principal but a cultural practice) and those which sinful human beings changed.

And, be alert to “unchanging” customs in the Bible such as (1) being submissive to governmental authority, even though it may not reflect Christian values (provided, of course, that such submission does not bring us into conflict with the principle of “obeying God rather than man”); (2) maintaining marriage as God's abiding practice for the union of one man and one woman, and not subject to changing cultural practices.

Guideline #2: Don’t try to read into the biblical text 1st century cultural practices that the author may not have had in mind.

For example, you will sometimes hear preachers say that Paul’s instructions on women’s hair and head coverings were motivated by his desire that Christian women be distinctive from the temple prostitutes of that day in that culture. But, as R.C. Sproul points out (see Knowing Scripture, 110) that is to read back into the text what is mere speculation by some scholars as to what may have been the reason behind the instruction. In fact, in this case, such a reading back into the text is erroneous as Paul states that his instruction concerning the submission of women to men (1 Cor. 11:8-11) stems from the precedent of creation, which was expressed in the 1st century by head coverings. It had nothing to do with the temple prostitutes, even though, undoubtedly, they did show their brazen behaviour by not only uncovering their heads but shaving them bald (cf. 1 Cor. 11:5b-6).

We need to recognize that some of the 1st century Christian practices must have been very counter cultural (i.e. not culturally conforming) since they were so persecuted for their practices and beliefs. Thus, we need to respect the fact that the 1st century Christians had their own practical distinctives, which were unique to their situation and not prescriptive for other cultures.

Guideline #3: Whenever the author refers to creation as the basis of his instruction, he is stating a timeless, transcultural, universal principle.

Practices that are rooted in creation can never be rationalized as cultural. To do so is to make irrelevant the very foundation of our existence. “The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God” (Sproul, 110-111).

Paul appeals to creation in his argument for head coverings to denote the submission of the women to the men in the church (as noted above, 1 Cor. 11:2-16) and again in his argument for female silence and submission in the church (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Jesus also appeals to creation when answering the Pharisees’ question on divorce (Matt. 19:4-6) by taking them back to what God intended for marriage when he created us. Even though Moses had granted divorce because of the hardness of the human heart, nonetheless, Jesus maintains God’s intended standard for marriage relationships from the beginning.

Therefore, we can draw two conclusions: (1) Teaching that is rooted in creation is transcultural unless, in the course of progressive revelation, it is later modified in Scripture (Sproul, 111); (2) Though these appeals to creation are transcultural as to their principle, the manner in which that principle is put into practice may be cultural.

Guideline #4: When in doubt about whether a biblical instruction is cultural or transcultural, err on the side of transcultural.

When in doubt, it would be better to interpret a custom as a principle rather than a principle as a custom. I am not recommending legalism, which manifests itself in: (1) A rigid attitude and practice of a non-biblical system of rules and regulations that demands the interpretation and application of cultural practices (whether in Scripture or not) as transcultural principles; (2) The elevation of certain practices (such as dress, diet) to the level of biblical doctrine (i.e. raising practices to precepts; making forms into functions), particularly in reference to gaining favour with God for salvation or spiritual growth (i.e. by the law and not by grace) by doing certain things and abstaining from other things.

On the contrary, rather than writing them off as irrelevant and redundant legalism, I am recommending submission to those biblical practices about which we are not certain as to their interpretation and application (cultural and situational; or transcultural and universal). This is not ideal, but is a recommendation for those texts that we find too difficult to categorize as to their practice in today’s culture.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership

“Spiritual Growth And The Impact Of Pastoral Ministry: An Exegetical Study Of 1 Thess. 1:1-10”

As you read this exegetical study of 1 Thess. 1:1-10, I hope that you will see how your pastoral leadership can have a tremendous impact on the spiritual growth of your church. I came across this cute poem about the perfect church:

“If you should find the perfect church without one spot or sore, for goodness sake, don’t join that church! It won’t be perfect anymore.

If you should find the perfect church where all anxieties cease, then pass it by, lest you join it, and mar the masterpiece.

But since no perfect church exists with perfect men and women, let’s stop looking for that church and start loving the one we’re in.”

While none of us belongs to a perfect church we certainly want to be the church God intends us to be and we certainly want to try to emulate a model church. That’s the subject of the text we are studying: the picture of a model church. What kind of people are the model church? What do they look like? What do they do? Simply put a model church is comprised of godly people who demonstrate the gospel in their walk and talk.

The church at Thessalonica was a fairly new church. They had recently been converted from pagan, idol worship, as a result of which they were being persecuted for their faith. So, Paul reminds them of their spiritual roots. He reminds them that their spiritual roots were “in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1a). They shared a common life in God, a life rooted in the Father and the Son. The church lives “in” God; He is both the spiritual sphere and the divine source of our existence and apart from God the church has no life and no reason for existing. To know that we are “in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” should give us a great sense of security and protection from opposition to the truth, persecution, and ridicule. No matter what opposition we face, we are safe and secure in God whose life we share.

Paul also reminds them of their spiritual blessings: “Grace to you and peace” (1:1b). God’s sovereign favor rested upon them because they had found “grace” in Christ, and His “peace” rested upon them because they had been reconciled to God through Christ. This is what a true church of God is! People whose spiritual life is rooted in God and whose spiritual blessings flow from the God of grace and peace.

Paul can’t stop thanking God for them (1:2) as he remembers their demonstration of true spirituality because they were gospel-centered people. Like Paul, we should give thanks for such people. So, how do we recognize them?

1. Gospel-Centered People Are Known By What They Do (1:3).

The fruit of the Spirit is evident in them. Faith, love, and hope do not lie dormant in godly Christians. These characteristics are the external evidence of the internal residence of the Holy Spirit. They are the practical outworking and expressions of the gospel. This is the product of our new life in God. They are not invisible traits like some sort of religious DNA, but they are active expressions of who we are as God’s people.

The gospel in its essence is “faith” in Christ, which is expressed in “love” for God and our neighbor, and which assures us of “hope” for eternity.

Notice that gospel-centred people demonstrate our faith through our works. “Remembering before our God and Father your work of faith”(1:3a). Christian faith produces good works for God. As James says: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). If you say you have faith but your works don’t show it, it’s questionable whether you are truly born of God. We must demonstrate our faith by good works done for God. Christian faith radically changes the way you live so that you live to serve God with works that bring praise to him. Gospel-centered people demonstrate our faith through our works and…

Gospel-centered people demonstrate our love through our service. “Remembering… your labor of love” (1:3b). Love motivates us in untiring service to others. It’s easy to say you love someone but unless that is translated into active service for them, it is hollow and means nothing.

Our love for God energizes us in serving others, even when the work is hard, laborious, toilsome, because we serve out of sacrificial love that seeks the good of others and because we toil as “before our God and Father” and on his behalf. Gospel-centered people demonstrate our faith through our works, our love through serving, and...

Gospel-centered people demonstrate our hope through our perseverance. “Remembering… your steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ”(1:3c). Perseverance is born out of a steadfast hope.

One Chinese Christian had all her belongings confiscated six times because she hosts a church in her home. She is reported as saying: “Nothing will stop us. Not persecution, not when they take everything we have!” Why? Why don’t they just give it up? Because they have a steadfast hope rooted in an unshakeable faith, so that when conflicts and opposition arise they respond out of unrelenting perseverance despite the obstacles.

