MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

Q. Why Did God Bless Solomon?

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

Answer

Dear *****,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this helps,

Bob Deffinbaugh

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Topics: Character Study, Inspiration

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

A ministry of…

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

I.加強對聖經的理解
“如何閱讀和理解聖經”(第二部分)

介紹

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

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

在“如何閱讀和理解聖經”的第一部分(見2020冬季版),我們討論了:

1. 聖經解釋中的三個基本任務

(a)決定一個段落準確的意思(解經);

(b) 將正確的解釋原則應用於這個段落(釋經);

(c) 在原始的經文、語言、文化、聽眾以及我們今天的語言、文化、聽眾之間搭橋。

2. 兩個重要的釋經學問題:

(a) 舊約作者完全瞭解他們所寫的嗎?

(b)新約作者完全瞭解他們所寫的嗎?

現在第二部分,我們將繼續研究聖經解釋的其他一些重要方面。

A.字面解釋

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

因此,為了正確地理解聖經,我們需要分析和理解…

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

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

3.背景—歷史、政治、經濟、社會和文化。

4. 文學體裁和手法—寫作風格和修辭手法。

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

B.理解某些文學體裁和手法

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

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

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

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

C.一個意思:多種應用

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

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

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

D.文化對我們理解的影響

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

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

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

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

1. 古老的文化

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

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

一些舊約的例子

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

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

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

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

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

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

(g) 割禮—比如創17:10。割禮對我們來說是必須要做的嗎?

(h) 紋身—例如創19:28。禁止在身上紋紋身,是我們應該遵守的嗎?

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

一些新約的例子

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

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

(c) 妻子對丈夫的順服(弗5:22)。我們該如何實踐彼得關於妻子要順服自己的丈夫“就如撒拉聽從亞伯拉罕,稱他為主”(彼前3:5-6)的教導?

(d)舉手禱告(提前2:8).保羅的勸戒是當時文化下的還是跨文化的?

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

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

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

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

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

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

結論

聖經教導中那些反映古代文化實踐的方面必須加以檢驗以確定:

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

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

2.我們的當代文化

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

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

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

II.基督徒自由的局限性

哥前6:12-20

Stephen F. Olford博士

這是我們上次在2019年冬季版雜誌上發表的系列文章的延續

介紹

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

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

A.信徒身體的自由

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.信徒身體的聖潔

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

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

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

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

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

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

C.信徒身體的潔淨

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

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

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

這是被動的勸戒。那麼接下來這個主動的勸戒需要:

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

結論

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

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

III.講道大綱

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

題目: 給七個教會的信: 別迦摩 –堅守卻妥協

主題:在妥協的文化中堅守真理

要點 #1:基督肯定信心(13)

要點 #2:基督咒詛妥協(14-15)

要點 #3:基督要求悔改(16)

要點 #4:基督給予應許(17)


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

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

Related Topics: Pastors

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

A ministry of…

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

I.加强对圣经的理解
“如何阅读和理解圣经”(第二部分)

介绍

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

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

在“如何阅读和理解圣经”的第一部分(见2020冬季版),我们讨论了:

1. 圣经解释中的三个基本任务

(a)决定一个段落准确的意思(解经);

(b) 将正确的解释原则应用于这个段落(释经);

(c) 在原始的经文、语言、文化、听众以及我们今天的语言、文化、听众之间搭桥。

2. 两个重要的释经学问题:

(a) 旧约作者完全了解他们所写的吗?

(b)新约作者完全了解他们所写的吗?

现在第二部分,我们将继续研究圣经解释的其他一些重要方面。

A.字面解释

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

因此,为了正确地理解圣经,我们需要分析和理解…

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

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

3.背景—历史、政治、经济、社会和文化。

4. 文学体裁和手法—写作风格和修辞手法。

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

B.理解某些文学体裁和手法

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

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

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

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

C.一个意思:多种应用

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

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

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

D.文化对我们理解的影响

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

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

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

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

1. 古老的文化

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

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

一些旧约的例子

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

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

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

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

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

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

(g) 割礼—比如创17:10。割礼对我们来说是必须要做的吗?

(h) 纹身—例如创19:28。禁止在身上纹纹身,是我们应该遵守的吗?

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

一些新约的例子

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

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

(c) 妻子对丈夫的顺服(弗5:22)。我们该如何实践彼得关于妻子要顺服自己的丈夫“就如撒拉听从亚伯拉罕,称他为主”(彼前3:5-6)的教导?

(d)举手祷告(提前2:8).保罗的劝戒是当时文化下的还是跨文化的?

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

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

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

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

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

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

结论

圣经教导中那些反映古代文化实践的方面必须加以检验以确定:

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

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

2.我们的当代文化

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

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

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

II.基督徒自由的局限性

哥前6:12-20

Stephen F. Olford博士

这是我们上次在2019年冬季版杂志上发表的系列文章的延续

介绍

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

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

A.信徒身体的自由

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.信徒身体的圣洁

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

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

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

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

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

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

C.信徒身体的洁净

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

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

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

这是被动的劝戒。那么接下来这个主动的劝戒需要:

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

结论

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

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

III.讲道大纲

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

题目: 给七个教会的信: 别迦摩 –坚守却妥协

主题:在妥协的文化中坚守真理

要点 #1:基督肯定信心(13)

要点 #2:基督咒诅妥协(14-15)

要点 #3:基督要求悔改(16)

要点 #4:基督给予应许(17)


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

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

Related Topics: Pastors

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

Related Media

General Introduction to the Psalms

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

Hebrew Poetry

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

Parallelism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figures of Speech

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

Types of Psalms

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

Introduction to Psalm 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“How blessed is the man who … ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Negatively: Things to Avoid (1:1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Nor stand / in the path / of sinners”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Ephesians 4:17-19

Psalm 1:1

17 This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind,

who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,

18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;

Nor stand in the path of sinners,

19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality, for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

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

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

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

Positively: The Key to Blessedness (1:2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And in His law he meditates day and night”

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

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

The Production and Motivation (1:3)

“And he shall be like a tree”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Firmly planted by streams of water”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Which yields its fruit in its season”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And its leaf will not wither”

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

“And in whatever he does, he prospers”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The wicked are not so”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous”

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

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

“For the Lord knows the way …”

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

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

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

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

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

“But the way of the wicked will perish”

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Topics: Sanctification

74. The Rejection of Israel's Messiah - Part IV (Luke 23:26-49)

26 As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27 A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28 Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ‘ 31 For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” 32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33 When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. 35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.” 36 The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37 and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.” 38 There was a written notice above him, which read: This is the King of the Jews. 39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” 44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. 47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.” 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

Introduction

Things do not always work out the way we plan them. I remember our first (and last) family camping trip as a boy. My parents took us on a trip to Montana. Glacier National Park was beautiful. The lofty, snow-capped mountains were spectacular, accented with deep ice-blue lakes, sometimes with an island in the center. We reached our camp sight with great optimism and expectation. The day was beautiful. The tent went up nicely. The family stood smiling in front of the tent, with the mountains as the background, all framed in a blue sky, with a few puffs of clouds for contrast. I took the picture. We have come to call that picture, “the lull before the storm.”

It was a glorious conclusion to a wonderful day. In a while, we ate our picnic dinner, and then when it got dark we all climbed into our sleeping bags. Granted, the ground was a little hard, and we had to move about so that a protruding stone was not in the center of our back. No one told us about the mountain storms, however, nor did we think about the direction from which the wind (and the rain) would come, or the slight dip in the ground where we had erected our tent. These factors soon became very important.

It was a little later when the thunder and the lightning began. It was not until the rains began to fall heavily that the real concern began. Somewhere in this time frame, my brother began to sing “Jesus Loves Me” quite loudly. The tent leaked, as I guess all tents do in heavy rains, and this was not helped by the fact that the tent door was facing the wind and the torrent of rain. We still determined to weather the storm, until we discovered that the tent was beginning to fill with water. The little “hollow” that seemed like such a nice spot for a tent filled with the runoff, so that an inch or two of water had filled the tent and swamped our sleeping bags before we determined we had to give it all up.

