MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

Comfort Within the Boundaries: Finding One’s Voice Regarding Evil

Related Media

The terrorist attacks in New York City and in Washington, D.C. this week have left many of us with more questions than answers. Pastors, teachers, and counselors may have an especially difficult time as they attempt to help others while still processing the news themselves. For this reason, I have prepared the following comments as a service to the shepherds.

I have developed some of this material elsewhere in published form (especially in Humanity and Sin [Word, 1999]). With the exception of acknowledged quotations, the words are all mine, but the thoughts are not unique to me. I have gleaned much from Nicholas Wolterstorff’s Lament for a Son (Eerdmans, 1987), Douglas Farrow’s Ascension and Ecclesia (Eerdmans, 1999), and a number of works regarding Martin Luther’s theology of the cross.

Individual believers have been responding to the terrorist attacks in a number of different ways. Like most everyone else, we are shocked, stricken with grief, angry, and confused. However, Christians are particularly prone to offer explanations, and most of those explanations do more harm than good. In responding to them here I will begin with observations about what believers may be thinking, and will then make some suggestions about what we should and should not say.

“Apocalypse Now”

Some may see the horrific evil at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and regard it as a sign of the imminent return of Christ.

Rather than seeing this event as a sign of Christ’s return, it is better to regard it as a reminder of His absence. We await the return of the ascended, glorified Christ, who will establish justice on that day (2 Thess. 1:6-10). But this is not the day of justice. This is the day injustice reminds us that justice is yet future. In His absence we are called to persevere, by the Spirit, in a world filled with tribulation (John 16:33).

Note: The problem of evil is essentially a problem of failed expectations and the apparent absence of God. As Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died” (John 11:21). In the same way, the psalmist slaved each day under the taunt of his captors—“Where is your God now?” (Psalm 42:3, 10; 115:2).

It is rather ethnocentric of American believers to view these terrorist attacks as apocalyptic signs, for they likely said nothing of the sort when tragedies struck elsewhere (massive earthquakes in India, for example).

Severe trials have always (rightly) caused believers to cry out for the return of Christ. However, it would be a mistake to regard such trials as meaningful signs of a day we simply cannot predict (Acts 1:7). Instead, we are reminded of what we do not know (Eccl. 9:1, 12; 10:14; 11:5, 6; James 4:13-15).

“Judgment Day”

Some will regard national tragedies as signs of God's judgment upon America. (For example, I had a student who suggested that this might be God’s judgment upon America for the sin of abortion.)

It is true that God exercises judgment upon nations and uses both righteous and unrighteous agents to do so. However, it is always a mistake to presume we know His intentions in allowing or ordaining particular events apart from special revelation concerning them. That was the mistake made by Job’s friends, who assumed his suffering to be an expression of judgment. It was also the mistake made by Saul (later Paul) and many of his peers, who saw the cross as a sign of divine judgment upon one who must have been a criminal (2 Cor. 5:16; Gal. 3:13).

A post-Easter consideration of the cross, compared to the way it was seen on Good Friday, reinforced Martin Luther’s rejection of Aristotelian logic and natural theology as means by which God and His will may be known. He wrote, “He does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.” By contrast, he said a theologian of the cross “comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.”

Alister McGrath summarized Luther’s theology of the cross this way: “Experience cannot be allowed to have the final word—it must be judged and shown up as deceptive and misleading. The theology of the cross draws our attention to the sheer unreliability of experience as a guide to the presence and activity of God. God is active and present in his world, quite independently of whether we experience him as being so. Experience declared that God was absent from Calvary, only to have its verdict humiliatingly overturned on the third day.”

Those who regard this as a sign of God’s judgment upon American wickedness are essentially agreeing with the terrorist perpetrators. To the contrary, this massive injustice, which came upon victims indiscriminately, must not be seen as just (declared to be righteous). More will be said about this below.

Those who regard this as a sign of God’s judgment typically have particular sins in mind (e.g., abortion), but those sins are rarely their own. This attitude reflects a “Christ against culture” approach to the world that wrongly assumes the possibility of genuine separation from the world and does not take seriously the inevitability of sin and injustice even within the church.

“Onward Christian Soldiers”

Most Americans are responding to these events with a tremendous sense of community resolve. They are working together with great passion to help the victims, restore the nation’s sense of well-being, and protect our freedoms. Collectively, we are also angry. As many recognize, there is great danger that our anger would result in vengeance (rather than justice), in ethnic violence, and (for the church) in an abandonment of our mission. If we are to have a distinctively Christian voice in the world, we must lead the way in calls for justice, not vengeance, and we must resist the nationalism or ethnocentrism that could so easily be expressed in violence against Muslims or Middle Easterners.

The church is by definition multi-national (Acts 2) and multi-ethnic (Acts 8, 10; Eph. 2-3). When the gathered church celebrates the Lord’s Supper, we affirm our faith in Christ and our hope in His return through a ceremonial meal that underscores our communion with other believers throughout the world and throughout history. We must beware of aligning a church body with any political entity (e.g., having the gathered church recite the Pledge of Allegiance), for that inevitably minimizes that church body as it identifies itself in distinction from (rather than in communion with) the universal church.

Christ is enthroned above every principality and power, and in Him we are committed to a higher citizenship (Col. 1:15-20). His supreme authority sets limits on every other power, including government. To identify Him with any nation is to limit Him.

If those who see terrorist attacks as signs of God’s judgment demonstrate a “Christ against culture” orientation to the world, those who respond with patriotic fervor demonstrate a “Christ of culture” approach. (The categories come from H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture.) This approach risks identifying His cause too closely with our own, reducing the mission of the church to some nationalistic agenda. This was the mistake of the church in the time of Constantine and it was repeated by both American and German Liberals in the early 20th century. The lesson to be learned is that a church identifying too closely with any political agenda risks losing the gospel.

Injustice and tragedy reminds us that Christ is absent, yet returning. As a consequence of His resurrection and ascension, the church exists in tension. We are still in the world yet experiencing a down-payment on the day of redemption through the presence of the Spirit (Eph. 4:30). We remain in the world in which Christ was crucified, yet we have a sure promise for the world in which He prepares a place for us.

If we reduce that tension by associating ourselves too closely with the world to come, we adopt a “Christ against culture” model and separate too much from our existing communities.

If we reduce the tension by associating the ascended Christ too closely with this present world and our agenda in it, we adopt a “Christ of culture” model and lose the hope of His return.

We are in the world, as the events of this week surely remind us, yet not of it (Heb. 11:13).

“It makes sense if you think about it.”

Tragedy confronts us with a troubling inconsistency. We want to affirm that God is good, just, and sovereign, yet we see events take place that obviously violate His ideals. Almost instinctively, we usually try to resolve that inconsistency in one of two ways. We either redefine God to accommodate our experience or we redefine our experience to accommodate our understanding of God.

Redefining God to Accommodate Our Experience

We must not deny God’s existence (the atheist’s response to the problem of evil). Faith affirms that He is and that He rewards those who seek Him (Heb. 11:6).

As noted above, the problem of evil is a problem of failed expectations and the apparent absence of God. To ask “Where is your God now?” is simply to say that He has not acted in accordance with one’s expectations.

Asaph’s response in Psalm 73 was to change his expectations (“Apart from Thee, I desire nothing on earth.”) The response from Psalm 115 is that God must not be confused with a vending machine: “Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.”

A theology of the cross would add that in suffering God may be found precisely where He was on Good Friday: identifying with us in our suffering, acting to resolve that suffering in ways we may not see or imagine, and yet sovereign in the heavens, accomplishing his eternal purposes

We must not say that God did not know this was going to happen (the temptation of open theism). He “declares the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10), and did not have to wait until He saw the second plane coming to know what it was going to do.

We must not say that God could not prevent it, or that He always allows evil people to proceed with their free acts (another temptation of open theism). To say this is to do away with the God of the Exodus.

Note: It does not help to say that He typically does not intervene with the free acts of persons. If He ever intervenes, the question remains: Why did He not intervene this time? And a problem remains: He does not usually answer such questions.

We must not deny God’s goodness or His justice, for that is to deny His nature as He has revealed Himself (Ex. 34:6-7; Psa. 25:7-8).

We must not confuse divine providence with “chance” or say that God acts capriciously (James 1:17).

Redefining Our Experience to Accommodate God

We must not treat evil as if it is good. We must not justify evil, declaring it to be right. This is perhaps the most prevalent evangelical response to evil events. We try to “make sense” of these events by explaining why they must have occurred even in a world governed by a sovereign and loving God.

We must not make peace with death.

Nicholas Wolterstorff, the Yale philosopher who lost an adult son in a mountain climbing accident, wrote that someone said to his wife, “I hope you're learning to live at peace with Eric's death.” Wolterstorff responded,

“Peace, shalom, salaam. Shalom is the fullness of life in all dimensions. Shalom is dwelling in justice and delight with God, with neighbor, with oneself, in nature. Death is shalom's mortal enemy. Death is demonic. We cannot live at peace with death. When the writer of Revelation spoke of the coming of the day of shalom, he did not say that on that day we would live at peace with death. He said that on that day “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” I shall try to keep the wound from healing, in recognition of our living still in the old order of things. I shall try to keep it from healing, in solidarity with those who sit beside me on humanity's mourning bench.” (Lament for a Son [Eerdmans, 1987], 63)

We must not make sin and evil seem reasonable by attempting to explain why they occurred. Sin must always be inexplicable. It is never the sensible, the rational, or the appropriate thing.

Survivors will tell remarkable stories of close calls, and their families will say, “God heard our prayers.” It is true that God should be praised for their deliverance. For precisely that reason we must resist the temptation to attribute the survivor’s deliverance to human piety (either the survivor’s or someone else’s). Some of the victims were nearly spared, yet perished, and even as I write many of their family members continue to pray in futile hope for their safety. We simply do not know why one survives and another does not, and we should not attempt to explain what God has not revealed to us.

God does use evil for good, but that does not make the evil itself good. Evil remains evil. There will be good things that come from these tragic events. Some people will take the gospel more seriously. Others will form closer relationships with friends and family. Future tragedies may be averted because airport security is tightened. But we must never focus so much on these “good results” that through them the evil events begin to look good. When anecdotes about happy outcomes make us think we understand why it had to happen, we have crossed out of bounds.

We must not rob our people of grief and hope. Our hope is for a day in which there will be no mourning, crying, or pain. Our grief is that this is not that day. When, by rationalizing or justifying evil, we call this the day of justice, we render hope irrelevant and grief unnecessary.

We must not claim to know more than we really know. Perhaps this is the most basic conclusion, the only thing left to say after all the platitudes have been stripped away. We believe that God exists and that He is good, just, and sovereign. We believe that He oversees all things by His providence and that His purposes are good. But we do not pretend to know those purposes, and we dare not offer explanations where God has chosen to remain silent.

Related Topics: Man (Anthropology), Hamartiology (Sin), Cultural Issues, Suffering, Trials, Persecution, Comfort

Pleasing the Lord

Related Media

There are many key terms and concepts in Scripture like faith, hope, love, joy, grace, peace, pleasing the Lord, etc. that we come across as we read our Bibles, but often these are just vague concepts for many people. The following study is designed to provide a condensed biblical focus on what it means to please the Lord as it is found in the Word of God. As time allows we will provide other such condensed studies on key terms, especially of the New Testament.

(1) Pleasing the Lord should be the great ambition of every believers’ heart. As you can see, one of the motives is the Bema.

2 Corinthians 5:9-10 Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

1 Thessalonians 4:1 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as you have received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you may excel still more.

(For a study on the Bema see the study entitled, The Doctrine of Rewards located in the “Theology / Eschatology” section on our web site.)

(2) Pleasing the Lord is not only to be a primary aim of every believer, but something at which we should all seek to excel, not to be accepted, but because we love the Lord and because of future rewards.

Hebrews 13:21 equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever.

(3) Ability to please the Lord is ultimately the result of His work in our lives as the Great Shepherd.

Ephesians 5:8-10 For you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light {consists} in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 4:1 …as you received from us {instruction} as to how you ought to walk and please God …

(4) Pleasing the Lord involves discovering and doing what pleases the Lord through living in the light of the Word. Pleasing the Lord means doing His will.

1 Thessalonians 2:4 But just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who examines our hearts.

Galatians 1:10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

(5) Pleasing the Lord begins in the heart or the inner person.

Colossians 1:9-10 For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Colossians 3:22-24 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.

(6) Pleasing the Lord rather than men ought to be the motive for ministry, for marriage, and everything we do. Seeking to please men for selfish reasons ruins our capacity to follow the Lord, take a stand for truth or principle, love others unselfishly, and to thus function as God’s servants.

1 Thessalonians 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men.

(7) When we fail to please the Lord, we ultimately become hostile or at least useless not only to God, but to men. The only way to meet the needs of men is by first seeking to please the Lord by putting His agenda first (note the carry over in Rom. 14:17-18).

Romans 8:8 “And those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

Romans 14:17-18 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

Please note, 1 Thessalonians 4:1 and 4:5 must be linked together. When men do not know God, they will be controlled by their lust patterns without any concern for pleasing God.

1 Thessalonians 4:1, 5 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God just as you actually do walk, that you may excel still more.… 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God;

(8) Those who are in the flesh and who do not know God (unbelievers), or those who are walking by the flesh (carnal believers) are incapable of pleasing God. Spirit filled believers are the only ones who have the spiritual capacity to please the Lord. These are those who manifest the fruit of the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 3:3-4 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?

Romans 15:1-6 Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not {just} please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached Thee fell upon Me.” For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.

(9) Pleasing God means learning to live for others and not simply to please ourselves. God pleasers are neither men pleasers nor self-pleasers. The only time we should seek to please men is when we seek to benefit them by putting their needs above our own for their edification or salvation. This may mean displeasing them through tough love.

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

(10) The sinful nature or the flesh is a constant threat and antagonist to pleasing the Lord and ministering to others because of its inherent selfishness, whereas the filling of the Spirit is the means by which we are able to please Him.

Colossians 1:9-10 For this reason also, since the day we heard {of it}, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please {Him} in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;

Romans 14:17-18 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

(11) Pleasing God is to touch every sphere, area, and aspect of the believers life. The aim of pleasing God should have no restrictions or compartments.

Colossians 3:22-24 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who {merely} please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.

(12) Pleasing God reaches into the work place. This illustrates the previous principle. Every believer has the responsibility to honor Christ in his work as a God pleaser, as one who does his work as unto the Lord, and not as a men pleaser. To do so ultimately causes us to please our employers through God honoring performance.

(13) Counting on our future rewards is to be a constant source of motivation.

2 Timothy 2:4 No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs (praagmateia, “activity, occupation, business, affairs”) of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.

Luke 19:13 And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas, and said to them, “Do business (pragmateuomai, ‘conduct or be engaged in business like a banker or trader’) {with this} until I come {back.}”

1 Corinthians 7:25-35 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you should marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin should marry, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. 32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly, and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

2 Corinthians 5:9 Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.

(14) We are warned against entanglements which hinder our capacity to please the Lord in doing His business as His servants and stewards of His grace. This especially true in times of distress. Celebacy gives more time for pleasing the Lord, but this is partly a matter of possessing the spiritual gift of celebacy. Note that Paul does not say that celebacy is better, only that it is good because of the capacity it gives to please the Lord and because of the present distress.

Philippians 1:10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ;

1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 26 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. … 26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

Related Topics: Theology Proper (God), Spiritual Life, Rewards

The Issue of Forgiveness in the Sermon on the Mount

Related Media

Introduction

I cannot help but express how close I so often feel to the Lord as I read the Sermon on the Mount. I think in many ways this Sermon of His most closely approximates the essence of His heart. In reality He is talking in one way or another about the themes that seemed to occupy most of His thinking during His ministry: loving God honestly and people deeply. Jesus talks about love in a way that makes me long for a taste of the kind of love He so freely offers to me and requires of me.

But, it cannot go without saying that while I have been extremely enriched by reading the Sermon and experiencing the ministry of the Holy Spirit as He marries the truths therein to my conscience and heart, there are nonetheless certain portions of the Sermon (if not in reality the whole thing) that have troubled me. There are certain statements that have caused me to think again about what Jesus is saying in order that I might comprehend it better. There are times when I just wish he had read Paul a little closer (if I may be so bold). His teaching regarding forgiveness, in chapter 6, verses 12, 14 and 15 have been difficult for me to understand. For this reason I chose this topic to research.

Statement of the Problem

If one were to walk into any Bible believing church in Dallas, or anywhere else for that matter, and stop the average Christian (making sure you were indeed talking with a Christian) and ask him/her how a person is forgiven by God they would probably say something like this: "In order to be forgiven by God, all one needs to do is to believe on Christ." And if you were to ask them another question, namely, "Is my forgiveness in Christ conditional or unconditional?" that is, "Is it based on my doing anything good or worthy?" they would probably say, "No! God forgives us when we simply trust in Christ." If you were to press them further and ask them one more question (providing they were still listening to you): "Does God condition my forgiveness before Him on how well I forgive others once I am saved?" And, "Will God send me to Hell if I die having not forgiven someone?" To this they would probably say "No" as well.

In the past when I read Paul I got the distinct impression that nothing could separate me from God and His love (Romans 8:38, 39) since I had indeed trusted in Him (5:1). The problem then with Jesus' words in Matthew 6:12, 14 and 15 is that they seem to imply that God does not forgive me unconditionally, but that He forgives according to the degree to which I forgive others (v.12) and indeed, if for whatever reason I cannot forgive another, He will in no way forgive me (14, 15). To put it another way: what Paul was so confidently telling me that I had received (i.e. forgiveness) unconditionally by the grace of God, Jesus was now telling me that I needed to do something to keep. Let me put a couple of texts beside each other to illustrate.