The Christian life is sustained by an enduring hope. Our hope is not an “in-your-dreams” kind of hope, not a “Christmas wish-book” kind of hope, not a hope that is crushed by overbearing circumstances. Someone has said that “Christian hope is the certainty of a reality not yet experienced” (Alistair Begg). Ours is the hope of the gospel, the security of our salvation, the expectation of the sure and imminent return of our Saviour. Ours is the hope of those who once had no hope but now have a hope that supersedes discouragement and opposition.

It’s the future orientation of hope that motivates us. When we are focused on a sure and certain future we can more easily deal with the problems of the present. If you have no hope of future improvement or relief or fulfillment, then how can you persevere, how can you carry on?

Faith, love, hope. Those are the hallmarks of gospel-centered, spiritual people, people who by their lifestyle are the presence of Christ on earth. How are these characteristics expressed in your life? That’s the emphasis here - not on passive concepts but on active expressions of who we are, on the daily outworking of the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. What do these spiritual virtues look like in your life? Do your works adequately and accurately express your faith? Does your service for others express your love for them? Does your perseverance express your hope in God? Is your life the practical expression of the presence of Christ on earth? Is your church gospel-centered, people who are known by what you do? “Godly people demonstrate the gospel in their walk and talk.” Are you people who demonstrate your faith in your works, your love in your service, and your hope in your perseverance?

We give thanks for gospel-centered people who demonstrate true spirituality. Gospel-centered people are known by what they do. And, second...

2. Gospel-centred people are known by who they are (1:4-6).

Paul’s intimate relationship with these believers is expressed in his continually making mention of them in prayer (1:2), in his remembrance of what they did and how they lived (1:3), and in his knowledge of who they were in Christ (1:4). They were authentic Christians, living out their faith in practice and known far and wide by the testimony of who they were. No wonder he continuously gave thanks for them. And we too should give thanks for gospel-centered people who are true portraits of spirituality. We give thanks that they are known by what they do and for who they are.

First, we are living testimonies to the saving power of the gospel.

The saving power of the gospel is evidenced in (1) the exercise of God’s sovereignty in election: “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you” (1:4). You cannot be gospel-centered people if you are not ”chosen” by God – God’s beloved, elect people. Election is a biblical doctrine, whether you understand it or not, whether you like it or not. Election is the term used to describe God's sovereign choice of certain persons for salvation (cf. Eph. 1:4; Rom. 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28; 2 Pet. 1:10).

Why is election necessary, you ask? Because if God did not choose us and draw us to himself no one would ever be saved. No one would be saved because we are all, by nature and practice, incorrigible sinners, who would never turn to God in saving faith unless we are drawn by his Spirit. That’s why election is necessary.

Why, then, did he choose us, you ask? Not because we are more righteous than other people for “none is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10), but the Lord chose us because he sovereignly set his love upon us. We are his beloved, elect people and that is the basis of our persevering hope. God chose us because he loved us and will never let us go! We are saved for eternity because of his great love in saving us.

Gospel-centered people are those who are chosen by God and who, by virtue of what they do and who they are, present a true portrait of spirituality, living testimonies to the saving power of the gospel. The saving power of the gospel is evidenced in (1) the exercise of God’s sovereignty in election and…

The saving power of the gospel is evidenced in (2) the activity of God's Spirit through his Word. The God-ordained means of communicating the gospel is by preaching and that entails the use of words. But preaching is much more than words, for words alone do not transform a life. Through words we express the truth of God and through the Spirit we experience the power of God. Paul says: “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit” (1:5a).

The saving power of the gospel is when the word of God is applied by the Spirit of God, for the Word of God and the Spirit of God go together. John Stott writes: “Words spoken in human weakness need to be confirmed with divine power… We must never divorce what God has married, namely his Word and his Spirit. The Word of God is the Spirit’s sword. The Spirit without the Word is weaponless; the Word without the Spirit is powerless.” (John Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, The Message of 1 Thessalonians, 34).

Only the Holy Spirit can change lives by his divine power. Only the Holy Spirit can convince a hardened heart of the truth of the gospel so that you are transformed through faith in Christ. Only he can illumine a blinded mind so that you can understand the message of the gospel and trust the Saviour.

Paul knew that the Thessalonians were God's elect people because the gospel message had been effective in them; it had powerfully changed their lives. Had they not been God's chosen people, the gospel would have fallen on deaf ears. But in their case, the message was Spirit-empowered, life-transforming. That’s the birthmark of God’s elect, beloved people. Our lives are radically changed by the life-transforming power of the gospel.

So, the saving power of the gospel is evidenced in (1) the exercise of God’s sovereignty in election, (2) the power of God's Spirit through the Word, and in (3) the credibility of God's servants through their preaching. The message the Thessalonians heard had a powerful effect in changing their lives because the word of God was applied by the Spirit of God, and because the messengers, who preached the gospel to them, were convincingly credible. The gospel derives its power from the Holy Spirit and its credibility from Christians who believe it and live it!

The apostles who preached to the Thessalonians were convincingly credible messengers because they were completely confident in their message: “Our gospel came to you…with full conviction” (1:5b). They were completely convinced of the truth of their message, totally controlled by the Spirit’s anointing on their ministry. They were absolutely assured that the word they preached was God's word and that it would achieve God’s purpose.

They were completely confident in their message, and they were completely consistent with their message. “You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake” (1:5c). “Our lives were no secret,” Paul says. “How we lived was perfectly consistent with the message we preached. You knew that what we said was true just by the way we conducted ourselves.” The apostles were incarnational preachers. The word of God was manifested in their lives. They walked and talked the gospel in their character and conduct. There was perfect consistency between what they said and how they lived. That’s powerfully credible! Their message was powerfully life-changing because they were Spirit-filled, gospel-centered preachers whose message was delivered with Spirit-induced conviction and received with Spirit-transforming power. And that’s powerfully and convincingly credible.

Only when the Holy Spirit is operative in you is the message powerfully transforming in others. You cannot be effective in communicating the gospel if your life is not consistent with your message. What you say and believe must conform to how you live. You cannot be effective in communicating the gospel if you are not fully assured of its truth and power. Only the Holy Spirit can take your words and deliver them to the hearts and minds and consciences of others with life-transforming power such that they say: “What must I do to be saved?” Powerful preachers speak the truth of God from the word of God with conviction as to its truth, all of which stem from the filling and activity of the Holy Spirit.

“Godly people demonstrate the gospel in their walk and talk.” We are known by what we do and we are known by who we are. Who are we? First, genuine Christians are living testimonies to the saving power of the gospel and...

Second, we are living testimonies to the transforming power of the gospel (1:6-10).

Notice that (1) the gospel transforms us into living examples of Christ: “You became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1:6a). The apostles were living examples of Christ to the Thessalonians and, as a result, they became imitators of the apostles. It’s natural that when you receive the gospel you would imitate those who brought the message to you, isn’t it? When your life is so radically changed, you want to be like them. Like them you want complete confidence in the message and, like them, you want complete consistency in your life. That’s the kind of people we want to be like - consistent, credible Christians whose lives prove that our words are true! So, the Thessalonian Christians began to imitate Paul and the other apostles. They began to live out the gospel as they did. They didn’t just receive the apostles’ message, they also imitated the apostles’ example.