The storm continued as we tried to break camp. We did not try to do anything in an orderly fashion. We collapsed the tent, wadded up the sleeping bags, and stuffed the entire muddy mess into the trunk of the car. On one of the last trips to the car, which was also parked in a little hollow, my brother slipped in the mud and slid most of the way under the car, and into the puddle beneath it, thoroughly soaking himself. We plucked him from beneath the car, climbed in amidst some of the camping gear, which would not fit in the trunk, and drove on to a very welcomed motel.

Things don’t always work out the way we expect. And so it was with the crucifixion of Jesus. This was not the Jewish way of executing people, but the Romans used it with some degree of regularity. It served to make a public example of those who chose to ignore or to actively resist the laws of Rome. The event had become a social event, at which a crowd would gather to watch. With crucifixions, as with other events, there developed a rather predictable routine. A new-comer to a crucifixion could quickly be “brought up to speed” as to what would happen, in what sequence, and at about what time. Allow me to begin our lesson by attempting to describe the event, somewhat in 20th century Western terms, so that we can identify with the event in a general way. We will then attempt to demonstrate that this execution did not at all go as planned, and the impact which this had on many of those present, and, in particular, on the thief, for whom his execution became the time of his conversion, and the commencement of eternal life.

The Crucifixion,
Twentieth Century Style

Imagine with me that the crucifixion of our Lord were taking place in our day and time. Given the popularity of Jesus, His execution would probably be given national news coverage. I suppose that the crucifixion would be handled something like the launching of the last space shuttle, Discovery. Television coverage of our Lord’s last week in Jerusalem would have been extensive. On the night of Jesus’ arrest, programming would have been interrupted to announce that Jesus had been taken into custody. Reports from the trials of our Lord would have been given as events progressed and as the location of Jesus shifted. Coverage in the early hours of the morning would have included the trial before Pilate and Herod.

Mobile cameras would have captured the agonizing journey from the palace of Pilate to Calvary, the sight of the crucifixion. I can imagine that there would have been an interview with some Roman official, in charge of executions, telling precisely how and when the crucifixion would take place. The execution, he would have said, was scheduled for 9:00 that morning. In light of the religious holiday, the Passover, there would be a special effort to conclude matters by no later than 3:00 P.M. For humanitarian reasons, those scheduled to die would be given a wine, mixed with a pain-dulling drug, making the ordeal less torturous. A medical expert might then be interviewed, who would describe the actual process of death, ending with the necessity of breaking the legs of the felons, so that their deaths might be expedited. By the time the execution was under way, the viewing public would have a mental picture of the sequence of events about to unfold before them. Some details might change, such as the exact time of death, but by and large everyone knows what is going to happen.

During the grueling 6 hour long process, file footage of coverage of Jesus’ life would be played to fill the gaps in time and to keep the audience interested. Interviews with various individuals would be done, some live, and others taped: individuals who had been healed or helped by Jesus, none of the disciples, as they were “unavailable for comment,” one of the arresting officials, the chief priest, a member of the Sanhedrin, members of the family (if available). A few details would be given about the other two criminals, and perhaps brief coverage on Barabbas, maybe even an interview. The whole thing would seem to be routine, under control.

The Sequence of Events at Calvary

The sequence of events is not always clear, and Luke leaves out a number of unusual and significant phenomena,127 so that we cannot tell for certain the exact order of events that actually occurred. Generally speaking, however, the events appear to have happened something like this:

  • The victims were nailed to their crosses, which were raised and fixed in position
  • Either prior to this or shortly after drugged wine was given to deaden the pain
  • The clothing of Jesus was divided among the four soldiers, by lot
  • Railing accusations and mocking occurred throughout the ordeal—the crowd somehow seems to file or pass by the cross
  • Jesus cried out, “Father, forgive them … ”
  • The criminals joined in reviling Christ
  • The thief on the cross came to faith in Jesus as his Messiah
  • Darkness falls over the scene, from 6th hour (noon) till 9th hour (3:00).
  • Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why has thou forsaken Me?” (Matthew, Mark)
  • Jesus said, “I thirst” (John), drank a sip of vinegar
  • Jesus said, “It is finished” (John)
  • Jesus bowed His head and said, “Father, into your hands, … ” and died
  • Immediately, the curtain of temple torn in two, top to bottom (Luke)
  • Earthquake and the raising of dead saints (Matthew)
  • Legs of other two were broken, but Jesus’ legs not broken, seeing He was already dead (John)
  • Soldier pierced Jesus’ side with a spear—blood and water gushed out (John)
  • Centurion (and the other soldiers) who witnessed it said, “Surely this was son of God”
  • The crowds left, beating their breasts, while the Galilean followers stay on, watching from distance

A Departure from the Normal

The unusual events seem to begin with the statement of Jesus (recorded only by Luke), “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (verse 34). This would have taken many by surprise. God’s name was a very frequent word on the lips of the accused, no doubt. For some, it would have been in the form of profanity. For others, there may even have been a petition for mercy or death. But on the lips of the Savior, it was an expression of His own forgiveness, and a petition for the forgiveness of the Father. Now this was something new.

I can see the television commentators picking up on this, in our twentieth century setting. “What do you suppose he meant by that statement?” the commentator would have queried. “Let’s replay the tape, to make sure we got the words right.” This could have led to a fairly extensive discussion on “forgiveness” in the vocabulary and teaching of Jesus, throughout His public ministry.

The television camera now slides down the cross, zooming in on the soldiers, who are dividing up the garments of the Savior. Did they divide the garments of the other two? Why were Jesus’ garments so desirable? Were they nice enough for a soldier to want them for himself? Were they a souvenir? The incident served to show that prophecy was fulfilled (in the other gospels), but for Luke it was an evidence of the callousness of the soldiers, and their indifference the this man from Galilee. That, too, will change, and soon.

The change is evident in the responses of many of those who observed the death of the Son of God. The soldiers, who had little regard for Jesus (certainly for His suffering) at first, and who later joined in mocking him, had a change of heart (as reported by Matthew 27:54). The centurion, according to Luke, declared the innocence and the righteousness of Jesus (23:47), while in Matthew and Mark His deity is also affirmed (Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39). These hardened soldiers had a very distinct and unusual change of heart toward Jesus.

The crowd, too, went away different from the way that they came, and even from the way they had been midway through the crucifixion. While they stood by passively at first (Luke 23:35), they later seemed to get into the reviling themselves (Matthew 27:39-40; Mark 15:29-30). But when the whole event was over, the crowd left, silent, sobered, and deeply disturbed—beating their breasts (Luke 23:48).

The Conversion of
the Thief on the Cross

No change, however, was more dramatic than that of the thief, who hung beside the Savior, who came to faith in Him while both hung dying on their own crosses. I am convinced that no one left the scene of the cross of Jesus the same that day, but no change was so dramatic or so exciting as that which happened to the thief who hung beside the Savior. I wish to focus, as Luke alone does, on his conversion. It is indeed a remarkable event. Let’s read the account again:

32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed. 33 When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left … 128 39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”129 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”130

Luke’s account of the conversion of the thief on the cross is unique, and it is also very significant. It serves as a crucial turning point in the crucifixion of Jesus. There was a period of time, early in the crucifixion, where opposition to Jesus appears to have built up. In verse 34 of Luke’s account, the soldiers are indifferent to Jesus’ suffering. They care only about His clothing. In Matthew 27:36, this writer tells us that the soldiers sat down, keeping watch over Jesus. Jesus’ lack of aggressiveness, of verbal rebuttal, and of forgiveness, may well have struck them as a sign of weakness. The crowd, too, was miffed by Jesus’ inactivity. Some actually expected to see a miracle, or at least thought it possible (cf. Matthew 27:49; Mark 15:36). As time went on, everyone seemed to get more abusive of Jesus. The crowd seemed to get up its courage (cf. Matthew 27:39-40; Mark 15:29-30). The soldiers also joined in (Luke 23:36). The conversion of the thief is a turning point for Luke. From this point on, all railing and mocking stops. The supernatural phenomena immediately commence in Luke’s account, beginning with the 3 hour period of darkness (Luke 23:44), the tearing of the temple veil (23:45), followed later by an earthquake and the raising of the dead (only indirectly referred to by Luke, cf. 23:47-48).