Jesus: Conditional Forgiveness

Forgive us our debts, as (wJ")1 we also have forgive our debtors...For if (eajn) you forgive men when they sin against you , your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if (eajn) you do not forgive men their sins, your heavenly Father will not forgive your sins (Matt 6:12, 14, 15).2

Luke and Paul: Unconditional Forgiveness

All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name (Acts 10:43). For all have sinned...and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (Romans 3:23, 24 Italics Mine).

These passages seem to be saying contradictory things. Jesus says that one must forgive if one wants forgiveness. Luke says that all one needs to do to receive forgiveness is just believe on Christ and Paul says one has forgiveness freely by faith in Christ Jesus (i.e. His substitutionary death; cf. vv. 21-26). The question then is, "Which is it?" Do I need to forgive others to be forgiven or am I forgiven irrespective of my relation to others?3

The Procedure in the Study

The study will proceed along the following lines. First, various solutions to the problem will be discussed in the light of their strengths and weaknesses. Then a solution to the problem will be offered, with an examination and explanation of pertinent lexical, grammatical, contextual and theological issues that bear upon the passage.

A Survey of Selected
Commentaries on Matthew 6:12,14,15

Introduction

As many commentaries and articles that I have surveyed all seem to point in the direction of one basic answer to the problem of Matthew 6:12, 14,15. They all steer clear of saying that Jesus is here referring to the judicial state of forgiveness that God bestows upon a believing sinner at the time of conversion, but is referring here to forgiveness necessary for continued fellowship with God. In other words none of the commentators are prepared to say that God grants forensic justification, if you will, on the basis of how we treat other people, but simply through trusting Jesus. But, they would say that once in relationship to God, in order to continue that fellowship we must forgive men who sin against us. The following is a brief overview of several commentator's thoughts on the passage.

Survey of the Commentaries

John MacArthur in his commentary on Matthew states that what Jesus is talking about is the forgiveness of a Father. He says that, "Believers cannot know the parental forgiveness, which keeps fellowship with the Lord rich and blessings from the Lord profuse, apart from forgiving others in heart and word (italics mine)."4 Thus He sees Jesus' conditions applying to our sanctification not our justification. However, he does go on to say, commenting on verse 15 that, "The sin of an unforgiving heart and a bitter spirit (Heb. 12:15) forfeits blessing and invites judgment"5 but he does not explain the extent or nature of the judgment or how that really relates to God not forgiving the one so judged. In short he really doesn't explain what it means when Jesus says, ejavn. . . oujdeV oJ pateVr uJmw`n ajfhvsei taV paraptwvma uJmw`n (6:15). Perhaps Dr. MacArthur means that God's lack of forgiveness is the same thing as His not bestowing blessing. Although this may be true with regard to God's forgiveness, I am not so sure that is exactly what Jesus had in mind. Thus, for MacArthur these verses may indicate not only a loss of fellowship with God, but also his judgment in some way.

Louis A. Barbieri says the same thing as MacArthur, stating more clearly though that the forgiveness Jesus is talking about is not legal in nature, but for purposes of fellowship with God in an existing relationship.

Though God's forgiveness of sin is not based on one's forgiving others, a Christian's forgiveness is based on realizing that he has been forgiven (cf. Eph. 4:32). Personal fellowship is in view in these verses (not salvation from sin). One cannot walk in fellowship with God if he refuses to forgive others."6

Again one could say that Barbieri's comments fall short of a clear explanation of Jesus' words in verse 15. He too, like MacArthur, does not really answer the question of what Jesus means when He says that the Father will not forgive us our sins. No one would disagree that if I, as a believer in Christ, live in sin (i.e. I am unwilling to forgive someone for an offense committed against me) that I cannot have fellowship with a holy God. But the question still remains, in what way has God not forgiven me while I remain in this state.

Craig L. Blomberg in his commentary on Matthew goes, it appears, a step further in answering this question. He says,

Our plea for continued forgiveness as believers, requesting the restoration of fellowship with God following the alienation that sin produces, is predicated on our having forgiven those who have sinned against us. As v. 15 stresses, without this interpersonal reconciliation on the human level, neither can we be reconciled to God.7

From this statement it seems clear that to Blomberg Jesus is simply talking about fellowship with God and how to be reconciled when there is sin. So far he has gone no further to explain verse 15 than our other commentators. However, he does go on to say that "Jesus is not claiming God's unwillingness to forgive recalcitrant sinners, but disclosing their lack of capacity to receive such forgiveness."8 To this statement I must disagree, at least, in part. While it is true that "recalcitrant" sinners are not capable of receiving forgiveness (cf. Matt 23:37), it is precisely the thought of Jesus, in contrast to Blomberg's statement, that God is indeed unwilling and will not forgive such people. Jesus says very clearly, "your Father will not forgive your sins" (italics mine).

Davies and Allison say that the key to interpreting verses 14 and 15 has to do with the immediate context, namely the Lord's prayer.

What we thus have in Mt 6.14-15; 18.15-35; Mk 11.20-5; and Lk 17.3-6 is a connexion between prayer--omnipotent prayer in all but Mt 6.14-15--and the forgiveness of one's brother, and it is this--surely traditional--connexion which explains the placement of Mt 6.14-15. The right of the eschatological community to utter the Lord's prayer depends, as does the efficacy of the prayer, upon communal reconciliation (italics mine).9

From their statement it appears that the thrust of verse 15 and Jesus' comment that the Father will not forgive the unforgiving brother is that God will not answer his prayers. That is, God's unforgiving heart toward the sinner here, is demonstrated by the fact that when such a person comes to Him He refuses to listen to them (i.e. their prayers are in no way efficacious). This explanation seems to be the best thus far in our discussion, for a couple of reasons: 1) it relates the verses in question directly to the context of the Lord's prayer in an attempt to explain the kind of forgiveness God withholds from unforgiving people; 2) it begins, though quite inadequately, to describe the kind of thing God does to someone who refuses to forgive his brother--that is, He treats them like they treat their brother--He simply will not talk to them. The problem with this explanation though is that it does not go far enough, but more on this later.

Ulrich Luz takes us yet another step further in finding an answer to the question of what it means for God to withhold forgiveness from someone, as a just (and as we shall see merciful) response to their unforgiving spirit. Luz raises the issue in the light of Jesus' central ethic of love. He says,

In distinction from the logion vv. 7f., stressing the nearness of God, which points to the Lord's Prayer, the issue in this logion, which concludes the Lord's Prayer, is to safeguard the connection of prayer with action. . . The command to forgive corresponds in content to the center of his ethics, the love commandment.10

This statement helps us arrive at an underlying reality in Jesus' teaching, namely, that His modus operandi was love. This is no doubt going to be central in the formulation of an answer to the question raised by the verses, but Luz does not really press on to explain the connection between Christ's underlying ethic of love and God's refusal to forgive. All we can say is that he has surely alerted us to a central piece for putting the puzzle together. Let us look at one final commentary that differs slightly from the others.

Carson, in his commentary on the Sermon itself, asks some helpful questions:

Is Jesus giving us some tit-for-tat arrangement here? Do I forgive Johnny and then the Lord forgives me—indeed, so that the Lord will forgive me? But what then do the very explicit conditions of verses 14 and 15 mean?11

To these very direct questions he gives the following reply,

There is no forgiveness for the one who does not forgive. How could it be otherwise? His unforgiving spirit bears strong witness to the fact that He has never repented.12

Carson's answer requires some comment. First, he needs to clarify, in light of his second statement (i.e. His unforgiving spirit bears strong witness...) what kind of forgiveness he is talking about. It appears from his argument that he is referring to the judicial forgiveness a sinner receives at conversion, the kind of forgiveness we often associate with Paul in the book of Romans. The problem with this is that it is surely not the kind of forgiveness Jesus is speaking of. Jesus assumes that His listeners are saved and can therefore refer to God as their Father (v. 9), the One who specially takes care of them (v.11). Jesus already envisions them in relationship with their heavenly Father.

Second, it does not follow, as his answer seems to suggest, that an unforgiving heart in the present has never repented and known forgiveness from God at any time. If this were the case, there would be no need for such a warning to believers in the first place. That is, according to Carson, if you are a believer and by extension forgiven, you will never struggle with forgiving others. I don't think anyone is prepared to say that. It appears that Carson wants to make the issue of forgiveness as stated in Matthew 6:14, 15 a litmus test for salvation.

Conclusion

The commentaries surveyed communicated the following four ideas or answers to the question being studied: 1) God not forgiving an unforgiving person is akin to Him withholding blessing from him/her in the context of fellowship with Him; 2) God simply refuses to listen to the prayers of another who stubbornly refuses to forgive his brother; 3) God's unforgiving spirit relates to Jesus' ethic of love and 4) Jesus is saying that God will condemn the unforgiving person (i.e. to hell) as long as they are in this state because it demonstrates that they have never repented in the first place. There is some helpful information here with respect to formulating an answer to the question of God's conditional forgiveness. That is the subject of the final section.

A Possible Solution to and Interpretation of
the Problem of Forgiveness in Matthew 6:12,14, 15.

Introduction

The purpose of this, the final section, is to: 1) relate the teachings of Jesus in Matthew to that of Paul and 2) to propose an interpretation, based upon God's dealings throughout history, to the question of what it means when Jesus says that God will not forgive an unforgiving person.

The Relation of Jesus to Paul

Let us return for a moment to our discussion with our unsuspecting friend/theologian at the Bible church. "Does God condition my forgiveness before Him on how well I forgive others once I am saved?" And, "Will God send me to Hell if I die having not forgiven someone?" To this they would probably say "No" as well. Having actually done this exercise myself (with my wife) I can tell you that one person's answer to the questions was, "How are you defining forgiveness in these questions?" And this is really the issue at stake with Paul and Jesus. Are they talking about the same kind of forgiveness or a forgiveness of a sort different one from the other. The way to answer that question is to consider the state of the audience to whom the forgiveness is addressed or denied.

In general Paul emphasizes forgiveness in a legal and final way that is once for all bestowed upon a believer at the time of his conversion (cf. Eph. 1:7; Col 1:14, 3:13). Jesus is not talking, however, to those who are needing initial, first time forgiveness for entry into relationship with God. As was discussed, these people were already clearly believers in Jesus' mind. These are people that possess the kingdom of heaven (5:3, 10), who hunger and thirst after righteousness (6), who are called the sons of God (9), who are the salt of the earth (13) and the light of the world (14) and who have God as their personal Father in a relational way (cf. the "your Father" 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9 and in verses 14 and 15). From this it is clear that Carson's view is incorrect and that MacArthur's view, though incomplete, is right in so far as he and others have seen the forgiveness to relate not to salvation, but to a Father's discipline. This then is how Jesus' use of forgiveness is different from Paul's forensic use of the term elsewhere. Let us now move to a further explanation of what it means when it says, "your Father will not forgive your sins."

The Design of the Father in Withholding Forgiveness From His Child

The Sermon on the Mount is a penetrating discussion about relationships—between God and people of faith in God. God, through Christ our Savior, is teaching His own (for the most part) what it means to be in relationship with Him and with others. With this premise in mind, perhaps we need to look at God's dealings with His children throughout the Scripture as we formulate an answer to our question. Let us look at a few examples that demonstrate to some degree how God deals with errant children to see if that has any bearing on the words of Jesus. Let's take a very brief canonical look. Then, we will bring this to bear on Matthew 6:14, 15.

    The Story of Jacob

Jacob's name means "supplanter" or more loosely translated as "deceiver" and according to the texts in Genesis (and most commentators) he lived up to his name with a special note of accuracy. God responded in different ways to the patriarch that help us understand how our Father relates to us when we sin. Perhaps the single best example of how God dealt with him was to permit him to run into uncle Laban—a deceiver in his own right.13 In this situation Jacob comes face to face with his own kind of sin. Ouch! Jacob had, in the sovereignty of an incredible wise God, met his match. The apple does not far fall from the tree—let's look at Israel.

    The Nation Israel

The nation of Israel provides us with yet another example of what our Father does to correct his erring children. The Israelites were given to idolatry, despite the express prohibitions in the Torah (cf. Ex. 20:3) condemning it. When decided that the curses of Deuteronomy 28-30 had run their course he decided to give them exactly what they wanted: a land flowing with. . . idols—Babylon. It is as if God said, "If it's idols you really want, then have your fill. . . that should cure you." As God rightly spoke through Ezekiel, "I judged them according to their conduct and their actions" (36:19).

    The Nature of the Christian Life

Paul says explicitly in Galatians 6:7, 8 what our Old Testament examples anticipate. God will permit us to be ruined by our sin, if we so desire it. This is not referring to a loss of salvation, but certainly a loss of fellowship with God and perhaps eventually physical life. The point is this: He allows us to walk into our sin and experience as much of it as we really want.

    The Underlying Principle

The principle that is driving God's decisions in these various relationships (that He has sustained over time with those who are His own), is the principle of love. This must be true for God loves us at all times and love is the essence of the relationship he carries on with us. He moves into our lives to care for us deeply and permit us to experience Him firsthand—joy of joys! Therefore, it was the most loving thing to do, to allow Israel, His own people, to go into captivity where many of them perished. They were wandering from His intimacy and He sought to bring them back by means of therapeutic measures. Love may be defined as a steadfast commitment to always be and do what is right for the objects of that love—to faithfully do what is in their best interest. The term right may be understood to mean: whatever brings a person closer to God either now or is working toward that end. Well, how does this relate to the Sermon on the Mount?

A Solution

The underlying ethic in Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount is love: love for our heavenly Father and love for people. As we have seen God, in His love for us, allows us to come face to face with our sin, to be confronted by it. This of course is to bring about deep repentance and restoration of the love between the parties involved.

While all the commentators surveyed were quite consistent in saying that an unforgiving Christian does lose fellowship with God, they did not explicitly say what God is attempting to do by not forgiving the person. In answering this question we must remember, as I have just stated, that God's modus operandi is love. Therefore His unwillingness to forgive (and despite what the commentators say, the text explicitly says that He will not forgive)14 the person is an act motivated by love and a deep seated commitment to move toward His sinning child and not away from him. Therefore, when Jesus says that the Father will not forgive, what He means is that God will allow the person to walk in their sin (that is, He will not overlook it and embrace the person), to the necessary extent; until they come face to face with it and see it for what it is. In other words, if the person is unwilling to forgive, let him deal with a God twice as stubborn when it comes to forgiving. God will not give in and the sinning brother will have to deal with an unforgiving Father, from whom he depends for the basic necessities of life (6:25-32). God's intention, as the unforgiving brother goes his way in unforgiveness, is to expose him, to bring about legitimate shame and repulsiveness toward the sin. It is a rare blend of justice and mercy. He did this for Jacob, for Israel and as Paul declares, for us also. The result will often be Spirit-inspired, genuine repentance and love.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to attempt to provide a clearer explanation of the conditional clauses in Matthew 6:14,15. Several commentaries were surveyed, providing some help in addressing the problem. However, when one considers the question in the larger picture of God's recorded dealings with His people throughout time, a better answer emerges.

It appears that what Jesus is really saying is that God, with a view toward loving the unforgiving child, refuses to forgive him in an attempt to get the child to come face to face with His sin of an unforgiving heart. The person who is unwilling to forgive will soon meet his Equal. The goal of this is to re-establish the broken relationships between God and the people involved.


1 Most commentators agree that the implicit condition expressed in verse 12, through the wJ", is brought out more clearly with the use of eajn in verses 14 and 15. See D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5-7 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1978), 69.

2 The literary relation of this section in Matthew to Mark 11:25 really does not help the question at hand. Mark simply emphasizes the difficulty we have in forgiving people and the tremendous faith it requires. According to Mark we must forgive others in order (iJvna) for God to forgive us. This is basically the same as Matthew's positive affirmation in verse 14. Cf. D. A. Carson, "Matthew" in The Expositors Bible Commentary, v. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984), 175. For an excellent treatment of the question of Matthew's placement of the verses (i.e. as opposed to Mark and with the idea of Markan priority) see W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, v.1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1988), 616, 17.

3 Harvey K. McArthur, Understanding the Sermon (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1960), 65. McArthur says that "Matt. 6:12 has always been difficult to subordinate to the standard Church theology."

4 John F. MacArthur, Jr. The New Testament Commentary: Matthew 1-7 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 397.

5 Ibid, 397.

6 Louis A. Barbieri, Jr., "Matthew" in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, v. 2 (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1983), 32.

7 Craig L. Blomberg, "Matthew" in The New American Commentary, v.22 (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1992), 120.

8 Ibid., 121.

9 W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, v.1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark Limited, 1988), 617. Cf. also, David Hill, "Matthew" in The New Century Bible Commentary, eds. Ronald Clements and Matthew Black (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1972), 141: "The verses should be understood in the sense of the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (18:23-35); the community that prays with power must be a forgiving community." Cf. also Carson's Exposition of the Sermon where he deals with the relation of the forgiveness spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 6:14, 15 and that to which He refers in the parable of chapter 18.

10 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 389.

11 D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical Exposition of Matthew 5-7, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1978), 69. For other similar interpretations see Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953), 168: "Unless we forgive those who injure us we are in no moral condition ourselves to receive the mercy of God." Cf. also W. Clyde Tilley, The Surpassing Righteousness: Evangelism and Ethics in the Sermon on the Mount, (Greenville, SC: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1992), 133, 34.

12 Ibid, 69.

13 For the sake of space I will not even begin to repeat the story of Genesis 29ff.

14 The commentators confuse love and grace. Just because He is gracious does not mean He has to be willing to forgive an unforgiving person. This could be the most unloving thing to do, confirming the person in their sin, rather than releasing them from it.