Christianity is not merely a profession of faith but a changed life. When we become Christians we become examples of Christianity. It’s not just an internal change but an external change as well. And the obvious example that we begin to imitate is that of other Christians whose lives are credible, influential. It’s not enough for us to merely tell someone the way of salvation. We have to live it out so that they imitate us. That’s what it is to be the presence of Christ on earth.

Notice that the Thessalonian Christians didn’t only imitate the apostles but more importantly they became imitators “of the Lord.” As they imitated Paul, so their lives imitated “the Lord” because Paul’s life pointed them to the life of Christ. Just as Paul was the presence of Christ to them so they became the presence of Christ themselves: they became examples of the Lord.

That’s what spiritual leadership and mentoring is all about, isn’t it? That’s how spiritual growth is generated in those we minister to. Christian leadership and mentoring is about teaching others, from our knowledge and life experience, what the Christian life is all about, so that what they see in us draws them to Christ and they become followers of the Lord, imitators and examples of him to others.

So, as pastors and church leaders, we must all live our lives before others in such a credible, Christ-like way that what they see in us they put into practice. This can take place in a Sunday School class, or a small group Bible study, or in your home with your children, as well as in church gatherings as a whole.

Similarly, we must make sure that those we follow model the message of the gospel in speech and conduct so that by imitating them, we imitate Christ and thus become the presence of Christ on earth. But be warned: To be an imitator and example of Christ involves suffering for the gospel as Christ did. When you are closely identified with the Christ of the gospel you will suffer for the gospel, you’ll run into opposition to your beliefs and lifestyle. That’s what happened to the Thessalonians - they “received the word in much affliction” (1:6b). They were persecuted for their faith.

We may not suffer persecution like the Christians in China, Sudan, Vietnam, Cambodia and many other places. But we will face the ridicule of atheists and evolutionists, the outright wrath of gays and radical religious groups, the antagonism of those who oppose the notion of absolute truth and the exclusive claims of the gospel.

You may have experienced that already in your life. Perhaps at school or college, other students have ridiculed you for abstaining from sex outside of marriage because of your faith in Christ. Perhaps at work your colleagues have shunned you for not watching pornographic movies or going out drinking after work because of your faith in Christ. Perhaps in your retirement community or neighborhood others despise your faithful attendance at church because of your faith in Christ. There are all kinds of ways in which we experience suffering for the gospel.

But Christian suffering is paradoxically accompanied by joy. God’s people are able to sustain ridicule and opposition “with the joy of the Holy Spirit” (1:6c). This is the paradoxical result of receiving the gospel. On the one hand, we experience suffering and yet, on the other hand, “joy” that surpasses the suffering, joy that comes from the sustaining power of the indwelling Spirit.

That’s who gospel-centered people are. People who are known by what we do and by who we are. We are living testimonies to the saving power of the gospel and we are living testimonies to the transforming power of the gospel. (1) The gospel transforms us into examples of Christ, and...

(2) The gospel transforms us into examples to others (1:7-10). “…so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia” (1:7). By imitating the example of the apostles, the Thessalonians also became examples to others.

We become examples to others by our contagious faith (1:8-9a). “8For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. 9For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you” (1:8-9a).

Everybody hears about the faith of a gospel-centered church. The word of the Lord (the gospel) rings out from it so that everyone hears it near and far, because they walk and talk the gospel. Everybody knew what happened in Thessalonica. Instead of persecution hampering their testimony it actually prospered it! Others heard about their conversion and they began to say: “Do you know what happened over there in Thessalonica? Do you know that when they received the gospel, they began to suffer persecution and that they actually rejoice in it?”

This is where the grapevine becomes a lifeline for the gospel. We hear that all the time in personal testimonies, don’t we? Someone gets saved and first thing you know others are saying: “Did you hear what happened to so and so. He’s become religious. She’s found God!” Everyone talks about gospel-centered people who are living testimonies to the transforming power of the gospel. No one has to promote a genuine work of the Spirit of God. It’s self-evident and compelling. It’s a contagious faith.

When God began to work in the Brooklyn Tabernacle in New York, the news spread around the world. Is that true of you in your community? Is your church a bold example for God of contagious faith? Are you living testimonies to the transforming power of the gospel?

We become examples to others by our contagious faith, and we become examples to others by our radical conversion (1:9b-10). Radical conversion means (1) a complete change in direction: “…you turned to God from idols…” (1:9b). The very people who had once worshipped idols now turned completely away from paganism and turned their lives over to God. That’s a total turnaround in direction. Radical conversion means turning “to God” in faith and turning away “from idols.” True believers cannot worship God and idols. So, radical conversion means a complete change in direction.

And radical conversion means (2) a complete change in action. They began “… to serve the living and true God” (1:9b). That’s the evidence of genuine repentance - turning away from Satan and sin and turning to God and holiness. A complete change in action means you begin to “serve” God. You are set free from slavery to sin, from the superstitious paralysis of idol worship, from the power of sin, and released into the glorious liberty of serving God. That’s what gospel-centred people do – they “serve the living and true God.” What a bold life-transforming change!

You serve the “living” God. Not dead statues of wood and stone, but the living God, the One who is life in himself, in whom we live and move and have our being, the one who gives to all people life and breath. And you serve the “true” God. Not false gods who deceive you, but the true God who cannot lie. Not counterfeit gods of materialism, pluralism, relativism, hedonism, narcissism, but the only true God.

Radical conversion means a complete change in direction, a complete change in action, and radical conversion means (3) a complete change in expectation. Our expectation changes because (a) our future is certain: “...to wait for (God’s) Son from heaven” (1:10a). That’s what gospel-centred people do – they wait in certain hope for the return of Christ from heaven, when death will be swallowed up by life.

Our expectation changes because our future is certain and our expectation changes because (b) our future is secure. “God has raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1:10b). The Jesus who walked this earth in history is the Son of God himself, whom God raised from the dead. Christ is alive at God’s right hand, waiting to take his beloved, elect people to heaven. That’s why our future is secure, because Christ’s resurrection guarantees our resurrection. Just as God raised Christ from the dead so He will raise us up.

When we experience radical conversion, our expectation changes because our future is certain, our future is secure, and our expectation changes because (c) our future is settled: “Jesus… delivers us from the wrath to come” (1:10c). Those who are Christ’s don’t fear God's wrath because Christ, our Deliverer and Savior, has rescued us from the judgement of God by paying the price of our sins with his own blood on the cross. The wrath of God in judgement is coming and it’s certain. All who trust Christ are delivered from his wrath but all who reject Christ will be condemned under his wrath. The crying need of the world is deliverance from coming wrath through the Christ of the gospel. What a comfort to know that when we turn to God in faith our future is settled, our eternal destiny in heaven is secure.