The conversion of the thief cannot be questioned. It was a genuine conversion, indicated by Jesus’ strong words of assurance and hope: “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (23:43). It was not, as some might conceive of it, a kind of second-class conversion, allowing for much error or misunderstanding, based upon the shortness of time and the crisis at hand. Notice with me some of the characteristics of this conversion:

Characteristics of the Thief’s Conversion

(1) The thief was thoroughly and genuinely converted. Jesus assured him that on that very day he would be with Him in paradise. The others who witnessed the death of Christ were changed, never the same, but they only came to a point of fear at this point in time, not the faith of this thief.

(2) Initially, the thief joined in with the railing of the others against Jesus.

(3) The thief spoke to Jesus, requesting salvation, before any of the miraculous signs and wonders which were to follow.

(4) The thief believed in Jesus, in the midst of the rejection and railing of others, at a time when no one was showing faith in him. He was moving against the grain of the moment, out of step with the crowd.

(5) It was in response to the scoffing of the other thief that this man’s faith was evidenced. He spoke first to the thief, and then to Jesus.

(6) The second thief rebuked the first for not “fearing God.” This was at least a recognition of Jesus’ innocence, but also appears to be a recognition of the deity of Jesus. He was speaking to God in such an irreverent manner.

(7) To the thief, Jesus was not merely innocent, He was who He claimed to be, the Messiah, and thus the key to entering into the kingdom of God. It is this kingdom into which the thief asked Jesus to enable him to enter into.

(8) The thief recognized, as Jesus had told Pilate, that His kingdom was not of this world. Thus, the thief and Jesus could both die, and yet enter into it.

(9) The thief saw that his own salvation did not require Jesus coming down from the cross, saving Himself, or getting him off of the cross.

(10) This thief recognized his own sin, and that he was deserving of death.

(11) The thief requested Jesus’ mercy on the basis of His grace, offering nothing in return.

(12) This man had some kind of resurrection faith—believed in an afterlife, for he was about to die—a kind of resurrection faith.

The thief seems to have come to a point of seeing what he already believed in a different light, and of acting upon it. I do not think that the thief ever thought of Jesus as a guilty man. Even the reviling of the other thief is expressed in such a way that we are encouraged to think he believed Jesus might be the Messiah. His words, “Aren’t you the Christ?” imply (in the original text) that He was the Messiah. But now, suddenly, the thief looks at what he believed differently.

There are those who have noted and capitalized on the fact that this thief was not baptized, but may I suggest that he fulfilled the essence of even this commandment. The purpose of baptism was to make a public profession of faith, to disassociate with that unbelieving generation (from the standpoint of those Jews living in that generation), and to publicly associate with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection. What this man said was surely witnessed by more Jews of his day than of those who would later be baptized as a public profession of faith. Even in this matter, the thief is a model (if there can and should be such a thing) of conversion.

Let us not pass by this conversion without noting several essential ingredients. First, there is the recognition of one’s personal sin, and of his deserving of death, of divine wrath. Second, there is the recognition that Jesus is precisely who He claimed to be, the sinless Son of God, Israel’s Messiah, the only way by which men can enter into the kingdom of God. Third, a belief that Christ’s kingdom lies beyond the grave, and that resurrection will enable us to be enter into it. Fourth, a belief in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which prompted Him to die in our place, to provide a salvation for the worst of sinners, which is not merited or earned, but which is achieved in accordance with grace alone. A simple trust in Jesus for forgiveness and eternal life, by virtue of what He has done.

How Did It Happen?

We have given considerable thought to what happened at the conversion of this thief, but how did it happen? What was the trigger? What was it that changed this man from a scoffer to a saint, from a hell-bent heathen to a heaven-bound believer? I have looked long and hard for an explanation in the text, for a key, but I have not found one. I have since concluded that there is no key, there is no process outlined, which we are encouraged to follow. In answer to the question, “What changed this man’s attitude toward Christ?” the answer must be, “Luke didn’t tell us.”

In John’s gospel, Jesus told Nicodemus that the process of being born again is a mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. While the results of the Holy Spirit’s word are evident, the process is not seen by the eye. The final answer to the question, “What changed the heart of the thief?” is simply this, “God did!” We know not how. We need not know how. Indeed, we cannot even tell how it was that our heats were opened. We can only say, as Luke writes of Lydia, “The Lord opened her heart to believe … ” (Acts 16:14). So it is for all who believe. Salvation is not only the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, it is His secret work.

The one thing which seems obvious in the conversion of the thief is this: While the thief knew, from the beginning that the Lord Jesus was innocent, and that His death was not deserved, it was at the point of his conversion that he came to understand that Jesus’ death was in order to save such as him. The crowds had not caught the point. All who railed at Jesus had the same basic premise: If Jesus was to save men, He must first save Himself. The thief now understood that in order to save men, Jesus had to sacrifice Himself for their sins. His death was not the destruction of His promises to save men but the means of it. It was this that the Spirit of God somehow made clear to the thief. It was faith in the substitutionary death of Christ which saved him, like it can be for any who believes.

Conclusion

There are a number of lessons to be learned from our text. The first is this: God is sovereign in salvation. It is not men who open their hearts God-ward, it is God who opens the hearts of men. He is the Savior. There is no method, no mechanical system, which can be relied upon to draw men to Christ. All that we can do is to proclaim the gospel and pray that His Spirit will open the hearts of those He has chosen.

Second, while it God who sovereignly opens the hearts of men, to save them, He never turns one who comes to Him in faith away. Some have argued that if it is God who opens men’s hearts, it is futile for any man to seek God. Notice that in our text the Lord Jesus did not “witness” to the thief, and then invite him to come to salvation. The thief turned to Jesus and asked to be saved—and his request was granted. The Scriptures are clear that all who come to Him in faith are received and saved, for He does not turn any away who come in sincere faith (cf. Romans 10:11, 13; John 6:37).

The third lesson is this: God is not selective in the social class of those whom He saves. Of all those gathered around the cross that day, this man would not have been at the top of our list of most likely candidates. But from the very beginning Jesus was drawn to those who were sinners, as they were drawn to Him. Somehow they knew, as this thief knew, that Jesus loved men and that His desire was to save them. No one is too sinful to save. Even this man, who had moments before his conversion, reviled the Son of God, was readily forgiven his sins and assured of eternal life.

May I ask you, very pointedly, my friend. Have you believed in Jesus the way this man did? Have you come to a faith which goes beyond the facts and comes to trust in the Son of God, who died in your place, who was raised from the dead, and who now is in heaven at the side of His Father? May the Holy Spirit of God open your heart, as He did this thief. What a blessed hope! What a Savior! If God can save a sinner, condemned by man, He can and He will save you as well.

There is a final lesson which I would like to underscore from out text. In the paradox of God’s eternal methods and means, life comes to others through the death of those who proclaim it. More than anything else it was the way Christ died that shook those who witnessed this event, and which was instrumental in the conversion of the thief. Christians today often fall into the trap of wanting God to perform according to their expectations, rather than submitting to His sovereign plan and purposes, as clearly laid out in His Word. They want God to convince men of their need to be saved by proving Himself through healings, signs and wonders, and by delivering His saints (and others) from pain and suffering. It was Jesus’ death which men could not grasp. It was Jesus’ death which was God’s means of saving men. One of the most powerful signs of this or any other age is the way in which men and women of faith handle suffering, adversity, and death.

Evangelism is often heavily method-centered, and one of the compromises we have made with the world is to try to sell faith in Christ like Procter and Gamble sells soap, or like Coca Cola sells “coke,” which “adds life.” That is, we want to emphasize the “life” aspect of the gospel, and to avoid the death dimension. This simply does not square with the gospel. As Christ drank His “cup” of death on the cross of Calvary, we have our own “cups” to drink of, and we have our own crosses to take up in order to follow Christ. It is often by the giving up of our lives, figurative or literally, that is instrumental in bringing men and women to faith in Christ, as the Holy Spirit bears witness through us. That is why, I believe, the prisoners in that Philippian jail did not flee, even though their cell doors were all opened (Acts 16). They had witnessed Paul and Silas singing and praising God, just after they had been unjustly and illegally beaten and imprisoned. There is something about watching people die for their faith that carries more weight than prospering as Christians. It is often suffering more than success that God uses as His instrument for bring about His purposes in this world.

As we conclude, let me remind you of some of the texts in which death characterizes Paul’s ministry.

As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered” (Romans 8:36).

9 For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men. 10 We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! 11 To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. 12 We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; 13 when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world (1 Corinthians 4:9-13).

29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Corinthians 15:29-32).