Related Topics: Forgiveness

The Peril of Abusing Our Spiritual Privileges (1 Corinthians 10:1-13)

Related Media

Introduction

The blessings and privileges that believers have in Christ are bountiful, to say the least. Scripture declares, in fact, that we are blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph. 1:3), indeed, we are complete in Him (Col. 2:10). The outworking of these blessings mean a number of wonderful things in a Christian’s life. When understood and appropriated by faith, they mean peace, joy, happiness, comfort, encouragement, and significant purpose. But that’s not all, though this is often all you hear emphasized in many messages and in the conversations of Christians. It certainly seems this is the main focus of many, if not most people, in our comfort and pleasure-crazed society.

However, with our privileges come two more vital concepts: ‘strength’ (ability) and ‘accountability’ (responsibility). (1) Our blessings and privileges mean the ability, by the power of God bestowed in those blessings, to be different from the world as believers in Christ. We can live victoriously over sin and the self-life. (2) But they also mean the responsibility to do so, not in our own strength, of course, but through the ability God gives us through the Savior.

This poses a warning us: Spiritual privilege provides the basis for success, but it never guarantees it. Instead, spiritual privilege demands responsibility. This is part of the warning of this passage. But let’s not miss the context of this warning!

First, in the immediate context, chapter 10 is preceded in 9:24-25 with the image of the athlete as a challenging illustration for Christians. If a athlete is to (1) continue in the race to finish it, and (2) win the prize, he must rigorously train and discipline himself. He must restrain his appetites and compete according to the principles of discipline that promote winning or success; he must run in such a way that he may win (vs. 24).

Second, in verses 26 and 27 Paul shows how he had carefully applied this concept to his own life in view of the very real possibility of being disqualified himself from either finishing the race or from winning the crown. Later Paul could say, “I have finished the course,” and “in the future there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness” (2 Tim.4:7, 8).

Third, with this illustration in view, Paul then focused the church at Corinth on the history of the nation of Israel as an illustration of some of God’s people who were disqualified regardless of their salvation and the marvelous privileges they had (10:1-11).

Finally, he concluded these verses with an application of warning to Corinth and to us. First, we must each take heed lest we also fall (i.e. become disqualified). Second, we should each take courage in spite of the temptations and obstacles we face in the race because God is with us and He provides us with a way of life, the outcome of which is the capacity to handle temptation.

An Important Question: What has prompted all of this? With chapter 10, the Apostle is concluding his answer to their question about meats offered to idols. He begins with a warning in 10:1-13 and follows this up with an application specifically geared to the meat issue in 10:14–11:1. Of course, this involved the question of human taboos or doubtful things and the use of our liberty in Christ.

He divides the application into three parts: First, he deals with participation in heathen religious festivals (vv. 14-22), then with eating meat sold in the marketplace (vv. 23-26), and finally, with eating meat in a private home (10:27–11:1).

There are two key subjects which form the greater context for this concern about disqualification mentioned at the end of chapter 9. The first is that of Christian service or the ministry of those who should live by God’s wisdom to fulfill God’s purposes ( 1 Cor. 1:4, 5; 3:5f; 4:1f; 9:15-23). The second is that of Christian liberty and its proper use. Our liberty in Christ is not to be abused at the expense of others, or at the expense of our ministry to others, or at the expense of becoming disqualified from the rewards we can have for faithful service (see 1 Cor. 3:12f).

Though we do have liberty in Christ, and though God has given us all things freely to enjoy, and though we do have and can joy many things such as marriage, children, homes, recreation, and other forms of pleasure, such must never become our prime focus or goal. Compare God’s warnings to Israel (Deut. 6).

By disqualification we must understand that the apostle was not concerned that he (or we) might lose his (our) salvation. His personal concern and the issues here are: (1) abusing privileges, (2) exercising responsibilities, (3) glorifying the Lord, (4) failing or becoming disqualified in his work as an apostle so that he could not finish the race, and (5) the loss of rewards. This is a real threat for each of us as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, as it was for the Corinthians and even for the Apostle Paul.

Therefore, to show just how real this threat is, he took the Corinthian church to an illustration in the history of Israel which, like the Church, had been blessed with tremendous blessings and privileges from God. If you need an illustration of people who had everything and blew it, then just take a look at Israel. And lest we become smug, we can be just like them and we have much more spiritually speaking than did they. We are all cut out of the same cloth, we are a fallen race whose chief characteristic is to go our own way seeking to live life by our own strategies for significance and happiness.

With this, let’s turn to the exposition of verses 1-13.

An Illustration:
The History of Israel and Her Spiritual Privileges
(10:1-5)

1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness (emphasis mine).

The Plea Declared: What God wants us to know (vs.1a)

“For” connects chapter 10 with the image of the race and the possibility of disqualification of chapter 9. The connection flows from the truth that there is the responsibility for godly discipline because there is also the very real possibility of disqualification, as the life of Israel proves.

“I do not want you to be unaware (or ignorant).” This expresses the Apostle’s plea and what God wants us to grasp regarding the teaching and application of Israel’s history to our corporate and individual lives. I hope we do not miss an obvious general application here. This serves to emphasize that God does not want us to be living in a state of ignorance of the truth of Scripture because biblical truth is fundamental to spiritual health and running a good race. Because of our own sinfulness and because of the many deceptions of Satan, being ignorant or forgetting God’s truth is downright dangerous. God wants us to daily learn from and respond to the truth of Word of God. Hebrews 3:7 says, “today if you will hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation …”

The Privileges Described: What Israel experienced (vss. 1b-4)

The little adjective “all” is repeated five times in these verses. Just look at this. All together—the educated, the uneducated, the poor, the rich, the weak, the strong—all of them experienced the same supernatural blessings of God. This means that each one had the same opportunity and capacity to count for God to the maximum regardless of background. Now, what did they experience?

    Supernatural Direction and Protection: “all were under the cloud” (vs. 1b)

“Were” is an imperfect of past continuing action. From the very beginning, as they left Egypt they all enjoyed the guidance of the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. As they journeyed on from Sinai to Kadesh they experienced God’s guidance and His protection.

“Under the cloud,” according to the context and the Greek word used here, this signifies “under” not simply in the sense of location, but under in the sense of protection; it was like being under the shelter of the Almighty.

So, (1) today, believers in Christ have the promise of God’s guidance and direction by the Scriptures and by the Spirit of God. Likewise, (2) being in Christ, all believers are hidden and protected in God, their Savior (Col. 3:3). In Him believers are super-conquerors (Rom. 8:32-32). In Him they are accepted and have access in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6).

    Supernatural Liberation: “and all passed through the sea” (vs. 1c)

“Passed through” is best viewed as what we call a perfective aorist which, by the context here, looks at a completed, finished experience. The Israelites had been boxed in and from their perspective death was certain. There was nothing they could do in their power to be saved. They faced the Red Sea in front of them, had the armies of Pharaoh behind them, and the wilderness on either side. Yet God worked supernaturally: He parted the Red Sea, delivered Israel and destroyed Pharaoh’s armies. When it was all over they stood on the other side, delivered from the bondage of Egypt by the power and grace of God.

So today, men without Christ stand helpless, the bondslaves of sin and facing certain death. Yet, God has worked supernaturally through the person and work of His Son to provide a once-and-for-all salvation, a complete and perfect deliverance from the penalty and power of sin. As believers in Jesus Christ, Christians are a delivered people, a people who have passed out of death into life (see also Deut. 6:23; 1:30f).

“I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life (John 5:24, NET Bible).

    Supernatural Identification: “and all were baptized into Moses…” (vs. 2)

The word “baptized” signifies the truth of “identification.” It’s important to note here that the only people who got wet were the Egyptians. Though the fundamental idea of the Greek verb, baptizw, is “to dip, immerse, plunge or to place into,” the outworking of this metaphorically is that of identification. The word was used of a dyer of cloth who would dip a piece of cloth into the dye to change its color. It would go into the dye one color, like white, and come out another. In the process the identification of the cloth was changed from white to a blue or red piece of cloth.

By their obedience to Moses’ commands, and belief in what God was doing, they became identified with the leadership of Moses and united together as the people of God under Moses, God’s spokesman, and so also identified with God’s deliverance.

So likewise today, when a person trusts in the Lord Jesus, they become united into Him by the baptizing, identifying work of the Spirit, and to one another in the body of Christ. In this position in Christ all believers share all that Christ is—His righteousness, His Sonship, inheritance, death, resurrection, ascension, and session, etc., and we become members of one another with responsibilities to each other in that relationship.

    Supernatural Nutrition: “and all ate the same spiritual food” (vs. 3)

This, of course, was the manna which God provided daily to sustain His people. So likewise, Christians have the Lord Jesus, the ‘Bread’ from heaven who sustains our life and upon whom we are to daily feed by living in the Word and by abiding in Him: counting on Him as our source of life.

    Supernatural Libation: “and all drank the same spiritual drink” (vs. 4)

The Rock which gave water spoke of Christ who, as the preincarnate Christ, actually followed them, sustaining and meeting their needs in the wilderness, day after day. Likewise as believers today, Christ has given us the water of the Word and the refreshing water of the ministry of the Holy Spirit which sustains and ministers to those believers who will walk by the Spirit and drink from the fountains of the Word.

By the last three blessings Paul undoubtedly had the two ordinances of the church in mind—baptism (which portrays Spirit baptism), and the Lord’s supper (which portrays faith in the person of Christ and our need to continue to live by His life). But please note, these two ordinances portray spiritual facts and truth—truth that is to be appropriated by faith and by responsible Christian living. They portray our privileges and blessings in Christ, but they do not afford the believer with some magical protection by which we may presume upon the Lord and by which we may, in self-dependent rebellion, simply go our own way as did Israel, thinking that we have it made because of our blessings.

Now why this emphasis on the fact of Israel’s blessings? To stress the reality of the danger of disqualification to all of us. Privilege never guarantees success. We must exercise our responsibility to discipline our lives and to stay close to God. Thus in verse five we see how the nation became disqualified and was not able to enter the land of promise.

The People Disqualified: What happened to the privileged nation (vs. 5)

Deuteronomy 1:29-40 "Then I said to you, 'Do not be shocked, nor fear them. 30 'The LORD your God who goes before you will Himself fight on your behalf, just as He did for you in Egypt before your eyes, 31 and in the wilderness where you saw how the LORD your God carried you, just as a man carries his son, in all the way which you have walked, until you came to this place.' 32 "But for all this, you did not trust the LORD your God, 33 who goes before you on your way, to seek out a place for you to encamp, in fire by night and cloud by day, to show you the way in which you should go.

34 "Then the LORD heard the sound of your words, and He was angry and took an oath, saying, 35 'Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers, 36 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him and to his sons I will give the land on which he has set foot, because he has followed the LORD fully.' 37 "The LORD was angry with me also on your account, saying, 'Not even you shall enter there. 38 'Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter there; encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. 39 'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them, and they shall possess it. 40 'But as for you, turn around and set out for the wilderness by the way to the Red Sea.'

Verse 5 of our passage in 1 Corinthians 10 begins with an emphatic statement of contrast. The word “nevertheless” is the Greek conjunction alla, the strongest conjunction of contrast in New Testament Greek. It emphatically brings out the contrast here between how many were blessed, ALL, versus how many with whom God was not pleased; with most of them (Deut. 1:34-40). Though gracious, this is tremendously understated. Over two million people came out of Egypt, 600,000 men able to go to war twenty years and older, their wives, approximately another 600,000, and probably 800,000 children or more. That’s 1,200,000 adults not including the mixed multitude from Egypt. But only two of the original 1,200,000 adults were allowed to go into the land of promise. The rest were laid low, literally, their carcasses were strewn across the wilderness. What an obituary column the paper could have had had they had a paper.

Application: Do we understand what this means? First, it means all but two were not only disciplined severely, but they were disqualified from their ministry and purpose as a special people of God (cf. Ex. 19:5,6; 33:14-16; Deut. 4:6-8). They utterly failed to accomplished God’s purposes for their lives. Here we have a timeless warning: THE PEOPLE WITH THE MOST APPROPRIATED THE LEAST.

Second, it also means that we too can be disqualified and fail in the ministry God has for us—and we have even more than they did (Eph. 1:3). This was Paul’s concern and needs to become our concern as well. May we not presume upon God and simply rest in the fact we are Christians who are blessed with every spiritual blessing, nor in the fact that we are in a Christian environment surrounded by godly people, or that we are in a Bible teaching church, as great as those blessings and privileges are. Let us not trust in our privileged position and think we have it made for, though heaven is secured for us by the power of God as a free gift by grace, we are not exempt from failure, from disqualification in the race and from the loss of rewards. Again, we can never lose our salvation, but we can fail to use our salvation responsibly. And like Israel, we will have to face the consequences of our failure to live and use our privileges in Christ responsibly.

12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, (Ephesians 6:10-18).

So what are some of those consequences?:

    1. Loss of fellowship with the Lord and the power of God on our lives (Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19; Psa. 66:18)

    2. Loss of rewards (I Cor. 3:12f)

    3. Loss of glory to God (I Cor. 6:17-19; 10:31).

    4. Loss of fulfilling our goals or nonproductive (John 15:2f).

    5. Ineffectiveness in the horizontal relationships in life (Mark 12:28-31; Eph. 5:22f depends on 5:18).

    6. We become pawns of Satan and the world system around us (Eph. 6:10f; 1 Pet. 5:6-9).

    7. Creates unhappiness and dissatisfaction (Ps. 32:3-4).

    8. Brings divine discipline on our lives (Heb. 12:5f; 1 Cor. 5:3f; etc.).

What else are we to learn from the history of Israel? This grim record is punctuated with a warning and a special reminder on either end of those verses, verses 6b-10 which describe the sins of Israel (cf. vss.6a and 11).

Our Instruction:
Lessons We Should Learn from the History of Israel
(10:6-13)

6 Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. 7 And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, " The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play." 8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:6-13).

The Principle of Biblical Examples (vss. 6, 11)

“These things” of verses 6 and 11 refer to the history of Israel, specifically, (1) their blessings or privileges, (2) their failures, and (3) their disqualification from God’s purpose. But also and in general, “these things” refer to the whole Old Testament revelation and its truth regarding the history of God’s activities in Old Testament times.

Paul says, they “happened as examples for us.” “Happened” doesn’t mean these things just happened by chance. The verb is ginomai means “to come to be,” but not simply by chance. In other words, the things that occurred in the Old Testament were more than simple historical events; they were allowed by the sovereign will of God and recorded by God through the human authors of Scripture because God had us in mind; they provide us with analogies, illustrations, and Old Testament types designed to warn, instruct, and encourage. In general, they were designed to influence our lives positively for God and His purposes for us.

In other words, Israel’s history is divinely designed to speak to us. We should see it as it is, God’s personal word to us, not just to encourage us or bless us, but that we might be all that we were designed to be—instruments to the glory of God (2 Cor. 4:6, 7).

Well, then, what does Israel’s history say? What are we to learn from this particular passage which Paul has called to our attention?

The Purpose of These Examples (vss. 6b-10)

Many of the lessons of the Old Testament are positive, providing comfort, hope, encouragement, etc. But because of our own sinful natures some lessons are negative and provide us with instructive warnings. They are designed to halt attitudes and behavior that are inconsistent with our new life in Christ. Such are these negative examples. They show what we should not be as well as what can happen to us if, like Israel, we take our blessings for granted and presume upon the Lord.

Since disqualification is always a real danger, the Corinthians’ complacency toward the Word, their emphasis on the showy gifts, their externalism in worship, and their strong tendencies toward self indulgence, required immediate correction or they too would be disqualified. The Corinthian church did not have a long ministry. They failed to take heed.

Let’s note two principles:

First, Christian freedom was never meant to lead to self indulgence, but to inner self-controls that lead, in turn, to servant-like living that thinks of others above ourselves; serving according to the will of God (Gal.5:13; I Cor. 9:24-27; 10:23, 31, 32).

Second, true freedom is not the freedom to do as we please and run wild and unrestrained—that is its own form of slavery and the worst kind. Rather, true freedom is the capacity to do as we ought by the grace and power of God (see 2 Pet.2:18-19). Freedom means the responsibility to make right choices which starts by resting in God’s grace and supply for being Christ-like in our behavior.

Perhaps a good illustration of restrained freedom is a train. When is a train free to do what it was designed to do? When it’s off the track and unrestrained, or when it is restrained by the tracks on which it was designed to operate?

Therefore, paralleling the five-fold blessings described above, Paul now describes a five-fold failure, all of which occurred from their failure to live responsibly in the light of their new blessings in the Lord. One of the chief thrusts of Scripture is that our new life in Christ, with all of the resultant blessings, should lead to changed lives, lives that are consistent with our calling (cf. Rom. 12:1f; Eph. 4:1f; 5:1f; Titus 2:10f; I John 3:1f).

So we have here five sins which are related to each other as root to fruit. Verse 6b shows us the root, and verses 7-10 show us the natural fruit. Each of these mentioned had a specific historical circumstance behind it, but the first takes us to the heart of the problem.

So what were the problem sins of Israel that Paul warns against?

    Insatiable cravings and Inordinate desires (vs. 6b)

1 Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp. 2 The people therefore cried out to Moses, and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire died out. 3 So the name of that place was called Taberah, because the fire of the LORD BURNED among them.