People don’t like to hear about the wrath of God. They just want to hear about the love of God because, they argue, a loving God would never condemn them. You see, subconsciously they are trying to escape the judgement of God but the truth is that “God will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained” (Acts 17:31), the Lord Jesus Christ. God's wrath is not an impersonal concept for philosophers to debate but a tangible reality for sinners to face. Praise God, then, that as the redeemed people of God we have been saved from coming wrath.

Now we wait with eager expectation for Christ’s imminent return from heaven (cf. Phil. 3:20-21). Now we wait with eager expectation for him to complete our redemption by the transformation of our bodies and our transfer to heaven. We can’t hasten the coming of Christ, we can’t change the date or the manner of his coming, but we eagerly look for him as we wait and work. The imminent, bodily return of Christ is the continuing hope of gospel-centred people. It’s an essential part of living the gospel. We don’t hear much about that anymore. Much of the contemporary church has lost sight of “the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13). Churches today seem to be more focused on the bountiful present than the blessed future. Christians seem to want to hear about our lives, our families, our needs, our well-being instead of Christ’s glorious coming in majesty and power when he will restore all things to God the Father in their resplendent beauty.

Is this what you preach? Is it your expectation? Is it your hope? Is your future certain, secure, and settled? Are you trusting yourself, your good works, your money, your dreams in this world? Or, are you eagerly expecting the return of Christ?

Concluding Remarks

This, then, is a portrait of true spirituality, authentic Christianity: “Godly people who demonstrate the gospel in their walk and talk.” Gospel-centred people are known by what we do - people who demonstrate our faith through works, our love through serving, and our hope through persevering. And gospel-centered people are known by who they are - people who are transformed by the gospel into examples of Christ and examples to others.

This is what we, as church leaders, must preach and this is how must live, so that our people grow spiritually through our leadership. We must live the gospel in such a way that others see Christ in us. Does that describe you? Do others see Jesus in you? Do they imitate you because you are a godly person who walks and talks the gospel?

III. Sermon Outlines

To listen to the audio version of these sermons in English, click on these links: Link 1 - Rev. 2:18-20; Link 2 - Rev. 2:20-23; Link 3 - Rev. 2:23-29.

Title: Letters to the Seven Churches: Thyatira – Progressing but Corrupt

Theme: The subtle deception of sin in the church

Point 1: Christ commends the church for its progress (2:19)

Point 2: Christ condemns the church for its corruption (2:20)

Point 3: Christ cautions the church if it is unrepentant (2:21-23)

Point 4: Christ confirms to the church his grace (2:24-29)

The Net Pastor's Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 38 Winter 2021

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Expository Preaching
“Preaching Hebrew Narratives” (Pt. 1)

In this edition of The Net Pastors Journal, I want to introduce the topic of preaching Old Testament narratives, which I will develop in the following edition.

First, I need to make some introductory comments about the abiding significance of the Old Testament. Note what the Scriptures say about the O.T. For example…

Romans 15:4, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

1 Cor. 10:11, “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction.”

2 Tim. 3:16-17, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Luke 24:27, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Here, Jesus, the living Word, opened up and explained the written word of the O.T. concerning its testimony to himself.

Second, let me just outline the three sections that make up the structure of the O.T. …

1. The Torah / Law (Genesis to Deuteronomy). This covers the period from the beginning of time to the entrance to the promised land.

2. The Prophets:

a) The Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings). This section covers the period from the entrance to the promised land to the exile.

b) The Latter Prophets. This is made up of 3¹/₂ major prophets (incl. ½ Daniel) plus 12 minor prophets = 15½ in total as follows:

Pre-exilic: Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Joel (9 in total)

Exilic: Ezekiel, Obadiah, Daniel, Jeremiah (3½ in total)

Post-exilic: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (3 in total)

3. The Writings:

Little Scrolls: Ruth, Esther, Lamentations

Theological History: 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, ½ Daniel.

Wisdom: Job, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes

Poetry: Psalms

I. Introduction To Hebrew Narrative

What is a narrative? Simply put, a narrative (or, story) is a chronicle of connected events that take place over a certain time period. As such, a narrative’s primary characteristic is movement, a chronological and experiential movement (i.e. not a photograph but more like a movie). Stories do not merely relate the occurrence of events in time, they also link these occurrences of events together – each action in the story gives rise to another action or response. This sets up a chain of events that ultimately reaches a conclusion, which is a very important part of the story because it finishes the story. The conclusion spells out the consequences of the series of actions that took place.

So, every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end, just like a sermon, and each of these sections is interdependent on each another. The beginning describes the situation, the need, the problem. The middle describes what action is taken in response to the situation, need, or problem outlined in the beginning. The end develops from the middle in that it tells you the results from the action taken in the middle. Thus, the end also relates to the beginning (as well as the middle), in that it resolves the need, the situation, the problem that the story started out with.

Stories, then, not only describe events that happen in time, they are designed to organize these events, to give “logical meaning and shape to the otherwise incoherent occurrences of events” so that life as portrayed in a story is not “a meaningless jumble of disjointed experiences” (Tom Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible, 72). In fact, the whole of life is a narrative, not one that “signifies nothing”, as Shakespeare asserted, but one that has purpose and meaning because God is in control, working out his sovereign purposes. This is why personal testimonies are so powerful.

There are several types of narrative. For the purposes of this article, when we speak of narrative we mean “historical” narrative with historical referents (i.e. real stories that took place within history), unless the intention of the writer can be shown to be otherwise. Thus, there is real history behind the Bible. O.T. history as we have it is, in fact, literary history. It may have an oral background in parts, various sources may be discovered in certain sections, but we have literature containing narrative that is rooted in history.

It is always good to remember that, like the N.T. authors, the O.T. authors were not only theologians but skilful writers, as Tom Long points out:

“The biblical writers were literary artists of considerable skill and sophistication who were not unacquainted with the creative, even playful, possibilities of language. These artistic tendencies were nor given free reign, however, but were disciplined by the larger theological purposes which governed the writer’s work…This high theological purpose placed the biblical writers…in the middle of an interplay between two forces. On the one hand, they believed in the unwavering character of God’s will, the constancy of the divine promise, and were certain that God had a harmonious plan for creation. On the other hand, they knew that human history was actually disorderly, human freedom was random, and human beings were stubborn and resistant. Narrative became a particularly apt literary form for capturing the fullest possible range of the interplay between these opposing forces…In short, the biblical writers produced narratives not in a vacuum, but out of the struggle to produce a fit between the literary form and their theological world view” (Thomas Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible, 67).

II. General Characteristics Of Hebrew Narrative

1. Hebrew Narrative Is Scenic.

This is the most common characteristic (e.g. David and Goliath). The action is broken up into a series of scenes in various settings. Usually there is a special relationship between the action, the characters involved in the action, and the setting. Setting creates a distinct atmosphere. So, when you preach O.T. narrative, take note of…

(a) The characters. How are they described (their status, name, origin)? Who is involved? How do they interact? The authors employ various techniques in characterizing the people they write about:

(i) Description. Hebrew narrative gives very little detail; just general descriptions. Hebrew narrative is less interested in presenting the appearance of a character than in guiding the reader into a discovery of what kind of a person the character is.

(ii) Interiorization. The narrator supplies the reader with windows into the mental or emotional state of a character. The narrator may comment on a character’s thought or opinion (e.g. Gen. 8:11b; Ex. 2:24, 25). For example, the narrator may quote extensively a character’s thoughts (e.g. Ex. 2:14; Ex. 3:3).