8 We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. 9 Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. 10 He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, 11 as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many (2 Corinthians 1:8-11).

15 For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? (2 Corinthians 2:15-16).

7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body. 12 So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you (2 Corinthians 4:7-12).

The use of the imperfect tense in verse 39 implies that this malefactor persisted in his railings.

In the words, “Let Him save Himself (and us)” do we not see a parallel to the mentality of men in all ages? Is this not the same view which the world, and too many Christians take toward suffering? They assume that God would not tolerate or allow suffering, and especially not in the life of His beloved Son. They assume that if God is God, He will prove Himself by delivering the sufferer from his suffering, when the suffering itself is the means God has appointed to achieve His purposes. Here is where the “name it and claim it” version of faith healing flies in the face of Scripture.

The similarity between the taunting of the people and the temptation of Satan does not demonstrate that this is a temptation, but rather that the thinking of the people is reflective of Satan’s values and mindset (cf. Luke chapter 4 and Job 1), rather than of God’s, as described in the prophecies of the Old Testament.


127 What Luke Omits in His Crucifixion Account: He omits the beatings of Matthew 27:27-31 and Mark 15:16-20, in preparation for His execution, and also the mocking, scarlet robe, the crown of thorns, the mocking homage paid to him, and the references to His words about destroying the temple (as Stephen was also later to be accused, cf. Acts 6:13-14). The first offering of wine mixed with gall (Matthew 27:34) or myrrh (Mark 15:23), which Jesus refused. Luke records only the offer of “wine vinegar” (23:37), with no indication of whether or not He took it. The chief priests and teachers said if Christ came down from the cross they would see and believe (Matthew 27:42; Mark 15:32). “He saved others … ” (Matthew 27:42; Mark 15:31). The people (passers by) reviled Jesus (Matthew 27:39-40; Mark 15:29-30). Both thieves reviled Jesus (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32). “Here is your son … Here is your mother”—John 19:26, 27). “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). “Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him/take him down” (Matthew 27:49; Mark 15:36)—they really wondered if something miraculous might happen. The earthquake and splitting of rocks and the tombs opened—Matthew 27:51-54). Matthew indicates that while the raising of these dead saints occurred at the time of the earthquake, and thus at the time of our Lord’s death, the appearance of these saints in the city was not until three days later (27:54). John says Jesus said, “I am thirsty” after He saw that all prophesy had been fulfilled (John 19:28-29), after which He drank and then gave up the spirit (Matthew 27:50; John 19:30) and died. Jesus’ legs not broken, but His side was pierced, which fulfilled prophecy (John 19:31-37)

128 All four gospels mention that Jesus was in the middle, between the two thieves. Is this to indicate that He was placed in the position of prominence, that He was the center of attention? It seems so. Surely the crowds came because of Jesus, and not the other two.

129 The use of the imperfect tense in verse 39 implies that this malefactor persisted in his railings.

In the words, “Let Him save Himself (and us)” do we not see a parallel to the mentality of men in all ages? Is this not the same view which the world, and too many Christians take toward suffering? They assume that God would not tolerate or allow suffering, and especially not in the life of His beloved Son. They assume that if God is God, He will prove Himself by delivering the sufferer from his suffering, when the suffering itself is the means God has appointed to achieve His purposes. Here is where the “name it and claim it” version of faith healing flies in the face of Scripture.

The similarity between the taunting of the people and the temptation of Satan does not demonstrate that this is a temptation, but rather that the thinking of the people is reflective of Satan’s values and mindset (cf. Luke chapter 4 and Job 1), rather than of God’s, as described in the prophecies of the Old Testament.

130 The term “paradise” is found twice elsewhere in the New Testament, in 2 Corinthians 12:4; and Revelation 2:7. In both cases, the reference is to heaven.

Related Topics: Crucifixion, Dispensational / Covenantal Theology, Soteriology (Salvation)

Advertising

Make the distance between you and the people you want to reach even shorter.

Advertise with Bible.org and reach over 3.3 million unique visitors including students, pastors, church leadership, Sunday school teachers, Bible study enthusiasts and more.

Bible.org uses your advertising dollars for the continued support of our ministry and to help us put God's Word into the hands of the world in their own language and in a format they best understand.

We offer three ad units: A leaderboard (728 X 90) at the top and bottom of each article and a banner (300x250) in the right sidebar

Our Current Advertiser rates:

Standard impressions

Our rate is $5 CPM. (Minimum impressions is 50,000)

Flexible campaign options to match your budget

We can accommodate a variety of campaign options to help you meet your goals. 

Contact us

Contact us today to start advertising with Bible.org or if you have any questions.

Lesson 5: The Gospel: God’s Power for Salvation (Romans 1:16-17)

Related Media

James Boice wrote that these verses, Romans 1:16-17, “are the most important in the letter and perhaps in all literature. They are the theme of this epistle and the essence of Christianity” (Romans [Baker], 1:103). As you probably know, it was Martin Luther’s wrestling with and finally coming to understand verse 17 that transformed his life and led to the Protestant Reformation. So these verses have had an incalculable effect on world history and they will have a profound effect on your life personally if God opens your eyes to the truths in them.

Before we look at these verses in detail, we need to see the flow of Paul’s reasoning. He begins verse 16 with the word for, which connects it with verse 15. There Paul said, “I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.” Why? “For I am not ashamed of the gospel….” Why? “For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” How is this gospel the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes? “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.” Is this a new idea that Paul thought up? No, he cites Habakkuk 2:4, “as it is written, ‘But the righteous man shall live by faith.’”

At the outset, we may wonder why Paul says, “I am not ashamed of the gospel.” It is a figure of speech called litotes, where through understatement the affirmative is expressed by the negative of the contrary. For example, if you say, “he’s not a bad athlete,” you mean, “he’s a pretty good athlete.” So when Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel, he means, “I glory in the gospel. I’m proud of the gospel.”

But why does he express it this way? Well, there were many reasons that a first century Roman might feel a bit uncomfortable about this Jewish man coming to a sophisticated city like Rome to preach about a Galilean carpenter-prophet who was executed by the Roman government in the most humiliating manner possible, by being crucified. After all, this was Rome, the capital of the civilized world! Your message had better appeal to the educated or it won’t fly here! Your message needs to offer political solutions to the pressing needs of the empire or it will not gain a hearing here! It had better offer some answers to the massive problems of slavery, greed, lust, and violence, or the people in Rome won’t listen!

But Paul’s main message did not directly address these issues. His main message focused on the main need of every human being, whether the most religious Jew or the most educated, worldly, immoral Greek—the need to be reconciled to the holy God. How can I be right before God? As we’ve seen, Paul’s theme in Romans is God and the good news that comes from God, how sinners can be delivered from His righteous judgment and reconciled to Him. This is called salvation. Here Paul tells us…

Because the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, we must believe it and proclaim it boldly.

1. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.

To proclaim the gospel boldly or unashamedly, we must believe it. But to believe it, we must understand it. The gospel is all about salvation. So I want to explore five statements about salvation that stem from our text.

A. Salvation is the main need of every person.

This anticipates the point that Paul makes from 1:18 through 3:20, where he shows that all have sinned and thus fall under God’s righteous condemnation. Because all have sinned, whether the religious Jew or the worldly Greek, all are alienated from God, who is absolutely righteous. Thus all are under God’s wrath, as Paul immediately explains (1:18), “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

Salvation refers to being rescued from God’s wrath and judgment that we deserve because of our sin. It means being delivered from the penalty of sin, which happens the moment we believe; being delivered from the power of sin, as we grow in godliness; and, being delivered from the very presence of sin when we stand blameless in His presence in glory (Jude 24). John Piper argues that Paul’s main focus here is this future aspect of salvation (see his sermons on this text on desiringgod.org). Salvation also has many positive aspects, such as enjoying a reconciled relationship with God (Rom. Rom. 5:1), and receiving all of the unfathomable riches of Christ (Eph. 1:3; 3:8).

But if we think that we need to “sell” the gospel by glossing over the negative aspects of salvation and focusing only on the positive side of it, we fall into the sin of being ashamed of the gospel. We do not need God’s salvation and Christ did not need to die on the cross if we’re all basically good people who just need a little encouragement to be right with God. We do not need a crucified Savior if our main need is to polish our self-esteem and learn some helpful hints for happy living.