4 And the rabble who were among them had greedy desires; and also the sons of Israel wept again and said, "Who will give us meat to eat? 5 "We remember the fish which we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and the onions and the garlic, 6 but now our appetite is gone. There is nothing at all to look at except this manna. " 7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. 8 The people would go about and gather it and grind it between two millstones or beat it in the mortar, and boil it in the pot and make cakes with it; and its taste was as the taste of cakes baked with oil. 9 And when the dew fell on the camp at night, the manna would fall with it.… 34 So the name of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had been greedy (Numbers 11:1-9, 34).

13 They quickly forgot His works; They did not wait for His counsel (Psalm 106:13).

Literally, the Greek text says, if I might coin a word, “that we should not be cravers (those who crave) of evil things.” “Crave” is a noun which means, “one who craves.” The Greek word, epiqumhths is an intensive compound noun. It comes from one word, “upon,” and another word, “to desire.” It means to keep your desire fixed upon something. This noun, plus the present tense of the verb “to be,” in the verb that follows (epiqumew), describes this as an enduring disposition, state, or condition of the heart or mind, a condition of greed or craving of the heart.

This brings out the principles of (a) insatiability and (b) loss of control. Things never satisfy or fulfill as we expect or hope, and in our pursuit of them they can literally dominate us. When we crave something, it creates a mad and fruitless search for happiness and fulfillment in the thing desired which it can never provide.

    1. When we lust for things we are in essence worshipping and seeking our happiness, security, and meaning in those details regardless of their nature—position, power, prestige, possession, pleasure, etc.

    2. When we lust for things, we are at the same time operating under the demonic and human delusion that things have the god-like ability to bring happiness and security and significant, etc. The one who craves something treats that something as if it were God with the capacity to make him or her happy and secure. This is a form of idolatry.

What we must not fail to grasp is that craving things stems from a deeper root problem, from wrong perspectives, values, belief systems, and priorities.

The root problem the Israelites faced was that their hearts were never truly fixed upon their spiritual blessings or upon the Lord. While some meant business with the Lord, the majority didn’t and things became their treasure. The result? Things also became their master (cf. Matt. 6: 24; 1 Pet. 1:13-15).

So, when our perspectives, belief systems, values, and priorities are wrong, we become like Israel who craved evil things. Of course, some of what they craved was not evil in itself, but it became evil because they put it before the Lord. Here is a spiritual and psychological law. Our view or perspective of life and what we believe will make us happy and secure always determines our values, our values in turn always determine our goals, and our goals always determine our pursuits, that for which we thirst. Either we are those who thirst after righteousness, or we are those who crave after evil things. And all of this determines our manner of life, our behavior.

The history of Israel should help us get our perspectives right, then our values, and then our priorities. This in turn should result in one who “thirsts after righteousness” and who is thus under God’s control, rather than on who “lusts after evil things” and comes under the control of the sinful nature.

    1. For the concept of our perspectives compare Matthew 6:19-20; I Peter 1:13; and Luke 12:15, 23.

    2. For that of our values compare Matthew 6:21; and I Peter 1:18-19.

    3. For the concept of priorities compare Matthew 6:33; I Peter 1:17.

Now an important question: What exactly do the evil things include? Were they evil in themselves? As mentioned, no, not always. Israel craved the past pleasures of Egypt as summarized in their cry, “Give us meat to eat” (Num. 11:4-34; cf. especially verses 33-34). In principle however, the evil things refer to two categories:

    1. That which is always evil and contrary to the will of God, like idolatry, immorality, etc.,

    2. It may also refer to that which in itself is not evil, but which becomes evil because of our disposition toward the thing desired.

Some things may be legitimate in and of themselves like eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols, but it may not God’s will for us because of other principles that apply. Will it cause a brother to stumble, or have I become obsessed with it? If so, then it becomes evil. God knows what is best for us, and if we continue to crave something He may give it to us, but the results are often bad (Ps.106:15).

Legitimate things become evil when they possess us and become the objects of our devotion, or our security, or our happiness rather than the Lord. One of the first things that will take a person away from God and that can lead to disqualification so that spiritual privileges are abused is a desire for something other than what God has planned for us. Or to put it another way, we can know we have moved away when we begin seeking our happiness in the details of life rather than in the Lord, or when we value things more than God or our walk with Him and the ministries He has for us.

In this regard we should note that the four following sins are a by product of the above, a further degenerative manifestation of the sinful nature left uncontrolled. In our society today these sins are rampant—not just in the unbelieving world but in the church, the body of believers. Why? Because we live in an extremely materialistic society, a world of ‘things,’ a world where no matter where you turn the things of the world are vying for our attention and aspiration. O, that we would remember John admonition, “do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the father is not in him” (1John 2:15).

When we fall into the condition of craving things or loving the things of the world, unless this is arrested, we become more and more disobedient, falling deeper and deeper into sin as we see illustrated in the example (bad example) of the Israelites. Today it is common to see believers caught up in idolatrous materialism (coveting everything in sight), in adultery and immorality, in impatience and dissatisfaction, and in rebellion to authority in the home, in the church, and in government.

    Idolatrous Behavior (vs. 7)

Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5 teach us that any form of covetousness or greed is a form of idolatry. One does not have to bow down to an idol of wood or stone to be guilty of this idolatry. It can apply to anything men can covet: popularity, position, power, prestige, pleasure, possessions, marriage, or just being noticed by someone.

Why does it become idolatry? Because it becomes a form of worship wherein we are seeking from these objects of worship what only God can give (Ps. 62:1f).

    Immoral Actions (vs. 8)

The immorality referred to here is sexual immorality. The Greek word is porneuw, “to commit fornication.” It is a general term and refers to just about any kind of sexual misconduct. Sex, as with all of the things that God has designed for our blessing, is good and beautiful. It was designed for procreation and for our happiness and enjoyment within the framework of marriage and a loving relationship of deep commitment for life. It was meant to add flavor and quality to life, but it ceases to fulfill its purpose when we go on the mad search for happiness in another person or just in marriage itself. We can become obsessed with marriage, with romance, and with sex. In the process we can lose the capacity to savor sex within the confines of marriage, so we go looking for what we visualize as better, more exciting, more rewarding. We go looking for excitement in the forbidden. Ours is a society that has become totally preoccupied with sex. It’s worshipped like a god. Sex seems almost to ooze from the pores of our American life. The moral erosion has been accurately captured by Sorokin who wrote about this over forty years ago and, of course, things have progressively grown worse. He writes,

…in the last century, much literature has centered on the personalities and adventures of subnormal and abnormal people,—prostitutes and mistresses, street urchins and criminals, the mentally and emotionally deranged, and other social derelicts. There has been a growing preoccupation with the subsocial sewers,—the broken home of disloyal parents and unloved children, the bedroom of a prostitute, a “Canary Row” brothel, a den of criminals, a ward of the insane, a club of dishonest politicians, a street-corner gang of teen-age delinquents, the office of a huckster, the ostentatious mansion of a cynical business Mogul, a hate-laden prison, a “street care named desire,” a crime-ridden waterfront, the courtroom of a dishonest judge, the jungle of cattle-murdering and meat-packing yards. These and hundreds of similar scenes are exemplary of a large part of modern Western literature, which has become increasingly a veritable museum of human pathology.

There has been a parallel transmutation of the experience of love. From the pure and noble or the tragic, it has progressively devolved. The common and prosaic, but usually licit sexual love that is portrayed in the literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has in the last fifty years been increasingly displaced by various forms of abnormal, perverse, vulgar, picaresque, exotic, and even monstrous forms,—the sex adventures of urbanized cavemen and rapists, the loves of adulterers and fornicators, of masochists and sadists, of prostitutes, mistresses, playboys, and entertainment personalities. Juicy “loves,” “its,” “ids,” “orgasms,” and “libidos” are seductively prepared and skillfully served with all the trimmings.

Designed to excite the fading lust of readers, and thereby increase the sales of these literary sex-tonics, much of contemporary Western literature has become Freudian through and through. It is preoccupied with “dirt-painting” of genital, anal, oral, cutaneous, homosexual, and incestuous “loves.” It is absorbed in literary psychoanalysis of various complexes,—the castration, the Oedipus, the Tetanus, the Narcissus, and other pathological forms. It has degraded and denied the great, noble, and joyfully beautiful values of normal married love.1

    Insurgent and Impatient Opposition (vs. 9)

We live in a society of the ‘quick fix’ and in a time when almost everyone is bent on immediate gratification. This problem is not new; it was Israel’s problem, and it could also be ours. In fact it is a sure sign of immaturity and carnality. John T. Watkins suggests that three patterns underlie many of the impulse-control problems we see in our society today.

    1. Infantilely believing that one has to have what one wants, or infantilely demanding, dictating, or insisting that desires be satisfied at all costs;

    2. Eegocentrically believing that circumstances must not be difficult and that life should be easy;

    3. Believing that any difficulty, delay, or inhibition is too awful to stand.2

    Insolent Unbelief (vs. 10)

Insolent unbelief is rebellion to authority and God’s established chains of command. People always want to do their own thing when they are controlled by a craving after evil things. When people are like this, they rebel against being accountable to anyone because it might hinder getting what they crave.

The Principle of Instruction (vs. 11)

Again Paul repeats the principle of verse 6, but now he adds “were written for our instruction.” The word “instruction” is the Greek nouqhsia. It literally means “to put sense into the mind.” But in its use it connotes two concepts:

    1. It carries the idea of “blame or censure” and involves correcting something that is wrong in one’s life by the exposition and study of the Word through teaching/preaching, in a one-on-one situation, or through personal Bible study.

    2. But it also includes the idea of an appeal to the volition. It looks for a response based upon the instruction and truth of Scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3: 16).

Scripture warns us, and calls for a response.

Our Exhortation:
To Take Heed in Light of the Peril
(10:12)

“Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (10:12)

The Presumption: “let him who thinks he stands”

“Therefore,” is the Greek, %wste which points to an inference drawn from the preceding examples. It means that in light of the history of Israel and God’s intended purpose for recording this in Scripture and the ever impending peril this illustrates, the following must be taken seriously.

The clause “who thinks he stands” looks at the problem of presumptive self-confidence or over-confidence. Not over-confidence in the Lord, but in ourselves: presumption.

The word “thinks” is the Greek dokew. It is used of subjective judgment, judgment that is not based on objective facts. We may think we are safe from the behavior and sins of Israel, and we may think so because of our maturity, or years of faithful service, or present love for the Lord, or because of past victories, or abilities, or spiritual gifts, or accomplishments. But to think this way is to presume on the Lord. Actually, every step of our walk is contested by the three enemies of the believer, and only moment-by-moment dependence, watching carefully how we walk, is sufficient to overcome (Eph. 5:15-17).

Victory or deliverance is never based on our record; its basis is always the work of God (Read about the battle with Amalek in Exodus 17).

The Injunction: “take heed”

So what are we to do? We are to “take heed.” This is the Greek word blepw. Literally, blepw refers to the activity of the eyes and means “to see, to look at,” or “be able to see.” But it is also used metaphorically of the activity of the mind, of mental sight, and may come to mean “to direct one’s attention to something, consider, note carefully, or watch out for, beware of.” Included in this are the ideas of discernment, perception, or discovery. So we are never to take our walk for granted and just mosey along, indifferent and careless to everything around us, assuming we have it made for whatever reason.

Instead, according to the meaning and use of this Greek word and the overall context of the New Testament, we should do two things:

    1. We are to walk carefully. We are to be on alert and aware of the dangers and temptations around us. We are to be on guard to our own areas of weakness and propensities to sin (cf. Rom. 7:15-25; Eph. 5:16; 6:13; Heb. 3:13; 4:1; 1 Pet.5:8).

    2. We are to seek to discover and deal with those areas and things in our lives that are contrary to the Word and sound spiritual health (see Prov. 28:13; Ps. 119:59; 32:1-7; 1 John 1:5-10).

But just how do we take heed and obey this warning and what are some of the things that are necessary to do this? Taking heed means we must:

    1. Recognize our weakness and need of the Lord’s constant help (Eph. 6:10f; Heb. 12:1; 1 Pet. 5:6-8)

    2. Recognize and know the times in which we live and the danger this poses to our spiritual lives (Rom. 13:11-14; 2 Tim. 3:1f; 1 Thess. 5:1-11).

    3. Recognize and be alert to the fact of our three enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil and his demonic forces, deceptions and strategies (1 John 2:15- 17; Jam. 4:3-6; Rom. 7:15-25; 8:4-7; Eph. 2:2; & 6:10-13).

    4. Be prayerful. One of the ways that we can take heed and be watchful is in prayer (Eph.6:18; Col. 4:2). Prayer journals can be a very helpful way to remember.

    5. Study and meditate on the Word regularly through daily time in the Word and by regularly assembling ourselves together (Ps. 119:15, 104, 105, 130, 165, 147, 148; Heb.3:7; & 10:24, 25).

    6. Maintain right associations and fellowship with the saints especially around the Word (cf. Ps 119:61 with vs. 62; 1 Thess. 5:11, Heb. 10:23-24, and 1 Cor. 15:33,34).

    7. Walk by means of the Spirit. Remember it is the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin, applies the Word to our hearts, and enables us to appraise and discern all things, including our own lives according to the Word, the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:15,16).

The Intention: “lest he fall”

To what does “fall” refer in verse 11? To carnality? Yes, but more. It refers to the concern of continued carnality that can lead to disqualification and failure to run the race God has laid out before us.

… but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified (1 Cor. 9:27).

Just how then, can we be disqualified? What was Paul’s concern? I think he had in mind four ways that we may be disqualified from service. One is permanent while the other three may be only temporary depending on how we respond to what God is doing in our lives (cf. 1 Cor. 11:30-32).

    1. He may remove our power for service: this means a loss of effectiveness. Samson is an illustraiton (see 1 Thess. 1:5)

    2. He may remove our performance: this means God may take away our ministry. King Saul is an illustration.

    3. He may remove our presence: this means God may take away our life. This is the sin unto death. The man guilty of the sin of incest in 1 Corinthians 5 illustrates this truth, though it appears, according to 2 Corinthians 2 that the person involved repented and was spared (cf. 1 Cor. 11:30-32; 1 John 5:16-17).

    4. He may remove our prize: This means God may take away our rewards or crown(s) (2 Tim.4:6-8; 1 Pet. 5:4).

Our Fortification:
To Trust God’s Provision and
Plan for the Problem of Temptation
(10:13)

“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it” (10:13).

We should note that this verse begins without a connective. It simply and abruptly begins with, “No temptation has taken you …” Why? After the above warnings one might just think, “who then can possibly stand?” So Paul begins abruptly and emphatically in order to stress a point. It is called asyndeton by grammarians. May I suggest that it is designed to draw our attention to God’s faithfulness, concern, awareness, and provision in the human problem of temptation. There is no cause for undue alarm or frustration, only caution, responsible behavior, and trust in the divine provision of God for whatever life might bring. The Lord is faithful, and furthermore, He is in control.

But what does Paul mean by “temptation?” The word used is the Greek peirasmos. It is used of (1) solicitation to evil or (2) of testing in the sense of a trial, of that which tests one’s character for good or for bad.

Temptations to sin come from Satan and our own sinful propensities or indwelling sin. The Lord, because of His holy character, never tempts men to sin (Jam. 1:13). However, God does test us with trials of various kinds and for various reasons to reveal our character, show our loyalty, to demonstrate His power, to develop our faith and dependence on Him, to cause us to grow, and to manifest Christ’s character in us.

So what are trials? They become mirrors of reproof and instruments of growth. In the trials of life we are, of course, sometimes tempted to sin in some form of rebellion or unbelief. But when this happens the temptation to sin comes from Satan or from our own sinful disposition and never from the Lord.

13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death (James 1:13-15).

Verse 13 declares three things about our temptation and struggles with sin that are tremendously instructive: (1) the experience of our temptation is common to all of us, (2) the environment of our temptation is under God’s control, and (3) the escape from temptation is conferred by God.

The Experience of Our Temptation Is Common to all of Us

Regarding the commonality of temptation, may I suggest three things Paul is saying about temptation or testing in this first statement.

First, he is not saying that since this is a common experience, i.e., we all have the problem, let’s just throw in the towel, after all we are just human. This is not an excuse to give into temptation.

Second, and primarily, Paul is saying that our temptations are never unique just to us. They are common to all men, so we should not seek to hide behind the idea that our problem is different and thereby try to excuse our sin by its uniqueness. We must responsibly face, by faith and obedience, whatever the Lord allows into our lives.

But third, while there is a warning here, there is also great comfort and encouragement in knowing that we are not alone and that others have faced similar and even worse testings and temptations and have endured by the strength and faithfulness of God (cf. Heb. 11:2ff).

So first, Paul has warned us about the commonality of our temptations. Now, based on the faithfulness of God, He points out two more things that we can count on the Lord for in temptation.

The Environment of Our Temptation Is Under God’s Control

Now, this may seem strange to us, especially when being overcome by temptations, but the promise here is that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to handle. He knows our areas of weakness, the things that are controlling our lives, the motives, the fears, the strategies we are using to find happiness, etc. He knows our level of spiritual maturity or immaturity, and all the particulars of our lives at any particular moment.

So the point is He guards us against any temptation or testing which we could not handle. If that is true, we might ask, then, why do we keep on sinning?

When temptation comes we may not handle it, but it is not because God’s provision is not available or adequate, but rather it is because either we won’t avail ourselves of it or because we are too immature spiritually to know how. The Christian life is a life of faith, moment-by -moment, but faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). The Christian life is a life of growth (see 1 Pet. 2:1-2). Jesus said, “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). Further, our inability to appropriate God’s deliverance may be because we have presumed upon our blessings, or because we have not been careful in our daily walk with God.