(iii) Direct dialogue. This is the preferred method in Hebrew narrative for sustaining the action within the plot – who said what to whom.

(iv) Actions. Actions can be narrated without speech. Such speechless accounts of action highlight character. They serve as unannounced commentary on a character’s speech (e.g. Gen. 30:33-34).

(v) Contrast. By placing characters in juxtaposition, an author highlights character traits - e.g. Deborah and Barak (Judged 4-5). Deborah is always decisive; Barak is hesitant.

(vi) Point of View. The author may present information through the voice and eyes of the omniscient narrator or any one of several characters within the narrative - e.g. David and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11). This narrative begins with background information by the narrator (v. 1). Then the reader sees what David sees (v. 2). The third perspective is that of a messenger (v. 3). In the remaining verses of the chapter, the author shuttles the reader from one character’s perspective to another’s – David’s, Uriah’s, Joab’s, the messenger’s, and Bathsheba’s. It ends with the readers being directly addressed by the narrator: “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (v. 27b). It is important to always figure out who is speaking.

(b) Dialogue. Be careful not to psychologize what is said. Often the first words said indicate the core of the event. This is where motives and thoughts are revealed.

(c) Plot (i.e. the sequence of events). The development of the plot may be simple or complex, but they all have action that progresses through a beginning, middle, and end. Some type of conflict occurs at the beginning, becomes complicated through the middle, and is finally resolved at the end.

(d) Pace. How does the narrative move along?

(e) Narrator. The narrator might be omniscient, hidden, or anonymous. He may express a direct point of view. He may even come through one of the characters.

2. O.T. Narrative Is Succinct.

O.T. narratives are compressed. Therefore, pay attention to arrangement and detail. Be aware of how the author has selected his material. His selection is usually dependent upon the point he intends to convey – i.e. he only includes what we need to know in order to make his theological point. Don’t try to supply the details that the author has not told us unless they are obvious by implication or from another passage.

3. O.T. Narrative Is Subtle.

O.T. narrative shows more than it tells. Great statements may be made in a subtle comment, event, or description. “Only occasionally will the narrator disclose God’s point of view to his readers” (Sidney Greidanus, Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, 207). Generally the point of view has to be deduced. The narrator typically speaks through the words and actions of the characters in the narrative. They are his conduit for conveying his message. He himself usually remains hidden, at least as far as direct, critical statements are concerned.

III. Literary Structure And Devices In Hebrew Narrative

1. Repetition. Key words, phrases, sentences, recurring motifs (e.g. stones in the Jacob narrative, water in the Moses story), and themes.

2. Recurring patterns, structures, and sequences. For example, in Judges Israel did evil…God gave them over…God provided a deliverer…they recovered…they did evil again.

3. Word plays. These are sometimes hard to pick up in our translation but would have been obvious to the original readers or hearers.

4. Poetic lines in narrative contexts (heightened speech). For example, “To obey is better than sacrifice and to listen than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).

5. Bookends (inclusios and chiasms). These literary devices are very commonly used to form the narrative structure.

Inclusios are bookends. They show how or where the narrative begins and ends. You see this clearly in the Jacob narrative (Gen. 28:10-32:31) where, first, “the sun set” on Jacob (Gen. 28:11) and later “...the sun rose upon him” (Gen. 32:31). Why did the writer see fit to include this detail? Two reasons:

(1) The two expressions bookend this section – Gen. 32:31 where “the sun rose” connects us back to Gen. 28:11 where “the sun had set.” These two phrases form an inclusio.

(2) The material between 28:11 and 32:31 forms a significant “spiritual cycle” in Jacob’s life, in which he is moving from spiritual darkness (the sun setting – this is probably the darkest period in his life when he had been ejected from his home and had nowhere to stay) to spiritual light (the sun rising – Jacob has turned a significant corner in his relationship with God after all these intervening years and experiences).

Chiasms focus the readers attention on the apex of the narrative. You see an inverted chiastic structure very clearly in the book of Ruth (see Tom Long, 82-86):

The beginning (1:1-22). The downward spiral of Naomi’s and Ruth’s life situation.

The middle:

a) The development of Ruth’s relationship to Boaz (2:1-23)

b) Naomi’s scheme and Ruth’s response (3:1-18)

c) The upward trajectory and climax – Boaz’s response (4:1-12).

The end (4:13-22). Boaz’s redemption. Ruth and Naomi are blessed. Hope is restored.

6. Analogy and Contrast or Comparison. O.T. narratives frequently make use of analogy in the form of figures of speech such as metaphors, similes, hyperbole, personification (or anthropomorphisms). In this way, the author describes the reality he is talking about in the narrative in terms that appeal to our senses and imagination.

Similarly, contrast and comparison are frequently used by O.T. narrative authors. For example, in 1 Samuel, the author wastes no time in introducing us to the contrast between Hannah (and her son, Samuel) and Eli (and his sons, Hophni and Phinehas). She and her son go on to be blessed by God, while Eli and his sons go on to be judged by God. Similarly, you have the extended, stark contrast between Saul and David in which Saul acts as a foil for David – i.e. Saul’s character traits are the complete opposite of David’s and serve to highlight David’s character.

In the next edition of this Journal, I will outline some suggestions for studying and preaching Hebrew narratives.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership

If you thought that your marriage vows were the only time you would pledge to “honour and obey” someone, I have news for you - it should also be the pledge of a healthy church to its leaders. In this article, I would like to develop the subject of “Honoring Church Leaders” based on Hebrews 13:7-8 and 17-19.

The N.T. says little about this subject of the relationship of a church to its leaders, but what it does say is vitally important. This passage in Hebrews 13 teaches us that “A healthy church honors its godly leaders.” The writer to the Hebrews gives three exhortations that define the honor of a congregation for its leaders.

I. We Honour Our Godly Leaders When We Learn From Their Faithful Example (13:7-8)

“Remember your leaders / rulers” (13:7). We are to “remember” our leaders - those who ministered among us, those who influenced us and formed us into who we are today (how we think and act, and what we believe). The writer to the Hebrew Christians is saying: “Think about who they were, what they said and did, the legacy they left, how they influenced your lives. Reflect upon their ministry among you.” This is a profitable exercise, not for nostalgia’s sake but to remember their example of faithfulness and consistency and in so doing to fall in step with their example. They are our heroes, our mentors to whom we look up. They are the primary influencers in our lives, those whose lives are paradigms for Christian living, those about whom we might sometimes wonder: “What would they have said, done, or thought about such-and-such? What did they teach about that? How would they have reacted? What counsel would they have given us in this situation?”