We need a Savior who was crucified for our sins because we all by nature are ungodly rebels who are under God’s righteous wrath. This is offensive to the natural man, but if we pull our punches on this point, we miss the very heart of the gospel. The gospel is only good news to the person who realizes that he needs to be saved or he will eternally perish.

B. Salvation requires the very power of God.

The gospel does not tell people about the power of God. Rather, it is “the power of God for salvation.” This means that salvation is not something that sinners can attain by their own efforts or good works. If that were so, Christ did not need to die on the cross. Salvation is not a joint project, where God has done His part and now you must contribute your part. You may be thinking, “But don’t I need to believe?” Yes, as we will see in a moment, salvation is received and sustained by faith alone from start to finish. But saving faith, which includes repentance, is not something that sinners can produce on their own. It is the gift of God, so that we will not boast (Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29; 1 Cor. 1:30-31; Acts 11:18; 13:48).

It is crucial to see that salvation does not depend on a human decision, but on the very power of God. It requires that God impart new life to a dead sinner, something that is impossible for men to bring about. When Jesus cried out, “Lazarus, come forth” (John 11:43), the bystanders may have thought, “Is He crazy? He’s speaking to a dead man who has been in the tomb for four days!” But the power of God through the word of Jesus imparted life to a dead man. The gospel is like that.

When the rich young ruler walked away from eternal life, Jesus commented to the disciples (Matt. 19:23, 25, 26), “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples were “very astonished and said, ‘Then who can be saved?’” Jesus replied, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” In other words, “Salvation is from the Lord” (Jonah 2:9). It requires the very power of God. The gospel is not helpful advice that a person may decide to try out. It is the very power of God imparting new life and salvation to those who were dead in their sins and under God’s just wrath and condemnation. So, as Thomas Schreiner puts it (Romans [Baker], p. 60), “The preaching of the Word does not merely make salvation possible but effects salvation in those who are called.”

C. Salvation demands that the righteousness of God be upheld and applied to the guilty sinner.

In verse 17, Paul explains why the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed….” Before we go on, note that the gospel is not the result of the religious genius of Paul or the other apostles. Rather, it is revealed to us by God through His Son. In Galatians 1:15, Paul explains his own conversion by saying, “But when God who had set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me ….” So the gospel comes to us by revelation from God that centers in His Son.

Also, note (as Bishop Moule points out, The Epistle to the Romans [Christian Literature Crusade], p. 32), Paul does not lead off with the love of God in the gospel, but rather with the righteousness of God. Certainly, the gospel displays God’s love for sinners (Rom. 5:8). But the love of God is not a stumbling block or foolishness to sinners (1 Cor. 1:23). They rather like the idea! If God is loving, but not so righteous, then it’s easy to view Him as our good buddy in the sky. But the righteousness of God presents a problem, because we all know that we have sinned. If God is righteous and we are not, then we need a Savior.

But what does Paul mean when he says that in the gospel, “the righteousness of God is revealed”? There are three main options. First, he may mean that God’s attribute of righteousness, the fact that He always does what is right, is revealed to us in the gospel. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Romans: The Gospel of God [Zondervan], p. 298) strongly rejects this meaning here, because he says that then the gospel would not be good news, but rather terrifying news. But with some fear and trembling, I must disagree slightly with Lloyd-Jones. I agree that this is not Paul’s primary meaning here, but if a person has no concept of the absolute righteousness of God, then he does not understand his precarious and frightening position of being under God’s wrath as an unrighteous sinner (Rom. 1:18). So the gospel reveals God’s righteous character, which shows us our desperate need for salvation. It should drive us to the cross.

Second, by “the righteousness of God,” Paul may be referring to God’s saving power in being faithful to His covenant promises. The Old Testament often refers to God’s righteousness as His salvation of His people (Ps. 71:2; 98:2; Isa. 46:13; Schreiner, p. 66, lists many other references).

Third, by “the righteousness of God,” Paul is referring to the righteousness that comes from God, which He gives to those who believe. F. F. Bruce (Romans [IVP/Eerdmans], p. 73) argues that in the Old Testament, which forms the main background of Paul’s thought and language, righteousness is not so much a moral quality as rather a legal status. He says (p. 74), “God himself is righteous, and those men and women are righteous who are ‘in the right’ in relation to God and his law.” He adds,

When, therefore, the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, it is revealed in a twofold manner. The gospel tells us first how men and women, sinners as they are, can come to be ‘in the right’ with God and second how God’s personal righteousness is vindicated in the very act of declaring sinful men and women ‘righteous’.

This third meaning is Paul’s primary thought in verse 17. The gospel reveals how sinners may be righteous or justified before God by faith. We know that this is his meaning by comparing the parallels between Romans 1:17 and 3:21-26. There we read,

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel in that He can grant right standing to sinners because His Son met the righteous requirement of His perfect Law and died to pay the penalty that sinners deserve. Thus sinners are not justified by their own righteousness by keeping the Law (gal. 3:11), but rather by God imputing the righteousness of Christ to them by faith. Paul states this plainly in Philippians 3, where he contrasts his former attempts to be righteous by keeping the Law with his present experience with Christ, where he says (Phil. 3:9), “not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” Salvation upholds God’s righteousness by applying it to the sinner who believes. That leads to the fourth point about salvation:

D. Salvation is by faith from start to finish.

Paul mentions believing or faith four times in these two verses: “to everyone who believes”; “from faith to faith”; and, “the righteous man shall live by faith.” If salvation comes through faith plus good works (as the Roman Catholic Church teaches and all of the cults teach), then it is not good news, because you could never know whether you have piled up enough good works to qualify. But if God declares guilty sinners to be righteous or justified the instant they believe, that is good news!

But, we need to be clear on several things here. First, saving faith in Christ is not a general belief that He is the Savior. The demons believe that, but they are not saved. Rather, saving faith has three elements. First, with the mind we must understand the content of the gospel: who Jesus is, what His death on the cross means, and that He was raised from the dead. Second, we must have a heart response to the truth of the gospel, where we agree that it is true and our agreement causes our hearts to be sorrowful about our sin, but also to rejoice in the free offer of God’s grace. Third, saving faith includes commitment to Christ, where we trust in Him and His death on the cross as our only hope of eternal life and we follow Him as Lord. Saving faith is not a work that we do, but rather simply receiving all that God offers to us in Christ. It is the hand that receives the free gift of God.

Second, we need to understand what Paul means by the phrase, “from faith to faith.” Commentators offer many different views, but I think Paul is emphasizing the centrality of faith in receiving the benefits of the gospel (Schreiner, p. 72). The NIV translates, “by faith from first to last.” We receive the gospel by faith and we go on living by faith.

This is supported by the fact that “believes” (1:16) is a present participle, bringing out the fact that saving faith is not a single event, but rather an ongoing, lifelong process. We are justified the instant we believe, but as we go on believing the gospel, God keeps revealing to us the fact that we have right standing before Him on the basis of Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross. Faith applies the imputed righteousness of Christ to us so that we increasingly rejoice in Christ alone as our only hope of eternal life. We never come to a place where we can trust in our good works as sufficient for or even contributing in any way to our salvation.

Third, we need to understand how Paul uses Habakkuk 2:4, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” He uses it partly to show that his gospel is not a new idea that he thought up. The Old Testament prophet Habakkuk confirms the truth that righteousness can only be attained on the basis of faith.

Scholars debate whether the quote should be translated, “the righteous man shall live by faith,” or, “the one who is righteous by faith shall live.” The first view would emphasize that those who are righteous are characterized by a life of faith, whereas the second view would say that those who by faith are righteous shall live, which means, be saved. While there are impressive scholars on both sides, I think that in light of the context, Paul is using the quote to say, “The one who is righteous (justified) by faith will live, that is, be saved” (see Bruce, p. 76; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans/Apollos], pp. 71-72; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans], pp. 76-79).

E. Salvation is individual and personal, not corporate and national.

Paul says that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” He could have said, “for the Jews [plural] first and also to the Greeks [plural],” but he put it in the singular. Salvation is an individual and personal matter. Being a member of the Jewish race will not get you saved, even though the Jews were God’s chosen people. Being an American or a member of a Christian family will not get you saved. You must personally believe in Christ.