This also means when temptation or testing comes, (1) we can handle it through growth and maturity, and (2) that the Lord has allowed it for His own purposes, unless we are presuming upon the Lord. Let me briefly illustrate. The way to victory is often through the back door of defeat. Through our defeats and our battle with sin, God shows us that our strategies for making life work, such as gambling or alcohol or drugs or whatever a person has been pursuing, are totally inadequate for peace and life. These include all the various things men do in their search for meaning or to cover up their pain. In other words, we often have to come to the end of ourselves before we will truly pursue God and His plan for our lives.

So, this verse says that God limits the temptations He allows into our lives in accordance with His all-wise purposes.

WARNING: This does not mean, however, that we can take the Lord for granted, and ignore our responsibilities regarding temptation. For instance, we are told:

    1. To flee from certain temptations (1 Cor.10:14; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22). A classic illustration is Joseph with Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39. This means avoiding those situations and environments that increase our temptation. One of the ways we do this is by support from friends and the right environment. “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals or character’” (1 Cor. 15:33).

    2. To pray regarding temptation, “lead us not into temptation” (Matt. 6:13).

    3. We are not to tempt the Lord (Deut. 6:16; Matt. 4:6,7). How do we tempt God? By unbelief, by despondency, by not trusting in His power and aid, and by being careless, unguarded, or by failing to take heed (1 Cor. 10:12).

So then, we are shown in Scripture that it is always wise to avoid unnecessary temptation and never to presume upon the Lord or tempt Him by playing with fire. When we do, we are going to get burned (Prov. 5:8).

Finally, we come to the third fact that we are to learn about temptation.

The Escape from Temptation Is Conferred by God

First, note the words “with” and “also.” This teaches that when we are walking with the Lord and trusting in His provision, i.e., not presuming upon Him (taking Him for granted), or tempting Him, then temptations and escapes always go in pairs.

Principle: There is no temptation without the corresponding escape, unless, of course, we are deliberately brazen and careless.

Second, we should note that the verse reads “the way of escape” and not simply “an escape.” Why? I think we are being warned here about seeking solutions to either temptations or testings that are not biblical. “The way” of escape refers to God’s methods for dealing with the problems of life as outlined in the Word of God (cf. Ps. 119:45, 133, & 165; Prov. 3:5-7; 14:12).

Third, the word “escape” is the Greek ekbasin which literally means “a way out.” But it is only used two times in the New Testament, here and in Hebrews 13:7. In Hebrews 13:7 it means “issue, result, outcome.” But it also had this usage or meaning in extra biblical writings.

This is significant. May I suggest something here? In the Hebrews passage it is used of that which is the outcome of a manner of life. There the outcome is godly character, but this is the result of a close walk with God, the fruit of men who have spent their life in the Word, the fruit of spiritual maturity.

Now what’s the point? It is my conviction that this is at least part of what Paul had in mind when he used ekbasin here in this passage. Our means of deliverance or the way out of temptation is not just the result of some one thing or some sudden deliverance which the Lord supplies like a man being snatched out of the fire. Though at times that may occur, that is not the primary promise here and this is suggested or supported by the words “may be able to endure it.” It’s not removal or escape from temptation like having a tooth extracted by a dentist that God is promising, but the ability to bear up under it, the capacity to handle it without sinning. It’s not removal or escape from temptation that God is promising, but the ability to bear up under it, the capacity to handle it without sin by the power of God. One of our problems today is that people are looking for quick and easy solutions and too often are being falsely promised the same by preachers who prey on the moods and mentality of our day where people want easy solutions without the pain of discipline and growth.

So instead, we have two important points:

  • “The way out” is itself the fruit of something, an outcome, the outcome of adhering to the principles of the Word on a daily basis. Of course, the more we grow and the closer our walk with the Lord, the greater our ability to handle testings or temptation as long as we are taking heed to our walk.
  • “The way out” means the ability to handle the temptation, not necessarily its removal, though ability to handle temptation often means our ability and responsibility to flee temptation.

This view is further supported by the next point which explains what the ekbasin, “the way out” means.

Fourth, the verse closes with “that you may be able to bear it.” The NASV, the KJV, the NIV translate this as a purpose or result clause. In other words, God gives the way of escape in order that or so that we can endure the temptation or testing without falling. But that is probably not the best way to take this clause grammatically according to two outstanding Greek grammars, those of A. T. Robertson and J. H. Moulton (The Prolegomena). Grammatically, it is appositional or explanatory telling us what the way of escape is. The NEB may have had this in mind when they translated this, “enabling you to bear it.” We could translate it, “the way of escape, the enablement to endure.”

The point is, “the way out” is the fruit, the outcome of walking with the Lord while also the ability to endure or to handle the testing or temptation. God, by His grace through the provision of fellowship with Him, provides the capacity to handle temptation and it is our responsibility to responsibly appropriate that into our life.

Explanation of “The Way of Escape”

But what is this way of escape that God provides in some specifics? They include the basic biblical principles of deliverance as:

  • walking by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:16; Rom. 8:2f).
  • living in the Word (Ps. 119:9; 2 Tim. 2:16,17; Heb.3:7f; 4:12).
  • fleeing or the principle of avoiding undue temptation (1 Cor. 10:14).
  • praying faithfully and in faith (Matt. 6:13; Eph. 6:18).
  • watching and controlling our mental processes and attitudes (2 Cor. 10:3-5; Phil. 4:8).
  • walking circumspectly, soberly (I Pet. 1:13; 4:7; 5:8).
  • living by faith (2 Cor. 5:7; Gal. 5:5).
  • reckoning on our position in Christ (Rom.6:1f).
  • seeking the right associations and fellowship (Heb.10:24-25; 1 Cor. 15:33, 34).
  • having right perspectives, values, priorities and pursuits (Matt. 6:21f; Tim. 6:6f).
  • reflecting on the consequences. Sin always has its wages—loss of fellowship, divine discipline, loss of effective ministry, destroyed relationships, loss of rewards, and most of all, dishonor to the Lord.

So, what has this text taught us?

    1. From the greatest blessing can come the greatest fall. Privilege never guarantees success.

    2. Privileges demand responsibility. We must never therefore take our privileges for granted or in time we may become disqualified.

    3. Our privileges must be seen and used in view of divine goals and priorities. They are never an end in themselves.

    4. When our lives become wrapped up in our privileges and the blessings of God rather than in God the Blessor, we lose the real joy of the blessing and fall into the empty pursuit of the details of life which, rather than providing satisfaction, can disqualify us.

    5. In the light of the peril, we must walk circumspectly; we must take heed to our walk, keep our eyes on the Lord, and use our blessings in Christ for godly living. If we will do this, we will develop the ability to handle temptation and avoid disqualification.


    1 Charles R. Swindoll, Strengthening Your Grip, Word: Waco Texas, 1982, pp. 57-58 quoting Pitirim Sorokin, The American Sex Revolution, Porter Sargent, Boston, 1956, p. 19

    2 John T. Watkins, "The Rational-Emotive dynamics of impulsive Disorders" in Albert Ellis and Russel Greiger, Handbook of Rational-Emotive Therapy , Springer, New York, 1977, p. 135.

Related Topics: Spiritual Life, Rewards

The Paramount Issues of Life (Mark 12:28-31)

Related Media

(Having God’s Vision Through Understanding God’s Word)

Mark 12:28-31 Now one of the experts in the law came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, with your whole mind, and with your whole strength.’ 31 The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Matthew 22:34-40 Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they assembled together. 35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is like it, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.”

The Conditions and Context

The Confrontation with the Religious Leaders

This incident in Mark 12:28-31 and Matthew 22:34-40 occurs in the portion of the Gospel of Mark where we find the Lord Jesus in opposition to the religious leaders of Israel. The religious leaders were in the process of rejecting the person and ministry of Christ and were seeking to find fault with Him in order to discount his ministry and teaching among the common people.

Think about this. The Savior, the very Son and revelation of God, the one who had come to give life and life abundantly and to bring men into a right relationship with God was standing in their midst. Here was one who would not only provide salvation, but would give men God’s perspective of what life was intended to be—life with significance, meaning, and purpose as the people of God. Yet, all around the Savior, there was opposition. Satan was working through his various methods, schemes, and instruments to turn men away from the plan of God.

We too see such opposition growing with each passing day. All around us are forces at work to distract, delude, and deter us from experiencing God’s plan and vision for us as individual believers and as the body of Christ as a whole. We see people shattered on the rocks of delusion and despair. We see a skyrocketing divorce rate, abuse in the home, disease, crime, abortion, gangs, suicide, incest, child abuse, rape, drive-by shootings, drugs, and the inability of government to handle our problems because we are a people who seek man-made solutions and ignore the biblical mandates of Scripture. So, the list of problems grow.

Unfortunately, in the midst of this, we also see churches turned inward rather than outward as lights in the midst of this horrible darkness. Why? Because to a very large degree, the church—though very religious—has ignored the truth of this passage and lost sight of the vision it gives us of what life should be.

Let us not forget as we examine this passage that Christ’s conflict was with the religious people. They were experts in the Old Testament Scriptures but they had missed the central truth of the Word of God. And the same can apply to us.

The Contention Among the Pharisees (vs. 28)

12:28 Now one of the experts in the law came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”

The question asked by this scribe, an expert in the law, was one that was a matter of contention and constantly under debate by the Pharisees. The Pharisees had codified the law into 248 positive commandments and 365 prohibitions. These 613 precepts were imposed by the Pharisees on their followers as their obligation, yet they offered no love or help or hope of enablement to encourage them in obedience. There was no mercy or grace, only the heavy chains of legalism which always kills the joy of life and alienates rather than reconciles people to God. They were a people without shepherds after God’s heart.

Regarding these 613 precepts, there was constant debate over which was the most important. Some claimed it was the positive commands and others said the negative prohibitions were more important. As a result, the Pharisees were always describing the law in terms of light and heavy, and small and great. The idea was that if your good deeds outweighed the bad, God would accept you, but if not, well, there was no way to get rid of the bad, no way to truly experience God’s forgiveness. As a result, they taught that people needed to keep the weightier commandments because with obedience to these they would get more points with God.

The Concept of the Passage

Obviously, such a preoccupation revealed a shallow and sterile externalism that caused them to miss their own utter sinfulness, God’s absolute holiness, and the need of a suffering Savior. But that’s not all. This preoccupation caused them to miss the very heart, goal, and central theme of the Bible. Simply put, their legalism caused them to miss the very purpose of the Word and their purpose as the people of God.

In other words Mark 12:28-31 (and its parallel, Matthew 22:34-40) is visionary. It gives us a perspective of life which, as the very heart and goal of Scripture, is like a beacon that guides us in our passage through the dark and treacherous waters of life.

Understanding our purpose and having goals in accordance with the teaching of this wonderful passage is equivalent to vision. It means the ability to see where we are going. Having vision means having God’s revelation and using it to get God’s perspective on life so we know who we are, why we are here, where we are going, and what we ought to be doing. Without this we are like ships cast about on the sea of uncertainty with the ever changing winds of the ideas of men. We are left restless and unrestrained by our own desires and aspirations, caught in a ocean of despair.

The Question of the Scribe
(12:28b)

12:28b “Which commandment is the most important of all?”

Its Motivation

As Matthew shows in his account of this incident (Matt. 22:34-35), this scribe was there on behalf of the Pharisees to test the Lord. Because of their jealousy and animosity against the Savior, they were looking for evidence to discredit the Lord’s ministry and teaching. Likewise, Satan is at work today to defeat God’s purpose in your life and mine. He wants to discredit our walk with Him and our testimony in whatever way he can.

The people, however, had been astounded by the Lord’s insightful answers and the masterful way He handled the Scripture. This Pharisee too had been impressed by Christ’s answers and, though this man was sent as a representative of the Pharisees, he appears to have been genuine in his question. But what exactly is the significance or meaning of the question?

Its Meaning

“Which” is not the normal Greek word for “which” or “what” (tis). It’s the Greek poios, a qualitative interrogative pronoun meaning, “of what sort, kind, or quality.” It was not merely a question of identity, i.e., which one, but of quality and nature. It meant, which was the most important and why.

In light of our Lord’s answer and its purpose here in Scripture, the incident and the question were recorded to point us to the ultimate goal of the Bible and the impact God wants it to have on our lives and those to whom we minister. The answer given here by the Savior becomes both a compass and a barometer in our study of the Word and in the ministry of building others in the Lord. It directs us and helps us to gauge our own condition and that of others we teach or lead as we progress together in our walk with God.

The Lord’s Answer
(12:29-31)

12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God is one. 12:30 Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, with your whole mind, and with your whole strength.’ 12:31 The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

The Foremost Commandment (vss. 29-30)

    The Root (vs. 29)

The primary command is given in the next verse where Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:5, but significantly, the Lord begins His answer with a quote from Deuteronomy 6:4. These two verses were part of what is called the Shema, a portion of Scripture quoted both morning and evening by devout Jews and worn in phylacteries on the arm and forehead by the Pharisees. Phylacteries were leather pouches containing four strips of parchment on which were written verses of Scripture.

These verses were called “the Shema” because the first word of Deuteronomy 6:4, “hear,” is the Hebrew word shema, the imperative form of shama, “to hear and obey.” We might ask, why did the Lord begin here? I think it’s because this verse is so foundational to what follows, especially in the context of this confrontation with the religious hypocrisy and legalism of the scribes and Pharisees.

So, exactly what does this verse teach us?

Verse 4 of the Shema pointed to the nature and divine essence of God to contrast Him with the many false god’s of the world. It not only marked out the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, as the one and only true God, but it declared Him as the independent, sovereign God of the universe who had revealed Himself to the nation of Israel and redeemed them from slavery.

First of all there is in this declaration the concept and reminder of the special revelation of God in all His majesty and divine sovereignty which Israel had received.

Further, it reminded Israel of their special covenant relationship with this awesome God of revelation through His redemptive work on their behalf. It reminded them of God’s love. He had given Himself to them in love, but this calls for an appropriate response from those He has loved.

It also reminded them, as it reminds us, of the need to personally hear and respond to His Word. By this revelation we learn about our God, have fellowship with Him, stay focused on Him, and find the capacity to respond to Him in ways that demonstrate our worship and love and trust in His love and care (cf. Deut. 6:6f).

In the process, this passage warns us about the rut of our religious rituals or routines. The Pharisees honored these verses in the sense of lip service, but they ignored their truth.

The point is that we can go to church, memorize Scripture, study the Bible, quote Scripture, know a lot about theology, even be involved in ministry, and yet, hold our hearts far away from any real relationship or commitment to God. When we do this, we are deceiving ourselves and our religion (our worship of God) is vain, meaningless hypocrisy (cf. Isa. 29:13; Mark 7:6-7).

We should note three important principles that are pertinent here:

(1) All true obedience and love for God depends on the right knowledge of God. No one will love God and keep His commandments who is not acquainted and occupied with God’s divine essence, His perfections, plan, and His sovereign right to command and direct our lives.

Several years ago, I remember reading in the paper of a car full of naked people who were members of a large nationwide religious group. When they were pulled over by the police They said God had told them to give away all their possessions including the clothes on their backs. People who do things like that have no concept of the essence and purpose of Scripture and the nature of God.

But the same can be true for anyone in what they do, in what they trust for their happiness or security, in their values, priorities, pursuits, and actions as a whole. To us it doesn’t seem quite so ridiculous, but it is to God. People in our “self-oriented” society run around in a frenzy of activity for their own pleasure, happiness or security, while they ignore their responsibilities to God, to family, to church, and to their country.

(2) In the command, “Listen, Israel,” we are reminded of our need to carefully listen to the message of Scripture. For a loving, worshipful, and obedient response to God, we must be regularly and truly hearing and listening and experiencing intimate fellowship with the Lord through His Word (cf. Deut. 32:46-47 with John 17:3).

(3) The preservation of our joy in fellowship with God and love for God takes care and work. It is a constant fight with a call for diligence and alertness. Why? First, because of our sinful nature and tendency to build our own cisterns, to walk by the dim light of our own firebrands, to lean on the arm of the flesh, and because of our proneness to wander. A second reason is found in Satan’s constant activities to undermine daily dependence on the Lord rather than our own schemes to make life work (cf. Deut. 11:22; 19:9; Josh. 22:5; 23:11 and the emphasis on being careful).

It is therefore absolutely imperative that we live in God’s Word because of the nature of Scripture as God breathed and profitable for doctrine or teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction or training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). Because of the uniqueness of Scripture in its message and in its impact on lives, Dr Lewis Sperry Chafer use to say, “the Bible is not such a book that man would write if he could or could write if he would.”

A wonderful illustration can be found in John 3:16. New Testament Greek makes a distinction by the grammatical construction used between natural result, what is expected (hoste + the infinitive), but may not necessarily happen, and actual result, what actually happens, but is not necessarily expected (hoste plus the indicative mood). In John 3:16, John used the latter construction. The point is simply this:

If the distinctions of classical Greek are still in force, then there is a suggestion here that the demonstration of God’s love is not something that natural man could have reasoned out, but is something which must be learned of by revelation. In other words, John is subtly yet powerfully telling us that the ultimate demonstration of God’s love is something that natural man cannot discover by himself. Rather, he needs both the revelation of God’s love (in Scripture) and the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to come to a saving faith.1

    The Fruit (vs. 30)

The command to love God illustrates the truth that God’s special revelation demands an appropriate response, one in keeping with the character and essence of the God it reveals.

(1) The Personal Emphasis: Literally, verse 30 says, “you shall love the Lord your God.” This brings out the necessity of the personal element. Only through personal faith in Jesus Christ does God become one’s personal God. Then by the intimacy of a daily faith and walk with Christ, He becomes the Lord not merely known, but personally embraced in intimate fellowship.