We’re living in an age that pays little respect to leaders, especially those of a previous generation. “Once they’re gone, they’re gone,” they say, “and we move on to newer and better things. The old was alright for that day and age, but we’re more progressive now, things have changed.” This writer to the Hebrews says: “No! On the contrary, remember the old landmarks, the tried and true paths. Remember those who established you in the truth. Remember those who were formative in your faith. Remember those who labored among you, acting in faith, pioneering with the gospel.” The apostle exhorts us to learn from them…

1. We Are To Learn From The Example Of What They Taught (13:7a).

“...who spoke the word of God to you…” (13:7a). The Word of God was the subject of their conversation, their teaching, their preaching. They didn’t talk or preach about frivolous matters. They didn’t preach the latest “how-to” sermons. They preached the gospel to you. They edified the church, built you up in your most holy faith. Their teaching and conversation was the bedrock that underpinned the church. If you dig down beneath the surface, you’ll find that their teaching still lives on. They may not be here physically but they are certainly here spiritually.

We honour them when we learn from their faithful example. We are to learn from the example of what they taught. And...

2. We Are To Learn From The Example Of How They Lived (13:7b-8).

“Considering the outcome of their conduct, imitate their faith”(13:7b). Their “faith” refers to what they taught, believed, and lived. It undoubtedly refers both to the truth of Scripture which they believed and the personal trust in God that they practiced. These Hebrew believers that are being addressed here were tempted to renounce their Christian faith, to go back to their old Judaistic practices and beliefs. So, this exhortation was particularly appropriate…

(a) Imitate their faith in the trustworthiness of God - the faith by which you live in dependence on God; the faith by which you trust God to provide for all your needs according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus; the faith by which you face the future, not knowing where it may lead.

(b) Imitate their faith in the truth of God, the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), the inspired Scriptures which contain all that we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), the faith which constitutes that body of truth that we believe, trust, and teach.

“Imitate” their faith. This doesn’t mean blindly following them just because they are part of your history, or just because you have an emotional attachment to them. But follow them “considering the outcome of their conduct.” After carefully weighing their life and teachings, after closely examining the outcome of their lives, after noting the fruit of their testimony, after repeatedly looking at the successful legacy of their lives, after considering the totality of their lives (from beginning to end, from top to toe), after observing how they spent their lives, then follow their example! Imitate their faith, live as they lived, speak as they spoke. Be steadfast in the faith as they were.

And lest you think that church leaders can be unreliable (some are good, some are bad; some stay, some leave; some have left a good taste in your mouth, others a bad taste), then, consider and emulate the head of the church, our supreme leader and the ultimate example of faith, “Jesus Christ”, the One who “is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). He is unchanging, immutable, perfectly consistent. He is “Jesus”, the Saviour, the One who saves his people from their sins. He is “Christ”, the anointed One, the Messiah, the sent One, the Son of God. He is the changeless One, the One who is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

Jesus Christ is the same “yesterday” because he is the God of the past, the God of creation, and the God of redemption, the One who died and rose again. He is the same “today” because he is the God of the present, the One who intercedes for us at God’s right hand, our great high priest (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24-25, 28; 9:24). He is the same “forever” because he is the God of the future, the eternal Lord before whom every knee in the universe will one day bow (Phil. 2:10-11).

And because He is always the same, you can depend on him. He is “the One who was and is and is to come” (Rev. 1:8). He is the God of the O.T. and he is the God of the N.T. He is the Lord of the church. If ever there was a ruler / leader whom we can implicitly trust for time and eternity it is Jesus Christ. Human leaders may fail us, but he never fails. Human leaders may come and go, but he never leaves us. Godly leaders point us to Him because He is our full and perfect and changeless example to follow. He never changes. You can always depend on him. “Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure. Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.” (Ps. 102:25-27). “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Mal. 3:6).

As you consider the end of those church leaders who have influenced you for good, remember that they only do so to the extent that they are a reflection of our great, eternal, true, and changeless Saviour.

So, we honour our godly leaders when we learn from their faithful example. And notice also, verse 17...

II. We Honour Our Godly Leaders When We Yield To Their Pastoral Rule (13:17).

Today’s society doesn’t like to yield or submit to anyone. The spirit of our age is: “I’ll do it my way. No one is going to tell me what to do.” Sadly this attitude infiltrates the church sometimes. But such lack of mutual submission, such disrespect for authority creates chaos, anarchy, division, disunity and ultimately the effectiveness of the church is weakened and Satan gains an advantage. But the apostle exhorts us to “Obey those who rule over you and submit to them” (13:17a). Why? Because...

1. They Are Vested With Divine Authority.

This exhortation would have had special significance for these Hebrew believers who were tempted to give up Christianity and return to Judaism. If ever there was a time they needed to obey their godly leaders, it was now. Evidently they had not learned to imitate their leaders and an attitude of independence was prevalent in the church.

But, we must “obey” godly church leaders as to their governance – in their teaching, decisions, and direction of the church. And we must “submit to them” as to their authority, for their authority is derived from the Lord of the church (as well as from the congregation itself).

Authoritative leadership is essential for unity, harmony, and effectiveness. Obedience infers submission, yielding. This doesn’t mean blind, unthinking submission. This doesn’t mean submission that shirks responsibility. This doesn’t mean submission that conflicts with Scriptural teaching or direction, otherwise the admonition in Hebrews 13:9 about “strange doctrines” would be pointless. This doesn’t mean a cult-like submission where you stop thinking, give up your convictions, or blindly follow others. Rather, this is intelligent, discerning submission to godly leaders whose speech and conduct are exemplary. We honour their position and authority while at the same time we engage in thoughtful, respectful dialogue about matters of concern, all in submission to the Lord of the church.

Those whom God calls into church leadership, who have the appropriate gifts, who have earned the respect of the congregation, who meet the biblical qualifications, and whose speech and conduct are pure and compelling, are those who rule with divine authority, whom we are to obey and to whom we are to submit (cf. 1 Thess. 5:12-13). That’s what the text says: “Obey...and submit!” Obviously, corrupt leaders are not in view here (cf. Ezek. 34) - those who lead others in the wrong direction, those who teach false doctrine, those whose lives are not morally pure. That’s not who the apostle is writing about. There is a process and there is divine authority vested in the church to deal with corrupt, sinful leadership (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:20). But that isn’t the issue here. The issue here is evidently that the Hebrews had not submitted to their leaders who were godly men, whose faith they should follow, and whose lives testified to their spirituality. That’s precisely why the writer exhorts them to imitate their leaders, obey them, and submit to them.

We need to make sure that the spirit of the age does not infiltrate our churches, and that our relationship with our church leaders is healthy, transparent, and mutually submissive. We need to submit to godly leaders as we submit to the Lord of the church. Failure to do so is failure to submit to Christ himself and that puts a congregation in grave danger.

We are to yield to their rule because they are vested with divine authority. And we are to yield to their rule because...

2. They Are Accountable For Our Pastoral Care.

“... for they keep watch over your souls as those who will have to give an account” (13:17b). They aren’t dictators who demand unquestioning submission based on fear. They are caring shepherds whose daily concern is for the welfare of the flock of God (cf. Ezek. 3:17-18). This is the responsibility of church leaders – to be vigilant in the oversight of the spiritual and physical well-being of their people. They “watch over your souls” (lit. “they stay awake over you”), “as those who will have to give an account” – an account to the church and, more importantly, an account to God himself.

Godly church leaders are shepherds. They feed the flock of God. They protect the flock from danger. They lead the flock in the right direction. They care for the flock’s welfare. So, for your sake, church leaders bear a heavy responsibility. The greater the care they provide, the greater is our debt to them of allegiance and obedience.