By “the Jew first,” Paul means that the gospel came first in history to the Jews. God chose Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob as the race to which He revealed His salvation. It was through the Jews that the Savior came. Thus, as Jesus said, “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22).

But here Paul’s emphasis is on the universal offer of the gospel. It is for everyone who will believe. It is for the religious Jew who will believe and it is for the pagan Greek who will believe. None need be excluded. The good news is for you, whatever your background! Are you a self-righteous, religious, moral person? You must not trust in any of these things, but as a sinner receive the righteousness of Christ by faith. Are you an atheist or an immoral person or a greedy, cheating businessman? You must turn from these sins and cry out to God to be merciful to you, the sinner, and you will go home justified today (Luke 18:9-14). The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.

2. Because the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, we must believe it.

I ask, “Have you believed the gospel?” Have you abandoned all of your self-righteousness and all of your good works as the basis for your standing before God and instead trusted only in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Do you believe this good news when you fail and Satan accuses you? On the basis of your right standing before God, do you daily battle against sin, so that your attitudes and behavior are progressively righteous? Is God’s power to save you from the power of sin evident in your relationships in the home?

3. Because the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, we must proclaim it boldly.

I could develop an entire message on this point, but I’m out of time. But I ask, “Are you ashamed of the gospel?” Do you dodge warning people about the wrath of God, because that isn’t a popular idea? Do you avoid telling them about the shed blood of Christ as the only remedy for sin, because it sounds kind of primitive? Do you put a positive spin on the gospel, so that it sounds like a positive plan for how to have a happy life here and now? If so, you’re being ashamed of the gospel.

Conclusion

The gospel is the good news that God has revealed to us how we can be rescued from the wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:5-10). It is the very power of God to save everyone who believes, because in it God reveals how His perfect righteousness will be put to the account of the guilty sinner who trusts in Christ. I pray that we will understand the gospel, believe it personally, preach it to ourselves every day, and proclaim it unashamedly to this lost world.

Application Questions

  1. What are some reasons that you have been ashamed of the gospel in the past? How can you prepare yourself so that it won’t happen in the future?
  2. Why is it important to understand that salvation is not just a human decision, but requires the very power of God in imparting new life? What errors occur when we forget this?
  3. Why is it important to insist that justification means that God declares the sinner righteous, not that He makes them righteous? What implications follow from each view?
  4. What is the difference between genuine saving faith and superficial, false faith (believing “in vain,” 1 Cor. 15:2)?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2010, All Rights Reserved.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

Related Topics: Evangelism, Soteriology (Salvation)

The Net Pastor’s Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 39 Spring 2021

A ministry of…

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

I. Strengthening Expository Preaching
“Preaching Hebrew Narratives” (Part 2)

In this edition of The NET Pastors Journal I am continuing (from Issue 38, Winter 2021) the subject of preaching Old Testament (Hebrew) narratives. I will attempt to outline an approach to preaching narratives by answering the questions: How do we preach a story? Do we simply re-tell the story and make application at the end? Do we break the story into parts with principles for each? Do we approach it essentially like a N.T. epistle, deriving from it general principles and applications?

In preaching narratives, I would argue that…

1) We must respect and be sensitive to the genre of the text both in our exegesis and preaching while, at the same time, recognizing that preaching a narrative is not simply re-telling the story with some application. Rather, the primary purpose of a biblical story is to communicate theology. Biblical stories are not merely description; they are also prescription.

2) We must derive universal principles from biblical narratives, just as we do from N.T. epistles. The difference is that, in our preaching style, we must follow, reflect, and respect the story form of the text. We do this (a) by changing our preaching style to reflect the narrative genre; (b) by following the sequence and substance of the story line; and (c) by modifying the structure of our sermon outline to correspond with the narrative genre.

We can learn a lot about preaching O.T. narratives from the book of Acts. For example in Acts 7, Stephen re-told the O.T. redemptive story about (1) God’s deliverance and redemption of his covenant people; (2) Their sinfulness and rebellion; followed by (3) The application of the story to the present audience – namely, that they too were rebellious, resisting the Holy Spirit, killing the Just One etc. In fact, the application to them of the redemptive story was so powerful and direct that they murdered Stephen (cf. also Paul, Acts 13:16-41).

God has told the story. Our task is to explain its universal, theological, abiding principles and apply them to our audience. Just as we analyze a passage from an epistle for its central, theological principle along with its related truths and applications, so we should analyze a narrative for its central, theological truth and its related applications. Finding the central truth is the same process whether you are preaching narratives or epistles. If re-telling the story were all that was necessary, you wouldn’t have to be a theologian to preach. You could simply have a dramatic narrator or an actor recreate the story in contemporary language and terms. I maintain that while we must re-tell the story, we must also enlighten our audiences as to…

1) What it meant back then and what it means now (bridging the historical gap).

2) What its theological truths are.

3) What its implications and applications are to our Christian lives.

This necessitates both re-telling the story (so that it comes alive to today’s audience) and exposing and applying its central, propositional truth. This process is, therefore, didactic and propositional, just as it is when we preach epistles. One difference between preaching epistles and narratives is that with epistles you analyze and preach paragraphs, whereas with narratives you preach “scenes.” Scenes reflect the movement of the story and each scene must be interpreted in the light of the total story, because the total story reveals its central, overarching truth.

A. A Procedure For Studying A Narrative

As with any other sermon texts, the goal is to determine what the narrative reveals about God (his nature, his will, his ways etc.). The first step is…

1. Investigation.

a) Determine where the story begins and ends. If it is a sub-story, determine where it fits into the bigger story. Gather data from the context (i.e. the surrounding narratives and descriptions). Discover the plot. What are the sequence of events that unfold in the story? Is there a reversal in the course of the story? If so, where and why?

b) Identify the textual structure by dividing the story into scenes. Examine the scenes and images within each scene. Make a chart for each paragraph or scene, noting exegetical observations, questions etc. related to each scene.

c) Note how the story unfolds scene by scene. Often the context is given first, followed by scene by scene action. The action typically exposes a dilemma (conflict, tension) which leads to a climax (how is this dilemma going to be resolved?). Then comes the resolution to the dilemma and the conclusion. All stories involve a certain point of tension that leads to a climax. So, as events unfold, be sure to identify the climax and answer the questions: How is the tension resolved? What is the conclusion? This is the dynamic aspect of stories.

d) Examine the characters. Note how the characters respond and act as the story progresses. Identify their strengths and weaknesses and their role in the drama (e.g. the star of the story, the antagonist, the protagonist, a bystander etc.).

e) Analyze any speech or thoughts. Is the central truth expressed through speech or thoughts? Particularly, identify the statements made by the narrator. Often without these statements the story would not make sense because motives, hidden actions, and the like would not be known. Remember, the narrator is omniscient - he knows thoughts, intimate and private conversations, hidden events, even the mind of God. These statements are really God’s entrance into the story as the ultimate storyteller - e.g. “The thing that David had done displeased the LORD” (2 Sam. 11:27b).

f) Identify the various literary structures and devices used. For example, is it written in third person or first person? Is the emphasis on plot or on character development? Is there chiasm, repetition, contrasts, parallelism etc.? If so, how do these literary devices add to the story?

2. Determine The Central, Theological Truth

After analyzing and summarizing the story as I have described above, you should be in a position to determine (a) the subject of the overall story; and (b) what the author says about that subject. The subject of the story is the central, theological truth that the story is communicating. What the author says about the subject constitutes the main points (or, scene by scene sections) of your sermon.

The next task is to write out the central, theological truth (sometimes called the “big idea” or “exegetical idea”). One way to approach this is to start with a single word that captures the subject of the passage and formulate the question about that subject that the writer seems to be answering. Then, write out the all-encompassing answer to that question.

Once you have done that, simply summarize the story in a single descriptive sentence that succinctly states the answer you came up with above. This assertion becomes the central truth of the sermon i.e. the summary of your sermon stated in a sentence.

B. A Model For Constructing A Narrative Sermon

This is generally the procedure that I follow. I try to interweave my theologically focussed sermon outline with the retelling of the story, making application during and / or at the end of each scene. This is really the identical model that I use for preaching epistles, except that instead of explaining the doctrine in the epistle I am explaining the theological story line in the narrative.

1. The Introduction Of The Sermon

In the introduction, include any background and other material needed to set the story in context and to explain ancient terms or cultural practices.