(2) The Nature of Love: “Love” is the verb agapao. This is a love of intelligence and purpose, of sacrifice and hard decisions. But to grasp this word as we should, it must be seen in contrast to the Greek phileo or philia which is more of an emotional kind of love, a mere liking or affection, a love which can be nothing more than sentimentality or a rosy glow created by some special environment. But that kind of love does not translate into hard decisions and actions that call for sacrifice.

Agapao is a “willful love, a determined love that generously chooses for the interests of another.” Agapao and agape, the noun form, speak of a love that grows out of knowledge. It comes from knowing the true God in all of His greatness and grace. You can’t work up agape by emotional fervor as so many people seek to do, and think by this that they love God.

(3) The Source of this Love: The words “with all your…” is literally “from the source of.” “With” is the Greek preposition ek which denotes origin, the point from which action or motions proceed. Love for God flows out of an inner life that is filled and controlled by a faith relationship with God through the knowledge of God and the ministry of the Holy Spirit (cf. Col. 1:9 with Matt. 12:34-35; 23:25-26).

(3) The Extent of this Love: Note that the words “with all your heart, etc.” are not condensed as in “with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength.” Instead, the words “with all” are repeated with each noun to place equal emphasis on each faculty that we are to use in loving God. Furthermore, the word “all” is the Greek holos from which we get the word, holistic. It means “whole, entire, complete.” This strongly stresses the fact that there can be no holding back or incompleteness in our devotion and commitment to God without serious repercussions on our capacity to love God and experience the life He has created us for. We simply cannot divide our love, our affections, or our trust. The Lord put it like this in Matthew 6:24: “No one is able to serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. No one is able to serve God and possessions.”

Anything but a love for God that encompasses all of one’s being and every area of one’s life falls short of God’s will and our need if we are to be all that we were designed to be. Otherwise, we will be self-indulgent rather than choosing for God and others.

But is there special significance in the use of each of the words: heart, soul, mind, and strength? The main emphasis is on their combined strength by which they stress the whole person, but may I make the following suggestions concerning these words as they are used here.

  • Heart” would first of all bring out the concept of the inner person and that which is the center of our life. Our relationship with God is central and paramount. God is no side issue or a once-a-week involvement. He is not like a dose of medicine. That kind of nod-to-God activity becomes mere religiosity which neither glorifies God nor results in the kind of wholesale changes we need as God’s representative people. Heart in this context, perhaps above all else, stresses the idea of our affections which ultimately determine our actions and pursuits (cf. Matt. 6:21-24). It means setting our affections on Him. It means desiring God above all else as the deer pants at the water brook (Ps. 42:1). And oh, how we all fall short here!
  • “Soul” is often used to refer to the physical life and the self concept. To love God with all our soul or life means to be willing to give one’s life to God and to devote it all to Him. It means total commitment. In the word “soul,” we see the will choosing for God, giving one’s life to Him.
  • “Mind” refers to our ideas, viewpoint, and perspective of life. To love God with all our mind means to submit our minds, thought patterns, opinions, and decisions to God’s Word. It means to lean not on our own understanding but to bring every thought into obedience and captivity of the Savior. This means we act then not on what we think or on how we feel, but in accord with the facts of the Word of God.
  • “Strength” refers to all our abilities, talents, gifts, and physical powers. All of these are to be surrendered and devoted to Him for His glory. We are not to lean on our own strength, but we are to use our strength as we lean by faith on Him. Every fiber of our being, every aspect of our lives is to be caught up and focused on the majesty and essence of God and His matchless grace. He is to be the base and reason for our being and actions.

This means we need to recognize God as:

  • Our Source—Our Derivation and reason for being.
  • Our Force—Our Dynamic for life and means for living.
  • Our Course—Our Direction and Destination for where we ought to be going.

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. The world has an insatiable longing. It seeks to satisfy itself on the leeks and melons of the world, but this leads only to a leanness of soul and an inability to love God and others. It’s a dog-eat-dog world. People seek happiness in scenic vacations, in pleasure, in accomplishments, in sports, and in human exploits of all sorts, but the longing and need that only God can fill remains empty like a hollow cave that is cold and damp. We were created for God and our hearts will remain restless with the result that we run around frantically in search of happiness, meaning, and purpose unless we find our rest and joy in the Lord. The Psalmist wisely wrote:

5 My soul, wait in silence for God only, For my hope is from Him. 6 He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be shaken. 7 On God my salvation and my glory rest; The rock of my strength, my refuge is in God. 8 Trust in Him at all times, O people; Pour out your heart before Him; God is a refuge for us. [Selah] (Ps. 62:5-8).

Isaiah was so right when he said:

But the wicked are like the tossing sea, For it cannot be quiet, and its waters toss up refuse and mud. “There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked” (Isa. 57:20-21).

Unfortunately, this is not only true of the unbelieving world. It is true for a large portion of the Christian population—at least in America.

Let’s grasp the VISION of this passage and not let go! Certainly, God has given us all things to enjoy, but only as they are secondary to our love for Him and come under His control and direction. Otherwise, not only will we not be able to truly love Him, but we will be like the restless sea, unable to enjoy the life He gives us. In view of this, may I suggest four things:

  • The Reality: The simple reality is we all fall short in obedience and submission to God.
  • The Goal: Loving God with our total person must become our desire and our goal or we will simply be playing church.
  • The Danger: Knowing that we will always fall short must not become an excuse for apathy and business as usual.
  • The Need: The need is concerned and broken hearts with a deep change of mind about what is paramount in our lives.

The Second Greatest Command (vs. 31a)

The second is: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

As Carl F. Henry accurately points out, “What we are witnessing today is human existence deliberately and routinely collapsed into a me-first philosophy—me first in sex, in work, in all dimensions of life.”2 This includes a me-first philosophy even in the spiritual lives of many believers. This is a strange contradiction for the Christian, but is totally in keeping with Eastern philosophy and the New Age movement so rampant in our society today. What we are seeing is a society in hot pursuit of many of the bursting bubbles of vanity. Ours is a society in which human existence empties into a rushing torrent of emptiness.

For many, man is nothing more than the meaningless product of time plus chance, a purposeless product of accidental origins and impersonal processes. For many others, man’s future lies embedded in the idolatrous and empty world of self-actualization of a me-ism society where man seeks to be his own god or to become a god through various Eastern forms of mind control.

But in America this is the by-product of a nation which, though founded on the principles of God’s Word, has opted for an autonomous humanism. This humanism majors not in true liberty, which gives people the capacity to be what God designed them to be, but in a philosophy of peace and prosperity at any cost. This philosophy leads people into various forms of slavery and will one day ultimately end in the world system of the last days as foreseen in Scripture.

As Christians living in the sick atmosphere of this mindset, we often approach our Bibles from a worldly viewpoint that ultimately bypasses the great vision of this passage and the ultimate purposes of the Word of God. In other words, we use the Bible for our own selfish agendas. But the Bible discredits all those who promote only self-serving ends. The great thrust of Scripture is precisely the opposite. While the Bible validates the principles of private property, profit, and personal needs, it never isolates them from other moral criteria and responsibilities first to God and then to our neighbor.

As an illustration, compare Paul’s admonition to us in Ephesians 4:28. “The one who steals must steal no longer; rather he must labor, doing good with his own hands, so that he may share with the one who has need.”

Scripture approves of self concerns, but never at the expense of heavenly treasure and seeking first God’s kingdom and love for our neighbor. As we study our Bibles, we are far too often, as Carl Henry has so aptly put it,

…too much preoccupied with the Bible’s existential impact and the private encouragement it affords us in times of personal crisis. To be sure, the preached Word must intersect human life at its most critical moments. It must speak to individuals engulfed by ethical vacuums, torn by consuming grief, battered by doubts, badgered by guilt, and hurting all over. But too often Christians treat the Bible like a jigsaw puzzle, arranging and rearranging random cutouts into an enigmatic chaos. Expository preaching should strive for congregational study of the text not only after but in preparation for church services. Thus prepared, God’s gathered people will anticipate and experience corporate renewal by the Spirit and the Word in worship and response.3

Henry means that we bypass the great themes and primary thrusts of the texts of Scripture in the hot pursuit of personal and selfish goals. We treat Scripture like a cafeteria where we pick and choose what we want rather than what God wants us to learn from the text.

In the process, we often use our Bible study and church worship much like we use a cushion or a feather bed. We use it to meet personal needs or to exercise our privileges, but not to develop our capacity for personal responsibility to God and others. We seek to protect our comfort zones. We don’t want God or anyone to stretch us in the process of real spiritual growth. But as it has often been said, our study and preaching of the Word should be designed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Why? in order to jolt us out of our lethargy and lukewarmness and into the great mandates of Scripture. Our passage, Mark 12:28-31, is designed to do exactly this.

The command, “love your neighbor as yourself.” This command points to an ensuing response, an expression and extension of God’s love operating in and through the believer who is living in a vital relationship with the Lord (vs. 31). This is the root—knowing and loving God. The ability to fulfill this second command comes from obedience to the first and primary command.

Thus, the next thing we read is, “the second is this.” But Matthew has, “the second is like it.” Please note, there is no connective such as “and” between verses 30 and 31. The Lord Jesus abruptly and dramatically added this next statement because they go together like a hand in a glove. Reality in one’s vertical relationship with God leads to reality and capacity in one’s horizontal relationships with people.

Note two important principles:

(1) Obedience to the first great command cannot and will never exists by itself. If our walk with God is real, it will overflow into the second though not without struggles because of sin, Satan, and self. If , however, we continue to walk with the Lord, truly grow in Christ, cling to Him as our refuge rather than to our man-made strategies for making life work, there will be an overflow into our human relationships.

This is profound in its significance. The Lord’s immediate inclusion of these words here teaches us that love for God and true fellowship with Him in Spirit and truth never stops on the vertical plane. It has an immediate carryover into the horizontal—all our human relationships in life (cf. Eph. 5:18f; 1 Pet 3:1-7; Matt. 5:23-24).

(2) Knowing God in true fellowship with Him is extremely practical. It is never merely religious or ceremonial or ritualistic. Without this practical carryover we become Pharisaic, petty, critical, defensive, protective, and complacent about our responsibilities to God and people. This is important and has tremendous ramifications on manifesting the reality of intimate fellowship with God. This statement, “the second is this” or as Matthew puts it, “the second is like it,” brings out an important emphasis of the Bible. If our religious life does not result in true spiritual growth and moral change—change in our values, in our priorities and pursuits—then we are deceiving ourselves by our religious activities and even by the ministries we are engaged in. If our public life does not stem from our private love for and fellowship with God, what we do will be done for purely selfish reasons—praise, power, applause, self-identity, or good feelings about ourselves.

James 1:26 teaches that without a moral carryover into our relationships with people, our religious activity is a sham and we are deceived.

First John 4:7-8 teaches that love for others with all that this means—involvement, help, forgiveness, patience, interest in others, etc., even though there will be struggles—is the fruit that will be experienced in the life of those who are having fellowship with God and experiencing the life of a God who is love.

First Thessalonians 2:3-8 teaches that authenticity with God leads not only to ministry, but to ministry that is not self-seeking.

What follows deals with the results of truly loving God and brings us to the horizontal plane of relationships. Love for God, which grows out a faith and fellowship with Him in His Word, must lead to a similar commitment on the horizontal plane with people. If we are truly learning to live by faith in God’s grace and forgiveness, we will begin to experience His life and we will begin to experience His love for others, otherwise we are deceiving ourselves and playing at Christianity. The prophets of old were constantly warning Israel about such duplicity.

Let’s now turn to the commandment itself, the fruit that grows out of the root. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” This drives home several very important concepts. In the process of our study of this passage we will look at four things.

(1) The Subject, the One Responsible: The “you” and “your” personalize this command. This means me. This means you. So, let’s each put our name here. “_____________, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

(2) The Object, the One we must Love:Your neighbor” personalizes it but also identifies the one we are to love. It means God wants us to get involved where we are. We are to bloom where we have been planted. But if we are going to bloom we must first be growing. We must make the study of God’s Word and intimately knowing Him our first priority. Then we must make growing in our relationships with family and friends the next priority. We must develop a vision for the people and the needs around us. We need to open our eyes and see the fields white unto harvest (John 4:31-38).

But who is my neighbor? In Leviticus 19:18 one’s neighbor is defined as “the sons of your own people,” but the Lord broadened this definition and extended it to include all men as illustrated in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). We may exclaim, “but Lord, you don’t know my neighbor! I mean, we call our neighborhood, the “valley of the shadow.” The local little league is nicknamed the Piranhas!”

The words “your neighbor” points us to where God wants us to get involved in the expression of His love. On the horizontal plane there are three fundamental areas of involvement: our family, other Christians, and non-Christians.

(3) The Manner in Which We are to Love: “As yourself” points us to the manner in which we are to love our neighbor. The typical understanding of this statement today, however, starts with a focus on self-love. As such, we constantly hear words like self-awareness, self-love, self-actualization, self-esteem, and on and on the list goes. Some even assert that the Lord is saying here that before you can love others you must love yourself, you must have a good self-image, you must feel good about yourself.

What is the biblical perspective here? Naturally, we need a sense of our own value as children of God; we need to know ourselves, our abilities and talents and have assurance of our acceptance with God because of the forgiveness we have through Christ, because we belong to Him, and because of our God-given abilities or capacities (Rom. 12:3; 1 Pet. 4:10-11; 1 Cor. 12:4f).

So it is true, it will not be possible for us to love others if we are not resting in who we have become in Christ through faith in Him: a forgiven sinner, a child of the King, a son of God, a sinner bound for heaven because of the finished work of Christ on our behalf, a member of the body of Christ with special abilities (gifts) given to us by the Lord, an ambassador of the Savior, to name just a few of the blessings every Christian has in Christ. In other words, in Christ we are complete! We have been blessed with every spiritual blessing. Because of God’s love and forgiveness in Christ, we can serve God and love others through the enablement of the Spirit.

If we do not grasp this truth and rest in our value as fully forgiven children of God’s grace, we will be unable to love in an unconditional manner. What acts of love we are able to muster up will be pretentious and hypocritical—love that isn’t genuine. Why? Because we are not comprehending God’s grace, most of what we do will be done to feel good about ourselves or to meet our own needs (cf. Rom. 12:9f. and note the context).

However, the ability to love others by loving ourselves is simply not the emphasis of this passage nor is it what the Lord is saying here. The emphasis of this passage is not on self-love. Note that the Lord did not say, “you shall be able to love your neighbor when you learn to love yourself” or “love your neighbor from the source of your self-love or self-respect.”

Why is such a view of this verse wrong? I believe it is wrong because that would make man the foundation and source of His spiritual life and ability to care for and minister to others. What Christ said is, “you shall love as or like you love yourself.” This simply points to an analogy taken from normal human behavior. People naturally look out after themselves. They take care of themselves. Paul used the same analogy, but with different wording in Ephesians 5:28-29.

5:28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 5:29 For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, 5:30 for we are members of his body.

The Lord is emphasizing that we should care for others with the same fervor and in the same manner with which we naturally care for ourselves.

On the whole concept of self-esteem or self-identity, McQuaid in Moody Monthly warns about the wrong theology and approach which can result in the worship of self, the theology of I (a meism mentality) with man at the center rather than God. He goes on to point out that this modern approach has much in common with Eastern religions, in fact a merger is well under way.4

(4) The Action, the Responsibility: “Shall love” (agapao) is the same word discussed above. What is this thing called love—especially the agape love of the Bible? What an awesome subject! As we see from this passage, love is the ultimate goal of Scripture and the preeminent virtue God wants to characterize our lives. Love is even one of the descriptive qualities given of God. The apostle John has written, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16). Who can adequately define it? I certainly can’t do it justice in one lesson, not even in 20 lessons, but let’s note some important truth about biblical love.

(a) Love is simply and profoundly defined for us as “walking according to His commandments” John says, “Now this is love, that we walk according to His commandments” (2 John 1:6). Perhaps John is telling us the same thing our Lord tells us here in Mark 12—living in obedience to Scripture means we live by the standard of love—love for God and for people. The ultimate outcome of obedience to the Word is LOVE. Any obedience that is not the product of love for God and others is futile because it is an act of self love; it is mere religion or legalism or some form of human works by which we seek to be accepted by God or to appease Him and by which we seek gain people’s approval.

(b) 1 John reminds us that love is more than words. John also tells us we are not to love in word only, but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:19). He is showing us that true love manifests itself in actions of love that reach out to meet the needs of others.

(c) As described in 1 Corinthians 13, love is more than deeds. Here the apostle describes it both negatively and positively and in the process he teaches us some amazing things about love. We learn that while true love manifests itself in deeds, it is nevertheless more than deeds. One can have all kinds of deeds, even to the point of the sacrifice of one’s life, but still lack love. Note Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3.

13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging symbol. 13:2 And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 13:3 If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit.

It boils down to a matter of motive and source. This is why Paul says in Romans 12:8, “Let love be without hypocrisy.” We can appear to be loving by the things we say and do when in essence we are really loving ourselves. We do good to impress others or for other selfish reasons.

Is what I do the product of God’s grace at work in my heart? Is it because of my concern for others and what is best for them according to God’s truth? Or do I have self-centered objectives like seeking to please people, seeking praise, wanting to be spiritual king of my own little mountain? My good works may be nothing more than part of a strategy to feel good about myself, to feel I am okay, or to patch up a relationship for selfish reasons.

For instance, if a man buys his wife flowers, is it an act of genuine love, a true expression of his appreciation? Or is it done to patch up a bad relationship and soothe his conscience? Could it be a means of avoiding the responsibility of dealing with the real issues that are causing problems in his marriage?