We are to yield to our godly church leaders because (1) they are vested with divine authority, because (2) they are accountable for our pastoral care, and because...

3. They Are Deserving Of Joyful Service.

“... in order that they may do this with joy and not groaning” (13:17c). We are to honour them with obedience and submission so that they may carry out their responsibilities “with joy and not groaning.” The work of the shepherd ought never to be a burden because of rebellious, unthankful, disrespectful, cantankerous sheep. Our obligation is to lighten their load, to render their ministry a joy and not a burden.

You can tell those churches that are not in step with, and do not honour, their leaders. They are constantly complaining (like the children of Israel who just about killed Moses with the burden). They viciously criticize their leaders, tearing them down. This ought not to be. How you treat your leaders determines whether they rule with joy or grief. You bring them joy when you obey, submit, respect, and honour them, not because they get their own way but because they see God’s people happy, productive, and united.

Our churches should be characterized by “joy” not “groaning”, churches comprised of (1) contented people, who are joyful in the Lord, who honour their leaders and gladly follow them, and (2) happy leaders, who are delighted to lead God’s people into an ever deeper relationship with Christ and each other.

There is a blessing for a church which is united, forward thinking, active in serving God, loving others, enjoying each other, growing in the truth, using their gifts to glorify God. Those are the kind of churches others want to be part of, where unbelievers fall down and say, “Truly God is among you” (1 Cor. 14:25). We must always remember that this is not our church. It is Christ’s church – he is sovereign over his church. We are responsible to him. Our leaders are responsible to him. To make their task onerous is to destroy that for which Christ died.

It is “unprofitable for you” (13:17d), the writer says, to make your leaders groan under the burden of rebellion, opposition, and arguments. These are unprofitable activities which wear out your leaders and cause them to lose heart. This can be devastating to the church.

Many pastors leave ministry because it is a burden. When I used to teach at the Stephen Olford Center in Memphis, pastors came to us from all over the world, many on the verge of quitting because they couldn’t take it anymore, disheartened because they were disillusioned about ministry. What they thought would be a joy had become the source of groaning. Everybody loses when that happens. The pastor and congregation alike lose their joy and fruitfulness in the Lord.

Do we need sometimes to make changes in leadership? Yes! And there is a way to do that. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue here is normal, healthy church life – God’s people living together in happy harmony and mutual submission.

So, we honour our godly leaders when we learn from their faithful example and yield to their pastoral rule. And...

III. We Honour Our Godly Leaders When We Pray For Their Ministry Challenges (13:18-19)

This epistle makes obvious certain things about this church. This Hebrew church was not respectful of its leaders and this church was not growing spiritually. That’s why they needed repeated, stern rebukes, and admonitions. Something had happened in the relationship between this pastor (church leader) and the congregation. Perhaps this was one of those congregations that thinks it can get more done by criticism than prayer and dialogue. In any event, this church leader doesn’t beat them over the head with a stick. He doesn’t berate them for their attitude. Rather he exhorts them to “Pray for us” (13:18a).

Why must we pray for our church leaders? Because...

1. They Need Our Prayers To Deal With The Challenge Of Criticism.

“Pray for us; for we are confident that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live commendably”(13:18). Apparently, the Hebrew believers were critical of this leader’s conduct. That’s why he has examined his “conscience” and that’s why he affirms his determination “to live commendably in all things.” Instead of responding in anger or retaliation to their fault-finding he asks them to “pray” for him. For a leader to ask his people to pray for him is an act of humility, an expression of dependence, an admission of need.

What better way to respond to criticism than in humility. “I need your prayers” he says, prayers of encouragement and intercession, for wisdom and grace. I don’t know everything. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t always act or speak properly. I need your supplications to God for me to help me in ministry. I feel the attacks of Satan constantly in this ministry. So I need the protection of your prayers. Please pray for me.”

Surely, such a humble request for prayer is restorative. It is the catalyst to restore unity. It is the stimulus for renewed love for him. It is the olive branch to induce them to willingly accept his instructions and admonitions and to diffuse their criticism. In any event, whatever had happened, his conscience is clear “...for we are confident that we have a good conscience.” Despite their evident criticism of him, his own conscience is clear. Undoubtedly, some of his teachings were radically new for these Jewish believers. Perhaps his teaching that the O.T. rituals and sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood had been fulfilled in Christ and were now set aside was too much for them to absorb. Nonetheless, he reassures them that he has examined his actions, attitudes, motives, and teachings, so that he is “confident / persuaded” in his own mind and conscience that his teaching is accurate and loving, his admonitions are needed and appropriate, his motives are pure and open. He knows of nothing that he has said or done that needs to be withdrawn or apologized for, or that was just cause for their attitude toward him. Nor does he bear them any grudge for what had happened. He is not haughty about his position. He is not lording it over them. Rather he is acting humbly before them, “...in all things desiring to live commendably.”

It appears that their criticism of him was about his conduct and after examining himself, he says: “I desire in all things to live honorably, commendably.” His appeal to them reminds us of Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians: “O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open to us... Open your hearts to us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have cheated no one. I do not say this to condemn you; for I have said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together” (2 Cor. 6:11; 7:2-3). And again, “I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved.”(12:15). What a contrast between the grief Paul suffered from the Corinthians and the abundance of joy he received from the Philippians (1:3-4) and Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:19-20; 3:9).

This is a challenge to us, isn’t it? I have been in pastoral ministry for many years and I’ve had my fair share of criticism. I know whereof I speak. And now I teach and mentor so many pastors whose ministry is a grief and not a joy because of criticism. They love the Lord and desire only good for God’s people. They give of themselves over and over, taking the low place, setting themselves at the disposal and mercy of the congregation, only to be rebuffed by opposition and false accusations and have their hearts torn out over disputes and tensions.

Soon they begin to lose heart. They think that they are inadequate, that perhaps God didn’t call them to pastoral ministry after all, that someone else would be better leading this congregation. Sometimes that may be necessary, but often it is not. Usually these men are true servants who diligently minister to God’s people.

Church leaders are not perfect. There may be times when you legitimately disagree with them. But continue to respect them and deal with them kindly. They deserve our encouragement and support in prayer, when they take the low place, when their consciences are clear, when they live commendably before us.

We honour our godly leaders when we pray for their ministry challenges. They need our prayers to deal with the challenge of criticism and...

2. They Need Our Prayers To Deal With The Challenge Of Disunity.

“But I especially urge you to do this, in order that I may be restored to you more quickly” (13:19). This is a specific, urgent, heart-rending plea. I don’t know what happened among these Hebrew believers but this pastor begs them to pray so that he can see them again soon and so that he can enjoy their fellowship again. I don’t know if their criticism had led to their estrangement or whether other circumstances had led to it. Whatever had happened he urges them to pray so that this distance, this schism, may be healed and unity, harmony, peace, joy, and fellowship may be restored.

Disunity is a great burden to godly church leaders for they know “how good and how pleasant it is for God’s people to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1-3). They know that disunity was the plague of the church that Jesus’ foresaw and prayed for in John 17.

Final Remarks

So, you can see, from this passage, that “A healthy church honors its godly leaders.” We honour our godly leaders in three ways: (1) by learning from their faithful example; (2) by yielding to their pastoral rule; and (3) by praying for their ministry challenges.