As I have noted above, it’s important to state your sermon in a sentence in the introduction so that your audience knows the primary theological point of the narrative, a point that you are going to demonstrate in your sermon. Try to state this truth in such a way that it reflects the historical accurateness and literary intent of the story, while using terms that create a timeless theological proposition.

When stated properly, you will end up with an abiding theological concept that is true for God’s people at any time or place. This becomes your preaching idea that governs how you present the rest of the material. The preaching idea is the answer to a specific need, problem, or difficulty in life.

The preaching task is to describe for your audience (1) how people in the narrative related, interacted, and struggled with spiritual needs, problems, diseases etc.; (2) that their struggles were the same as ours; and (3) that their solution is our solution.

2. The Body Of The Sermon

Retell the story scene-by-scene. This is where you show how the theological point comes out of the story.

a) Create a theologically oriented sermon outline that reflects the flow of the story.

Every narrative has a clearly defined structure. Because it is narrative does not imply that there is no structure. There is movement in every story scene-by-scene. That is its structure. One of your first tasks is to find the textual structure, just as you would in any other genre of the Bible.

Therefore, construct an outline that follows the scenes of the story (their movement, flow of thought). Narrative outlines are like music symphonies - one piece with several movements. Scene changes are your key to moving to the next section in your sermon outline. Each scene of the narrative that you uncover in your investigation needs to have a theological point (i.e. a statement of a universal truth or principle). To uncover these statements, ask yourself…

1) What does this scene tell us about God (his ways, purposes, judgements etc.)?

2) What does this scene tell us about ourselves (our relationship to God, our spiritual condition etc.)?

The answers to these questions, when stated as a complete sentence, will form your scene-by-scene statements of theological principle. Just make sure that each theologically focussed, universally true statement for each scene relates to and develops the overall theological truth of the entire story - i.e. your “sermon-in-a-sentence” which is usually stated in your introduction.

Do not create an artificial outline in which the points reflect the scene-by-scene description but do not reflect the flow and development of the theological point of the story. Rather, create a theologically oriented outline, which consists of statements of principle that not only follow the flow of the story but also reflect the message of the story. By stating your scene-by-scene titles as theologically focussed principles, you develop the points for your sermon outline in a way that is consistent with and respectful of the overall theological point and intent of the narrative.

Sometimes it is helpful to blend scene-by-scene descriptions with theologically focussed, universal truth statements for those scenes. This approach not only breaks the story down for your audience, making it easier for them to grasp, but also integrates the story with the principles. To illustrate what I mean, here is an example I developed from Genesis 21:9-21…

Universal truth of the passage: “In God’s providence, trouble often precedes triumph.”

Gen. 21:9-10. Sarah’s resentment (scene description): Trouble often finds its source in our bad attitudes (universal truth).

Gen. 21: 11-14a. Abraham’s predicament (scene description): Trouble often finds its source in our bad decisions (universal truth).

Gen. 21:14b-16. Hagar’s banishment (scene description): Trouble often finds its source in our bad circumstances (universal truth).

Gen. 21:17-21. God’s intervention (scene description): Trouble always finds its solution in God’s goodness (universal truth).

Sometimes (as in this example) I might use the scene description as my paragraph (scene) heading and state the universal truth (principle) as my application heading. In other words, I have two headings within each scene, one that describes the action of the scene and the other that describes the principle derived from the action in the scene. What this does is give the audience clear direction through the story by way of descriptive scene headings as well as clear principles that apply to us today by way of application headings. The one then flows from the other naturally as you preach through each scene.

Thus, in Genesis 21:11-14a for example, my action (scene) heading is: “Abraham’s predicament” (i.e. what to do with Hagar and Ishmael in response to Sarah’s complaint). And my theologically-focussed universal principle that I state in my application is: “Trouble often finds its source in our bad decisions” (or, “short term decisions sometimes produce long term predicaments”) – that’s the lesson for us.

You can guard against artificial structures in narrative sermon outlines…

1) By not imposing “points” on the sermon, thus making a narrative sound like a science text book.

2) By making sure that your principles come naturally out of the narrative.

3) By wording your principles as theological statements for each scene, just as you would any other literary genre.

Make sure your sermon outline is faithful to the narrative by…

1) Following the flow of the narrative;

2) Exposing the conflict, complication / tension, climax, resolution, and conclusion of the narrative; and

3) Proving the theological point of the narrative.

b) Make your applications during or at the end of each scene.

This way each scene of the story is directly connected to the life of your audience. But you need to be careful, when preaching O.T. narrative, not to automatically make a direct transfer of the story line to your contemporary audience. Just because they did something back then does not mean that we should do that now. It is very easy, when preaching O.T. narrative, to fall into the trap of either moralizing the story (so that you end up telling your audience that because so-and-so did it, so should they), or allegorizing the story (so that the physical realities take on spiritual, hidden meanings). To guard against this, you have to be sure to apply the theological point of the text rather than the direct story line itself.

3. The Final Remarks Of The Sermon

Be sure that the remedy to the problem has been clearly stated. Summarize the implications of accepting or rejecting this remedy - show how acceptance brings spiritual blessing, while rejection brings further spiritual disease, decline, and distance. Appeal to the audience to choose blessing (health, life) over judgement (disease, death) – i.e. call for a response.

C. Some Comments About Preaching Narratives This Way

1. Preaching narratives this way enables your people…

a) To feel the story as drama.

b) To grasp the theological idea (which their cursory reading would not expose).

c) To understand the implications for their lives.

d) To respond to your applications of the story to their contemporary life.

2. Preaching narrative this way ensures that…

a) You have been faithful to the narrative form.

b) You have brought out the enduring theological idea of the story.

c) You have shown the people how the ancient story relates to contemporary life.

d) You have forced the people to wrestle with the tension and complication of the story.

e) You have forced them to consider the resolution (remedy) for their own lives.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership

“The Motivation For Ministry, Part 3: Christ’s Love” (2 Cor. 5:14-17)

In 2 Corinthians Paul develops the topic of ministry and biblical leadership, which, a few years ago, I began to explore in this journal as follows…

1. Confidence in Ministry - God’s direction and provision (2 Cor. 2:14-3:6, Spring 2013)

2. The Nature of Authentic Ministry:

Part 1, The nature of the message – it’s not about us; it’s about Him (2 Cor. 4:1-6, Summer 2012).

Part 2, The nature of the Christian life– power in weakness (2 Cor. 4:7-16, Summer 2013).

3. The Motivation for Ministry:

Part 1, Our future transformation (2 Cor. 4:16-5:9, Fall 2013).

Part 2, Our accountability to God (2 Cor. 5:10-13, Winter 2014).

In this issue, I would like to continue my exploration of Paul’s exposition on “The Motivation for Ministry” - Part 3, Christ’s sacrificial love (2 Cor. 5:14-17).

Christ’s sacrificial love, which was most fully revealed in his substitutionary atonement, compels us to serve Him. Essentially, Paul’s point here is that Christ died for us, therefore we serve him (not ourselves), specifically in preaching a message of reconciliation.

Having established a prospective motivation for ministry (accountability to God) in 2 Cor. 5:10-13, Paul now establishes a retrospective motivation for ministry, the love of Christ (2 Cor. 5:14-17). Indeed, he insists, “the love of Christ controls us” (5:14a). The overriding motivation in the life of the authentic minister is the love of Christ. For Paul, it didn’t matter that some thought he was mad (2 Cor. 5:13). Whatever he did and endured was motivated by Christ’s love. And that same love “controls us” in that it sets the parameters of our ministry. This is the practical effect of Christ’s love for us and in us - it causes us to do what we do for him in our ministry.

What, then, is the nature of Christ’s love that so controls us? 14 The love of Christ controls us because we have concluded this: that One has died for all, therefore all have died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised” (5:14-15).

The context of this paragraph is this: Because we understand the “fear of the Lord” in coming judgement, “we persuade others” (5:11) to believe the reconciling truth of the gospel (5:19-20). And the motivation for such a message and ministry is the compelling and controlling love of Christ (5:14-15).

The principle is this: The death of one person (who did not deserve to die because He was sinless) on behalf of others (who did deserve to die because they are sinners) renders the whole group (the “all” for whom he died) to have died also, because the sinless One died in their place, paying the penalty for their sins.