(d) Biblical love is based on having right values. Matthew 6:19-34 teaches us that the heart pursues what it values and that what the heart values always becomes a priority. It is the object of our devotion and pursuit. If we have earthly values we will pursue earthly treasure, whereas if we have biblical values we will pursue heavenly treasure. Why is this? Because we have been designed by God to pursue what we value. This is what the Savior tells us in verse 21, “for where your treasure is (i.e., your values), there your heart will be also.” We care for, pursue, and put first the things we value. This is evident in our everyday life. For instance, if we have two cars, one an old beat up jalopy and the other a beautiful new one, we will naturally take better care of the newer car—unless the old one is a classic we have tenderly restored and is now very valuable.

In verse 26 of Matthew 6 we see that God’s care of the birds and the flowers is to become the basis for our confidence in His loving care of us. But why? The text tells us, “… are you not worth much more than they?” God’s loving care is based on His values and we as human beings have been created in His image.

So, what’s the issue? You guessed it. It is our value system! Our values needs drastic change because sin has warped, distorted, and redirected our hearts into self-centered, earthly, and temporal values. You might say, we have misplaced hearts.

The irony of all of this is that people typically invest heavily in that which proves to be of little or no value. Even worse, they invest little or nothing in what is truly valuable. So the principle remains true. Regardless of its true worth, people will pursue what they perceive to be the most valuable.

To truly love others, we must exchange our value system for God’s. We must recognize how much we are valued by God because mankind has been created in His image and designed to reflect His glory. Then, as believers—those recreated in Christ—we must recognize how important we and our fellow believers are to Him as sons of God who are complete in Christ.

Perhaps you remember the story of Baby Faye back in the mid-1980s which brought this issue into the headlines. The tiny infant needed a new heart. No donor was available and death was imminent. In desperation, her physicians transplanted the heart of a baboon into the baby’s chest. At the time, it seemed her only chance for survival but there was an immediate reaction by animal rights activists who protested on behalf of the sacrificed baboon. Did there have to be two deaths, they questioned? Were not the two deaths equally tragic?5

What is the problem here? The problem is evolution which has distorted man’s value system and a basic unbelief in the Bible’s message about creation. God created mankind and declared that He created them in His own image. In doing so, He created an impassable gulf between animals and humans.

This is why the Lord Jesus asked the question concerning the birds of the air, “Are you not more valuable than they?” Evolution has devalued both God and man and thereby people have lost the capacity to truly love. Human beings are thus expendable in a system based on evolution. The state and promoting what is politically correct becomes the important thing. When we devalue God we do two things: (a) we automatically begin to devalue others and (b) we knock down our moral fences and increase our boldness to do as we please, which encourages self-centered living.

When we fail to see the value of every human being as created in God’s image, we are immediately predisposed to exploit and manipulate others for our own selfish ends. We see this today in society’s attitude toward the unborn child, in mercy killing, and in the moral breakdown we see all around us. This principle is equally true and has all kinds of ramifications in our day-to-day dealings with others—with our spouses, children, co-workers, and the attitudes displayed by Madison Avenue to get people to buy products whether they need them or not.

By way of application, do we recognize our value as one created in God’s image, as a child of God through faith in Christ? Our capacity to love depends on understanding and trusting in this truth by faith. If we fail to see the value our heavenly Father has placed on us we will constantly be turning to our own defense strategies to protect ourselves and to feel we are valuable. These strategies include things like withdrawal, shyness, defensiveness, talking too much or talking for the wrong reasons, boasting, failing to face and deal with our own weaknesses, failure to exercise our spiritual gifts, and a whole host of such strategies. These things hinder our capacity to love and receive love.

Our ability to love people depends on recognizing how God values them. For instance, if someone hurts us or we angry and filled with resentment, does this cause us to devalue them so that we want to get even or do we pull away out of fear of getting hurt? If so, we have devalued them based on their treatment of us because we value ourselves more. Christ died for them and their sin just as much as He died for us and our sin (cf. Eph. 4:31). Does this mean we must ignore what people do to us? No. Scripture gives us procedures and solutions for dealing with others and how to handle our own feelings when we have been ill treated. But God’s solutions are always designed to bring about reconciliation or godly change. They are for the protection of others and never avenues for revenge, to get even, or to control others. Everyone is valuable in the plan of God and if spiritual recovery and reconciliation is possible this will not only honor the Lord but result in their being the people God created them to be.

(e) Love is based on forgiveness. This is evident in the gift of God’s Son and in His person and work. God is able to love us rather than judge us because of the finished work of His Son—if we have placed our trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior. Further, that forgiveness is an essential part of love and is the foundation for it is seen in the eighth description of love in 1 Corinthians 13:5, “Love…does not take into account a wrong suffered.” “Take into account “ is the Greek logizomai which means “to keep accounts, calculate.” It was an accounting term used of keeping records. Love does not keep records or hold grudges. It wipes the slate clean. Love forgives.

Love is simply not possible without the healing balm of forgiveness which closes up the wounds that separate and hinder love. For us to be able to love others, we must ourselves first experience and rest in God’s love and forgiveness through Christ and then forgive others as God has forgiven us in Christ (Note Ephesians 4:31; Matthew 6:12f).

(f) Love is illustrated in the parable of the unforgiving and unjust slave (Matt. 18:21-35). The issue in this parable is no matter how much others may sin against us, it will always be trifling in comparison to how we have sinned against the holiness of God and thus insignificant in comparison to what He has forgiven us in Christ. If He has done that much for us, how much more should we not forgive the little others have sinned against us by comparison.

(g) Love is illustrated in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). This story shows us who our neighbor is and beautifully illustrates how we can show love for others.

(h) Love is epitomized in the gift of God’s Son (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10) and incarnated in His person and work for our sin (see Phil. 2:1f). If we want to see what love looks like then let us look at the Lord Jesus.

(i) Love is the measuring cup of my true spiritual condition. First, love shows the level of my maturity. This is clearly seen in 1 Corinthians 13:11. In the context of this verse (chapters 12-14), Paul was telling the Corinthians that their preoccupation with the showy gifts like tongues and their failure to be more concerned about building up the body with gifts such as teaching and prophecy was not only a lack of love, but an evidence of spiritual immaturity and even carnality (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-5). God has given spiritual gifts to each of us, but their purpose is for building up the body. They are designed and given to edify other people and never for self-centered agendas.

Love also reveals the reality of my intimacy with God. This is the point of the apostle John’s exhortation in 1 John 4:7-8, 16. John uses the word “know” in the sense of the intimacy of fellowship, not in the sense of salvation. Compare the Lord’s words to Thomas and Philip in John 14:7-9.

The issue is, how can I truly know and love God if I am not loving others? How well am I loving my spouse, my children, the people in my church, and others around me?

  • This means growing in Christ individually. It means drawing near to God, loving Him and then, out of that environment, bearing fruit where we are planted. It means first taking root downward into our God and then bearing fruit upward into the world around us (cf. Isa. 37:31).
  • For the church this means ministry, servant living—loving our families according to the standards of Scripture and then out of that stable laboratory, reaching out to the church, the body of Christ, and to the world around us starting with our neighborhood, where God has planted us.
  • This also means evangelism, edification, encouragement, involvement, help and concern for others.

No Greater Commandment (vs. 31b)

“There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Finally, the Lord concludes with these words, “There is no other commandment greater than these” (verse 31b). Though short and to the point, this statement has tremendous ramifications. In essence, this concluding statement concerns our perspective and use, study, and application of the Word of God.

The Foundation—The Basic Proposition and Belief

Underlying the question of the Pharisee and Christ’s answer was belief in divine inspiration and thus, the accuracy, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture. It was the Lord who said, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). This meant Scripture is true and that its principles, promises, and purposes are accurate. The Bible works in our lives when believed and applied, and whether man believes it or not, its principles are true, its record accurate, and what it promises will come to pass. Because of this, man is faced with the consequences of his unbelief or failure to live by faith in the teaching of the Bible.

This statement by our Lord in John 10:35 also means that the Bible is authoritative because it is not a word from man, but the Word of God. It represents, “thus says the Lord.”

The basic proposition, then, is that the Bible is God breathed; we have supernatural revelation, the revealed absolutes of God which are essential to both knowing and having a relationship with Him and to moral and social stability. The first command, loving God, is the foundation or framework for the second, loving others. But the mindset of today is strongly against this and this is true to some degree even among many Christians because they have been infected with the world’s mentality. Though intellectually people hold to the inspiration and authority of the Scripture—as did the Pharisees—many today tend to interpret or respond to the Bible according to their comfort zones, personal interests, desires, opinions, or lust patterns.

As a result, people develop all kinds of ways to circumvent the Scripture when it hits too close to home. Fear strikes when our desires are thwarted, when our determination to pursue life the way we want it is hindered, or when we sense God’s call upon our lives. So what happens? We rationalize, we make excuses, or we simply shut our ears and harden our hearts. We may avoid serious study of the Word by stressing fellowship or programs or entertainment. If we are involved in serious Bible study, we may find ways to avoid its application. We may argue that we are in a different culture and it is not applicable to us today or we simply disobey because we think we can always confess it and God will forgive us even though Proverbs 28:13 warns, “He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, But he who confesses and forsakes {them} will find compassion.” Perhaps we simply avoid anything which might cause us to become accountable to others in deeper relationships and ultimately have to face up to sin in our lives and make tough choices.

Thus, crucial to what follows is this basic proposition: The Bible is God’s inerrant and authoritative Word which cannot be broken without serious consequences to individuals, to churches, and to nations.

In Mark we read “there is no other commandment greater than these” but Matthew adds this astounding statement, “on these two commandments depend the whole Law and the prophets.” Now what does this mean?

Negative: What this does not mean

Some say that since Christians are no longer under the Law, they are not obligated to its many commands. Instead, it is said, we are obligated to a command—the love command. They maintain as long as we love, anything we do must be moral. That approach—sometimes called the “new morality” or “situation ethics”—is popular both within and outside the church. This naturally exerts a strong appeal to our generation, a generation that is uncomfortable with absolutes, that seeks to do its own thing in its own way, that seeks to do what is right in its own eyes, and would like to be free from conventional moral codes.6

While it is true that we are not under the Old Testament law as a religious code, most of the Ten Commandments are in some way reiterated in the New Testament and are to be obeyed, not as a means of spirituality, but as a result of an intimate walk with Christ through the enablement of the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:1ff). Without the rest of the absolutes of God’s Word and its directives, we too easily mistake love for selfishness. We fool ourselves into doing what we want out of so-called humanitarian motives which are often nothing more than self-love and the pursuit of our own selfish desires at the expense of others like our family, our church, and our society.

For instance, a father may consistently spend 60 or 70 hours a week in his business, which means he must neglect his family. He may rationalize this by saying he is providing more for his family, while in reality he is being driven by self-centered longings. Perhaps he is still trying to prove something to his parents or seeking his security in material wealth or personal significance. But he has never faced this as sinful.

Positive: What this does mean

In general, this means that no commandment is greater because these two commands stand to the rest of Scripture as source, sum, substance, and goal. The rest of Scripture is God’s “commentary” on these two responsibilities—loving God completely and our neighbors as ourselves. As God’s commentary on the Scripture, the rest of Scripture provides us with the means, manner, motive, and method for loving.

Without GROWTH in the REALITY of these two commands in our lives, obedience to rest of Scripture will become merely legal demands and burdens that we seek to obey—usually for the wrong reasons. In the process, all our works and ministries become acts of self-love, things we do to feel better about ourselves, for the praise of men, for power over others, or for position.

But what does the Lord mean by the term “depend” when he says “on these two commandments depend the whole Law and the prophets” (Matt 22:40, NASB). The NET Bible has “all the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.” The tense of this verb is the continuous present. It points to that which is always true. “Depend” is the Greek kremannumi which means “to hang, suspend on something,” like a door hangs on hinges or articles hang on a peg. The voice of the verb is passive and looks at what God has done in the writing of His Word. God has hung the whole of Scripture on these two foundational commands and principles of life. This stresses that our ability to properly fulfill the rest of Scripture hinges on our grasp of these two paramount commands as the goal of our study of the Bible. Without the reality of these two, we will miserably fail. Let’s look at some specifics of what this means.

(1) The Principle of Source—the Concept of Internal Controls: Love for God and our neighbor becomes our source and means of obedience in the other commands of Scripture by virtue of internal motives and inner ability to carry out the commands of God. Of course, we obey through the power of God’s love operating in us by the ministry of His Spirit and the joy of His fellowship (cf. Gal. 5:22; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; 1 Thess. 4:2-9), but the hundreds of commands in Scripture are no longer simply duties we must obey. Rather, they become the means for the expression of love through fellowship with God. Note a couple of illustrations:

  • We are not to neglect the assembling together with other believers because it is the means of encouraging each other (Heb. 10:25).
  • One of our responsibilities is giving, but giving is always to be the result of the grace of God at work in the heart—the result of love for God and others (cf. 2 Cor. 8: 1f).

(2) The Principle of Supervision--the Concept of External Controls: We need the imperatives, principles, promises, and guidelines of Scripture as a whole to guide us in the wise expression of God’s love so that love never degenerates into mere sentimentality, self indulgence, or the compromise of righteousness. Fundamentally, the whole of Scripture gives us the revealed will of God in the expression of how we are to demonstrate love. This can be seen in the Old Testament by a comparison of the three codices of the Old Testament Law and their relationship to each other (see also Phil. 1:9-11).

  • Codex I—The Ten commandments. These commandments set forth the basic moral law of God. Commands 1-5 deal with man’s relationship with God (how to love God) and 6-10 deal with man’s relationship to his fellow man (how to love man).
  • Codex II—The Ordinances. This set forth the laws concerning the sacrifices, the priesthood, and the tabernacle. This showed Israel how to maintain a right relationship with the Lord.
  • Codex III—The Judgments. This set forth the social laws which showed Israel how to live in right relationship with one’s neighbor.

(3) The Principle of Substance and Summary--the Controls Defined and Directed: Love for God and for one’s neighbor is the very essence, heart, and substance of the rest of Scripture. Thus, these two commands sum up the heart and goal of the rest of the God’s commands in the Word. In other words, they tell us what we are doing (or should be doing) when we obey God’s word—we are loving either God or people, or both.

Ephesians 5:22-6:9 contains a number of social commands and provides a practical illustration and application for us. For instance: Husbands, love your wives; Wives, submit to your husbands; Children, obey your parents; Parents, bring up your children…; Slaves, obey your masters…; Masters, give up threatening….

But these imperatives must never be divorced from their context in Ephesians.

  • Obedience can be defined in this passage as love for God. It is in reality responding in love and obedience to God—seeking to walk worthily of the Lord who has loved us as His beloved children (cf. Eph. 4:1 and 5:1f with 1 John 4:11, “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought to love one another”).
  • Obedience in the home or in the workplace is a product of responding to other controls that occur from the source of personal relationship with God. Love is to have its source in fellowship with God through a Spirit-controlled, Word-filled life (cf. Eph. 5:14ff; Col. 3:1ff).
  • Obedience in the home or in the workplace is a product of God’s direction through other passages of the Word. It gives us the “how,” it describes for us the responsibilities of love and the methods God has chosen according to His perfect wisdom and love (cf. Prov. 13:24).
  • Obedience in the home or workplace is also the product of developing and deepening relationships with one another because these two environments—the home and the workplace—are like laboratories which test the reality of our walk with God and our commitment and willingness to change for the glory of God and concern for others. This is seen, for instance, when we compare Ephesians 4:1 with verse 2.

Summary

The fact that the whole of Scripture hangs on these two commands means that the rest of Scripture is God’s commentary on these two responsibilities and provides us with the means, manner, motive, and method. The other commands are never the end or goal in themselves, but find their meaning and purpose in these two—love for God and love for men who are made in the image of God.

Morality without the knowledge of God and the absolutes of Scripture cannot long exist. Morality must be founded on the reality of God and the absolutes of the Bible or society will crumble like Humpty Dumpty. And apart from God, it can’t be put back together again.

Our passage in Mark 12:28-31 (and its parallel in Matthew 22:37-40) stress the necessity of a heart relationship with God through the Word of God. Love for others can only grow out of the soil of love for God as it is fed and watered by fellowship with God in the streams of the Word (cf. Ps. 1:2). Without this, you and I will end up with a life that is pharisaic, external, sterile, artificial, petty, critical, selfish, and lifeless. Or we will end up being dominated by the control of others. We will find ourselves submitting to please people or to avoid confrontation, but it will not be the product of love for either God or for others. Without fellowship with God, our actions of love, if we have any, will be full of hypocrisy and self-centered goals (Rom. 12:9).

There is, therefore, in these two passages, Mark 12:28-31 and Matthew 22:37-40, the principle of VISION. Vision means seeing as God sees and allowing that sight to direct our path. Having such vision leads to devotion to God, but to have vision we must start with His precious Word and our relationship with Him.


1 Daniel Wallace, Selected Notes on the Syntax of New Testament Greek, 4th ed. (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981), 7.

2 Carl F. Henry, The Christian Mindset in a Secular Society (Multonomah Press, Portland, Oregon, 1984), 15.

3 Henry, 35.

4 Elwood McQuaid, Moody Monthly, Nov. 1986, 14-16.

5 Joe Aldrich, Loving for All You're Worth, 36.

6 For more on this see Renewing Your Mind in a Secular World, p. 148.

Related Topics: Basics for Christians

Love Must Mature

Related Media

A little boy was told by his doctor that he could save his little sister’s life by giving her some blood. The six-year-old girl was near death, a victim of a disease from which the boy had made a marvelous recovery two years earlier. Her only chance for restoration was a blood transfusion from someone who had previously conquered the illness. Since the children had the same rare blood type, the boy was the ideal donor.