At the end of the day it all comes down to prayer. So, let’s covenant together to pray for our pastors, staff, and church leaders. They need, want, and deserve our prayers. They are faced daily with the burdens and care of the church. Let me encourage you to become actively involved as a prayer partner in your church, holding up the arms of your leadership team just as Aaron and Hur did for Moses in Exodus 17. You can be an “Aaron and Hur Prayer Partner” who prays for your leaders when they meet together to discuss the spiritual and practical affairs of the church. Pray that they will have wisdom, compassion, discernment, and faithfulness to the truth.

Above all, may we honour our leaders by learning from their faithful example, by yielding to their pastoral rule, and by praying for their ministry challenges. It’s the only solution for the church and the world.

III. Sermon Outlines

Title: Letters to the Seven Churches: Laodicea – The Sickness of Prosperity (Rev. 3:14-22)

Theme: A church that becomes independent of Christ may become redundant for Christ

Point 1: Christ knows the attitude of every church (3:15-17)

1a) He knows when a church is self-satisfied (15-16)

1b) He knows when a church is self-deluded (17)

Point 2: Christ knows the need of every church (3:18-19)

He knows that we need…

2a) … his riches to cure our spiritual poverty (18a)

2b) … pure garments to cover our spiritual nakedness (18b)

2c) … healing eye salve to correct our spiritual blindness (18c)

2d) … his chastisement to cause our spiritual repentance (19-21)

Conclusion: “He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the church” (3:22)

From the series: The Net Pastor's Journal PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Related Topics: Pastors
Français

Română

Русский

简体中文

繁體中文

Roger Pascoe
Since 2001, Roger has been the President of the Institute for Biblical Preaching (IBP), Cambridge, ON, whose mission is to “strengthen the church in biblical preaching and leadership.” From 2001 until 2005, Roger was the Director of The Stephen Olford Centre for Preaching and Leadership at He... More
More from this author Published
February 2nd 2021

Pages
« first

‹ previous

…

2216

2217

2218

2219

2220

2221

2222

2223

2224

…

next ›

last »

You are here

From the series: Abraham: His Faith and His Failures (Expository Sermons On O.T. Characters) PREVIOUS PAGE

5. Abraham’s Epitaph (Genesis 25:1-11)

I. Godly Parents Do Not Always Have Godly Children (25:1-4)

II. Godly Parents Leave Invaluable Lessons For Us (25:5-11)

1. How To Plan Wisely (25:5-6)

2. How To Be Remembered Well (25:7-8)

3. How To Be Buried Honorably (25:9-11)

Final Remarks

From the series: Abraham: His Faith and His Failures (Expository Sermons On O.T. Characters) PREVIOUS PAGE

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

Q. What does the Bible say to the church, and to the individual Christian, about the role of politics in the church?

Answer

First and foremost, the Bible is our highest authority, and always takes precedence over any other documents, including our national constitution, as wise and as wonderful as it may be.

Second, this world is not our home; heaven is:

Third, in this world we will have persecution.

Fourth, God raises up kings, and puts them down, and for different purposes.

Fifth, Satan also seeks to carry out his work through men, including political leaders.

Sixth, pride seems to be a principal cause of failure in kings (and spiritual leaders, too).

Seventh, the command to honor political authorities, and to submit to them as God’s agency is clear, and is not contingent upon any particular political form or philosophy.

Eighth, there are some exceptions to this command to submit to ruling authorities, but they are few and far between.

Ninth, like it or not, the Bible does not advocate or require a democratic form of government.

Tenth, God’s leadership style is vastly different from that of men:

Eleventh, the Book of Proverbs is written largely by a king (Solomon), who instructs future leaders how to rule:

Twelfth, the Bible does not advocate seeking to change political regimes In our Lord’s day, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles sought to overturn or to change even a corrupt government.

Thirteenth, a particular political philosophy is not prescribed or required in the Bible, but is rather a matter of personal conviction.

Fourteenth, according to Proverbs, what gives a person standing before kings and rulers is their skill and wisdom.

Fifteenth, one would do well to give serious thought to these words in Proverbs:

Sixteenth, I believe that a Christian in America today should see our political environment (as wonderful as it is) as exceptional, rather than as the norm.

Seventeenth, I take Jesus' warning seriously, as He speaks of the dangers of the last days, and particularly that of being deceived by false messiahs:

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

From the series: The Bible Teacher’s Guide, Ephesians: Understanding God’s Purpose for the Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

22. Standing Firm in Spiritual Warfare

Believers Stand Firm by Being Prepared

1. We must recognize our weakness.

2. We must be dependent.

3. We must be disciplined.

4. We must be thorough.

Believers Stand Firm by Knowing the Enemy

1. The devil uses accusation.

2. The devil uses deception.

3. The devil uses persecution and fear of persecution.

4. The devil uses the world.

5. The devil works through our flesh.

6. The devil works through an army of demons.

7. The devil wants to kill us.

8. The devil often attacks in an overwhelming manner.

Believers Stand Firm by Fighting

1. We must know what we are fighting for.

2. We must know that the war has already been won, and we must fight with Christ’s authority.

Conclusion

From the series: The Bible Teacher’s Guide, Ephesians: Understanding God’s Purpose for the Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

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

64. David's Son (Luke 20:41-21:4)

Introduction

Background

How Can David’s Son Be David’s Lord? (20:41-44)

The Messiah’s Foes (20:45-47)

The Contribution of the Weak and Powerless (21:1-4)

Conclusion

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

From the series: Leviticus: Sacrifice and Sanctification PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

4. The Fellowship Offering (Leviticus 3:1-17; 7:11-34; 19:5-8; 22:29-30)

Introduction

The Peace Offering

Distinctives of the Peace Offering

The Origin and Meaning of the Peace Offering

The Peace Offering and the Contemporary Christian

From the series: Leviticus: Sacrifice and Sanctification PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Ephesians: The Glory of God in the Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

1. The Uniqueness of Ephesians Among the Epistles

Introduction

Author and Destination of Ephesians

Historical Setting

Characteristics of Ephesians (What Makes Ephesians So Special?)

Overview of Ephesians

From the series: Ephesians: The Glory of God in the Church PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Galatians: The Gospel and God's Grace PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

6. Peter’s Capitulation and Paul’s Correction (Galatians 2:11-21)

The Incident and Paul’s Indictment (2:11-14)

How Can David’s Son Be David’s Lord?
(20:41-44)

The Messiah’s Foes
(20:45-47)

The Contribution of
the Weak and Powerless
(21:1-4)

Characteristics of Ephesians
(What Makes Ephesians So Special?)

The Incident and Paul’s Indictment
(2:11-14)

The Issue Defined and Defended
(2:14-21)

I. Strengthening Biblical Interpretation
“How To Read And Understand The Bible” (Pt. 4)

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership
“Serving Our Master In A World That Hates Him: An Exegetical Study Of John 15:18-27”

I. Strengthening Biblical Interpretation
“How To Read And Understand The Bible” (Pt. 3)

I. Strengthening Expository Preaching
“Preaching Hebrew Narratives” (Pt. 1)