The application is this: The nature and extent of the love of Christ (as demonstrated in his atoning death) motivates us to do what we do in Christian ministry. It’s easy to get distracted with the theological debate about the nature and extent of the atonement in these verses and miss the application in Paul’s argument. Certainly these verses do tell us a lot about the nature and extent of the atonement - I will discuss this below - but primarily Paul is applying the sacrificial love of Christ, which motivated him to die for us, to our motivation for serving Him.

Paul then states two universal conclusions (2 Cor. 5:14-15)…

The first universal conclusion of Christ’s death is that all have died. “We have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore, all have died.” (5:14). Because Christ died for all humanity, then all humanity in principal has died. We can readily understand that Christ died for all, since that concept is supported in Scripture elsewhere. But what does he mean that “therefore, all have died” (5:14b)? Clearly, in some way Christ’s death involved the death of everyone. As R.V.G. Tasker says, “Christ’s death was the death of all, in the sense that He died the death they should have died; the penalty of their sins was borne by him (1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:20); He died in their place” (Tasker, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, TNTC, Eerdmans, 1958, 86). He died for everyone - whether they ultimately receive him or reject him is a different matter. The penalty for their sins was paid by his death. He died the death they deserved. Therefore, in principal, “all have died.” That’s the conclusion that Paul is making here – the death of one on behalf of a group infers that the group (through that one who died) also died. This is a simple statement of the status of every human being in the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross - He died for them, therefore they all died. The penalty was paid for all.

By saying this, Paul is not advocating universal salvation (since clearly not all have spiritual life), but he is advocating the universal provision and availability of salvation through the death of Christ. Because he died their death, they, in principal died, and through faith in him they can turn to Him if they so chose – i.e. the death of Christ on their behalf made it possible for all humanity to be saved, but only those who believe are actually saved. Christ died on behalf of and for the benefit of all humanity - this is indeed the central truth of the gospel (cf. Col. 1:20; Rom. 8:32).

So, the first universal conclusion of Christ’s death is that “all have died.”

The second universal conclusion of Christ’s death is that some live, not all. “He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who died for their sake and was raised” (5:15). “Those who live” are clearly a different category of people from the “all” for whom Christ died (5:14b). As Robert L. Dabney puts it: “If we make the all for whom Christ died mean only the all who live unto Him – i.e. the elect – it would seem to be implied that of those elect for whom Christ died, only a part will live to Christ” (Dabney, Lectures, 525). Good observation!

The effect of Christ’s death in “those who live” (i.e. believers, the elect) is their moral transformation and renewal. All people have not undergone such a moral transformation, only Christians because of their new life in Christ. The death of Christ becomes effective for them alone (not for all) because of their faith in Christ, as a result of which they have a new motivation in life, a new way of life. The purpose of Christ’s death was that those who believe (those who have died to the flesh because of his actual death for them) should have morally renewed lives; lives with a new moral purpose and motivation. Thus, “those who live” are believers only, who, as a consequence of Christ’s death on their behalf and their belief in him, now “no longer live for themselves but for him” (which cannot be said of unbelievers) “who for their sake died and was raised.” As a result, they are new creations in Christ (5:17).

In sum, what Paul is saying is that on the basis Christ’s substitutionary death for us (5:14b), and our acceptance of his death as payment for our sins, Christians have a completely different motivation in life than we previously had – namely, not to live for ourselves but to live for him who died for us and was raised again for us (5:15). Thus, Paul’s application of this truth is plain and simple - since Christ died for everyone without exception and since He loved everyone with selfless love, then our motivation in Christian ministry is to preach the gospel of Christ to everyone without exception out of selfless love. Not everyone, however, will accept His offer of salvation, but those who do (“those who live,” 5:15a) receive new life in Christ and from then on live for Him. Consequently, Christ’s love is the compelling basis for how we should now live our lives for him and, thus, conduct our ministry. Just as Christ gave his life for us, so we now give our lives for Him. His love for us should be reflected in our love for others, most particularly by sharing the “ministry of reconciliation (5:18-21), the gospel. Because we live in Him, we are “ambassadors for Christ” (5:20).

So, the nature and extent of the atonement is certainly the basis of Paul’s argument here, but we should not become so engrossed with that debate that we lose sight of Paul’s overall and primary point. We do not serve in ministry for selfish motives but solely for Him, to be his ambassadors on earth.

As a result of Christ’s death for me, I now live in and for him and, thus, my life is changed in its behaviour, purpose, and activity. This teaching is consistent with the entire Scriptural teaching on the Christian life - it is an exchanged life (Gal. 2:20), the old self is put to death and the new self lives for Christ (Gal. 5:24; Eph. 4:17ff.). Ours is a radically different life than before. Instead of living a self-centred life (Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19) we live a Christ-centred life (Eph. 2:4-10; 4:20ff.). Thus, we who have died and risen with Christ are not only able but, more particularly, are called to preach the message of reconciliation (5:18-21), which is evident and powerful in our own lives. We are called to live a renewed life through our authentic ministry, motivated by (1) the power of the message in contrast to the weakness of the messenger (4:7); (2) the scrutiny of God on our ministry (5:10-13); and (3) the love of Christ (5:14-17).

From Paul’s argument (5:14-15) he states two consequences (5:16-17).

Consequence #1: “From now on (from the time he began to live for Christ and not for self), therefore, (the first consequence) “we regard no one according to the flesh” (5:16a). Paul no longer assesses and values people based on external appearances, or on subjective, superficial, human standards and relationships (e.g. riches, race, position etc.; cf. Gal. 3:28). Rather, his estimate of and relationship with other people is based on the spiritual values of one with a renewed mind, such that one’s brothers and sisters are not those of the natural family but of the spiritual family (cf. Matt. 12:46ff.). He no longer relates to people at a fleshly level but views others differently now, not according to the flesh but as “new creations in Christ” (5:17).

“Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (5:16b). Paul’s knowledge of Christ prior to his conversion was “according to the flesh” - based on a misinformed, misconceived, carnal mind, and merely human assessment. But subsequently his relationship with Christ was totally different. He no longer esteemed Him from an outward, human perspective, but for who Christ really is, which he knows through the indwelling Spirit. Christ cannot be truly known “according to the flesh” (i.e. with the carnal mind, based on human values). That’s why unregenerate people come to false conclusions about him. It takes a conversion experience through the Spirit to know him, and thus to apprehend him as God and Redeemer. Many who knew Christ “according to the flesh” didn’t know him through the Spirit, who alone enlightens our understanding of who He is. “Paul, like Peter and like Thomas, had to learn that it is not having seen Christ, nor knowing about Him that matters, but loving Him and believing on Him (1 Pet. 1:8; Jn. 20:29)” (Philip E. Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 201).

Consequence #2. “Therefore” (a further consequence of 5:14-15) not only does he no longer regard anyone according to the flesh (including Christ himself), but “if anyone is in Christ” he regards them as “a new creation” (5:17a) for that is what they truly are. Anyone who is born from above is “in Christ” and thus has a new identity, new relationships, new family, new values, new objectives. He or she is viewed as “in Christ” not “according to the flesh” – when we see them, we see Christ, not the outward, sinful flesh.

To be “in Christ” implies security (now and in the future), identity, relationship, divine nature, a completely “new creation” (cf. Eph. 2:10; 4:24). “The old (the person in the flesh, the old nature with all its predisposition to sin etc.) has passed away (perished; disappeared into history); behold (suddenness, surprise, and great joy) the new has come” (5:17b). We are new creations with eternal life, all because of who we are “in Christ.” And what has been done in us (which will be finalized when we are glorified) is a precursor and guarantee of the re-creation of all things.

III. Sermon Outlines

Title: Letters to the Seven Churches – Faithfulness to Christ (Rev. 3:7-13)

Theme: If you are faithful to Christ, He will transform your feebleness into a pillar of strength.

Point 1: Christ encourages us with His sovereign power (3:8-11)

1a) He sovereignly controls our access to him (3:8)

1b) He sovereignly constrains any opposition to him (3:9)

1c) He sovereignly keeps us from judgement by him (3:10-11)

Point 2: Christ encourages is with His sovereign promise (3:12-13)

2a) To those who are feeble, he promises divine strength (3:12a)

2b) To those who are faithful, He promises a divine name (3:12b)

Conclusion: “He has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (3:13)

Related Topics: Pastors

Pages