“Johnny, would you like to give your blood for Mary?” the doctor asked. The boy hesitated. His lower lip started to tremble. Then he smiled, and said, “Sure Doc. I’ll give my blood for my sister.” Soon the two children were wheeled into the operating room—Mary, pale and thin; Johnny, robust and the picture of health. Neither spoke, but when their eyes met, Johnny grinned.

As his blood siphoned into Mary’s veins, one could almost see new life come into her tired body. The ordeal was almost over when Johnny’s brave little voice broke the silence, “Say Doc, when do I die.”

It was only then that the doctor realized what the moment of hesitation, the trembling of the lip, had meant earlier. Little Johnny actually thought that in giving his blood to his sister he was giving up his life! And in that brief moment, he had made his great decision!

True love is this, that a person lay down his life for another (John 15:13). Little Johnny had done just that. At least he had done that in his mind. While his life demonstrates true love, with its other-centered focus and its all consuming passion for the welfare of others, it also demonstrates a crucial aspect of love that needs to be addressed more than ever by Christians today: Love must mature. It must relate to everyday life and be grounded in knowledge and insight.

Love, at its heart, is sacrificial, but it is also wise. Love cannot be reduced to the once-for-all act of offering oneself for another (though this might be the greatest demonstration of it), it must also live day to day with people. It must—if it is ever to approach Biblical love—attempt to clearly understand what it is doing and actions that befit it. It is this day-to-day aspect of Biblical love that is the special burden of this discussion. It is also the special concern of Paul in the book of Philippians, especially Phil 1:9-11. Let’s read the text and reflect on it for awhile.

1:9 And I pray this, that your love may abound even more and more in knowledge and every kind of insight 1:10 so that you can decide what is best, and so be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ, 1:11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.

Out of his own great love for the Philippians, Paul prays for their love for one another. He prays that their love may abound so that they may be able to discern what is best…so that they may live lives filled with righteousness to the glory and praise of God. Did you notice an obvious fact, however: Paul is telling them his prayer. He’s sharing with them the actual content of his prayer. Why? Probably because this gives his prayer an exhortational force. That is, by sharing his prayers in this manner he is implicitly encouraging them to act on it!1 While some people pray long prayers which are short on importance, this is a short prayer, long on importance.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer told the following story regarding prayer: It seems that a certain minister was in the habit of profound prayers, oftentimes resorting to words beyond the ken of his simple flock. This went on week after week, to the dismay and frustration of the congregation. At last, a wee Scottish woman in the choir ventured to take the matter into her own hands. On a given Sunday, as the minister was waxing his most eloquently verbose, the little woman reached across the curtain separating the choir from the pulpit. Taking a firm grasp on the frock tail of the minister, she gave it a yank, and was heard to whisper, “Jes’ call ‘im Fether, and ask ‘im for somethin’.”

So Paul doesn’t scrape the Milky Way, per se, or review of all of his latest theological insights—you know, to impress God—but calls God “Fether,” so to speak, and then makes his request known to God. Again, it’s a small prayer, but it contains huge, life-changing requests!

Paul says, “And I pray this, that your love abound even more and more….” Paul knows that even though they have struggles in the church and even though there is some selfishness—look at 2:3-4 and 4:2-3—he nonetheless recognizes the love they do have and asks God to grow it. He wants their love to abound (perisseuh) for the day of Christ, that is, to grow magnificently, not just in “dribs and drabs.” 2,3 Theirs is to be a growing, deep, and abiding love.

“True love is a splendid host,” says, John Henry Jewett (The Epistles of St. Peter). “There is love whose measure is that of an umbrella. There is love whose inclusiveness is that of great marquee. And there is love whose comprehension is that of the immeasurable sky. The aim of the New Testament is the conversion of the umbrella into a tent and the merging of the tent in the glorious canopy of the all-enfolding heavens…Push back the walls of family love until they include the neighbor; again push back the walls until they include the stranger; again, push back the walls until they comprehend the foe.”

Paul says he wants the Philippians’ love for one another to push back and to overflow. It is to include everyone. The Greek term translated “overflow” is perisseuh. It connotes the idea of “abundance,” “richness,” and “supply unlimited.” It was a special word for Paul. He employed it to refer to God’s gracious acts on our behalf, and to the attendant blessing in our lives and our ensuing responsibility. Thus it refers to the abundant grace of salvation (Ephesians 1:8) and the abundance of our righteousness which the Spirit wants to produce in us. We have abundant joy because of the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:13). Further, we should overflow in our work for the resurrected Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58) and as Paul says here in Phil 1:9, we ought to overflow in our love for others. We ought to have an abundance of love for our Christian brothers and sisters.

Therefore, Paul wants our love to richly abound to others, but it is a certain kind of love he has in mind. It is not just warm sentiment. That is, it is not a love that is divorced from practical wisdom, truth, and day to day living. It is a love that is to pour over into the lives of others on the basis of “knowledge” (epignwsis) and “every kind of insight” (pash aisqhsei). Only with such a foundation of knowledge and insight can real love lead to a life of discernment and a life filled with the fruit of righteousness. But what does Paul mean specifically by knowledge and every kind of insight? The first term knowledge is not what we generally think of when we speak about knowledge. We say that a person is “knowledgeable” or we refer to a particular discipline as a “field of knowledge.” In these cases we are basically referring to knowledge as factual information about this or that subject. But that is not what Paul has in mind here. The knowledge about which he speaks and the insight to which he refers is the kind of understanding that is able to bridge the gap between spiritual realities and Biblical truths and their application in every day situations. It is knowledge of God and it’s application in life via penetrating insight into practical situations in relationships. The two terms basically combine to express the single idea of personal, spiritual wisdom for godly living.4

Sydney B. Simon has said that “wisdom is grown when knowledge is lived.” This is the truth Paul is pushing in this passage.

There was once a very wise king. Wise because he knew how to get to the heart of an issue, as it were, and then give a wise and just ruling. One day two women appeared before him, each was a prostitute. The first woman stepped forward and pleaded her case. “My lord, the king,” she said, “I have a complaint against this woman. You see, the two of us live in the same house. I had a baby and then three days after my baby was born, this woman too had a child. Now there were only the two of us living in the house at the time.”

She continued, “During the night, my lord, this woman’s child died, when she lay on him. So, she quietly got up, made her way to where I, your servant, was laying, and took my son. She took my son, put him at her breast, and then put her dead son at my breast. When I got up in the morning to nurse and care for my son, I found that he was dead. But when the sun came up and the light entered the room, I quickly realized that it wasn’t my son after all.”

She no sooner had finished explaining this that the second woman looked at the king and angrily retorted, “No, the living son is mine and the dead son is hers.” Quickly the first woman responded and cried out, “No, the dead son is yours and the living child is mine.” And there they were standing, yelling and arguing before the king.

The wise king thought for a moment and summarized the situation: “The first woman says, My son is alive and the other’s is dead,” and the second says, “No, your son is dead and mine is alive.”

Immediately the king turned to his attendants and requested that they bring him a sword. So the attendant quickly brought a sword. Without hesitation the king said, “Cut the living child in two. Give half to one of the women and half to the other.”

The woman whose son was alive was deeply moved with compassion for her son and asked the king, “Please, my lord, give her the living baby. Don’t kill him.” But the other woman interrupted her and demanded that neither of them should have the baby. “Cut the living boy in half,” she demanded.

Then the wise king, Solomon by name, gave his ruling. Give the living child to the first woman. Do not kill him. She is his mother.”—1 Kings 3:16-28

Solomon had asked God for wisdom and the Lord certainly answered! Solomon, by the grace of God, was enabled to penetrate into the true nature of people, and according to God’s truth and justice, made an incredible ruling where love and truth were upheld. The lie was rooted out and the correct woman got her child back. So it is with us. Let us pray that the Lord enables our love for him and others to overflow in knowledge and every insight into life and the various circumstances in which we find ourselves. We need to learn to “live out” Biblical truth in a practical, every day kind of way. Vague notions of Scriptural truths, coupled with fuzzy understandings of how those truths apply in real situations, leads to a Christianity which has neither eyes nor a heart: it cannot see where it is going and doesn’t really care that much either. As Aristotle said, “Generalities are the refuge of the weak mind.”

But there are profound reasons Paul wants their love to abound with knowledge and depth of sight. Actually he gives two purposes for this. The first is so that they might be able to discern what is best…and the second is so that God will be glorified by the righteous quality of their lives. Let’s look at the first of these.

First, Paul says that he wants their love to abound in knowledge and every insight, i.e., depth of insight (so NIV), so that they might be able to decide what is best, that is discern what is best. Ah, yes, discernment. That rare ethical virtue that recognizes, as Philip Sydney has said, “that one should never wake a sleeping lion” and “a lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit.” Discernment is arrived at by hard thinking and attentive listening, by thinking about the way things really are and the implications of one’s beliefs and actions. It involves clear perception or as Winston Churchill has said, discernment “is getting the true picture, whatever it is.”

The verb decide/discern (dokimazein) in Philippians 1:10 carries the idea “to prove something as credible, worthy, or true by testing it.” It was used to refer to the testing of metals and coins to appraise their worth. It is used in Luke 14:19 when a man who was invited to the great banquet said that he could not come because he had just bought five yoke of oxen and he needed to go and test them out, to see if they were any good. The identical expression, “decide what is best” appears in Romans 2:18 where it refers to a Jew approving a higher moral standard according to the Law and the revealed will of God.

In 1995 Jane Brody reported in the New York Times that Boston researchers had demonstrated for the first time that the eye has two functions.

“Just as the human ear controls both hearing and balance,” she writes, “the eye…not only permits conscious vision but also independently registers light impulses that regulate the body’s internal daily clock. Even people who are totally blind and have no perception of light can have normal hormonal responses to bright light.” This second function of the eye, which regulates the body’s twenty-four-hour clock, keeps in order our biological rhythms, such as sleep.5

May I suggest to you that the eye has yet another function as well? According to Jesus, the eye—that is, the “eye of the soul”—has yet a third and most important function, and it too concerns light and darkness: “Your eye is the lamp of the body. When your eyes are good, your whole body is full of light. But when they are bad, your whole body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness” (Luke 11:34-35).

The “eye of the soul”—that discerning function in all of us—regulates our heart twenty-four hours a day. It goes well beyond enabling physical vision and controlling our biological rhythms. It controls us, all right, but at a higher level—at the level of our spiritual experience. Thus, like the physical eye it too responds to stimuli, spiritual stimuli, however, and once trained by God through Scripture, the Spirit, and experience, it refuses darkness at the door of the heart and bids only light enter. When functioning well it gives us our vision of the spiritual world and guards our heart day in and day out. That “eye of the soul” is spiritual discernment; it gives us vision and regulates our moral lives.

This is what Paul is getting at here in Philippians 1:10. The discerning person asks questions about their beliefs and actions—questions such as: (1) what do I believe about God? Is it according to Scripture? Is it a deep personal and accurate knowledge or is it merely academic and powerless? (2) How then should I make choices in daily life? Just because something is permissible for me, does that mean it is beneficial (1 Cor 6:12a)? Is what I’m doing mastering me and, therefore, rendering me an idolater (1 Cor 6:12b-13)? Is what I want to do going to help or hinder someone else’s walk with the Lord? In other words, do I count my freedom in gray areas more important than the faith of another Christian? Concerning my actions, the bottom line is: “Am I acting out of love for others, or out of selfish desires?” The only thing that counts, says Paul, is faith expressing itself through love (Gal 5:6). These are the questions that discernment asks and it regulates it’s answers on the basis of Scriptural revelation, not just how I feel about something.

The goal of this discernment is to be able to know and choose the best course of action in any situation. Let me say at the outset that nobody, except Christ, has ever lived a perfect life, but God wants to train us to live like His Son (2 Tim 3:16-17). So hang in there. Discernment is the art of separating the best thing from the good things. This takes years and experience. According to the Christian Society Medical Journal (Spring 1977), choices are indeed important and it’s important when presented with options to make the best choice: “It may be true that there are two sides to every question, but it is also true that there are two sides to a sheet of flypaper, and it makes a big difference to the fly which side he chooses.”

The reason and goal for the discernment of the things that are best is so that Christians might live sincere and blameless lives for the Day of Christ. The term best (ta diaferonta) refers to that which is excellent, surpassing in value, that which really matters, is critical to spiritual growth and healthy Christian relationships.

The term sincere (eilikrineis) can be translated as “without spot” and refers to moral purity. Originally, the term was derived from two words: (1) “sun”; (2) “judge.” Together the sense was “tested against the light of the sun,” “completely pure,” and “spotless.” The picture may be, as Hawthorne has suggested, of someone bringing a garment or the like out into the sun to see if there be any stain or spot on it.6 From the time of Plato on it has been used in a moral sense, as is the case here in Phil 1:10 and in the rest of the NT (see 1 Cor 5:8; 2 Cor 1:12; 2:17; 2 Peter 3:1).7

The Christian Reader tells the following story of the purity Christians seek when God is working in their heart.

In the spring of 1995, revival broke out on many college campuses across America. One characteristic of this visitation from God was students dealing with sinful habits that they had previously let linger in their lives. Bonne Steffen interviewed several of the students for the Christian Reader; one student named Brian at Asbury College said:

“I was a leader on campus. We had invited Wheaton students to come and share. At first, I was praying for other people, but then I began to think about my struggles. I stood in line for three hours with one of my best friends all the time thinking, ‘How can I get up here and admit that I am less than perfect?’ But I also realized that being a Christian campus isn’t protection from the world. I have really struggled with lust. I found I wasn’t alone. It was an issue for a lot of others. Personally, I wanted the chain to be broken; I wanted that stuff out of my life. If it meant no magazines, no television, I was willing to eliminate them. A number of us signed a paper stating our desire for purity, which we put in a box and placed on the altar. I’m still accountable to other people. My deepest desire is to be pure in my heart and thoughts.”8

Purity is a serious issue and should be given great consideration, not just in the realm of sexual ethics, as Brian was discussing—as necessary and vital as this area certainly is—but also in all areas of life. We need to be sincere and pure in how we run our businesses, conduct our affairs, relate to our children, wife, relatives, non-Christian friends, etc. God demands purity.

God also demands that we be blameless (aproskopoi) that is, that we take great pains not to cause someone else to stumble in the Christian life. This word particularly concerns the use of our liberty in Christ. We ought to give careful consideration to what we do in front of other Christians lest they be needlessly offended. Of course, some Christians are what I call professional babies, grace killers actually. They will never grow up in the truth, emotionally or spiritually, and they want (need?) you to stay where they are. In fact, nothing makes them happier in discussions of liberty than to limit your freedom according to their so-called freedom. In that way they can easily evaluate where you fit and whether you pass their holiness/spiritual measuring test. Then they can decide whether or not to have fellowship with you. In truth, however, they pulled off the road toward growth several years ago, parked their lives (oh yes, and the emergency break is pulled hard), and have never ventured out again. It was too scary. They are more properly referred to as “those who cause both others and the gospel to stumble.” In short, Paul’s point here is that we must not unnecessarily cause others to stumble, but we must not allow our freedom to be limited by Christians who have never grown, nor do they care to grow.

In summary, do you want your life to result in the glory of God when Christ returns? Then live a righteous life; indeed, let your life be filled with the righteousness of Christ. If you want that, lead a pure and blameless life through discernment which arises out of love—a love which is grounded in a personal knowledge of God and the world, and, therefore, has profound insight into the way people are and behave. It is able to work out godly solutions to tough problems which plague many relationships.

Writes a surgeon: I stand by the bed where a young woman lies, her face postoperative, her mouth twisted in palsy, clownish. A tiny twig of the facial nerve, the one to the muscles of her mouth, has been severed. She will be thus from now on. The surgeon has followed with religious fervor the curve of her flesh; I promise you that. Nevertheless, to remove her tumor in her cheek, I had to cut the little nerve.

Her young husband is in the room. He stands on the opposite side of the bed, and together they seem to dwell in the evening lamplight, isolated from me, private. Who are they, I ask myself, he and this wry mouth I have made, who gaze at and touch each other so generously, greedily? The young woman speaks.

“Will my mouth always be like this?” she asks. “Yes,” I say, “it will. It is because the nerve was cut.” She nods and is silent. But the young man smiles. “I like it,” he says. “It’s kind of cute.”

All at once I know who he is. I understand, and I lower my gaze. One is not bold in an encounter with a God. Unmindful, he bends to kiss her crooked mouth, and I so close can see how he twists his own lips to accommodate to hers, to show her that their kiss still works.

This is love grounded in personal knowledge of God and insight into people’s needs. It is a day to day love that knows what to do in each and every situation. It is a love which reflects Christ’s righteousness and is to the glory of God. While it is sacrificial, it nonetheless stands in contrast to the love of little Johnny; it is a love that completely understands what it is doing. It is, therefore, a maturing love.


1 So Martin, Philippians, 68.

2 Ethelbert Stauffer, TDNT, 1:50-51. There are several words in his prayer that need discussion and exposition in order to get the richness of what the apostle is asking God for. The first term is love. While Paul speaks only sparingly of love for God (Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 8:3), he nonetheless emphasizes love in relationships between Christians (1 Thess 4:9; Col 1:4; 3:19; Phlmn 5; Eph 4:2; 5:25; 6:23). Stauffer comments on Paul’s use of love (agaph) in his letters:

Paul takes up the command of Jesus that we should love our neighbors, and establishes it in the same way as the Lord. But his true interest is concentrated on brotherly love. The organic principle which is given once and for all with the orientation of love to the neighbour is here worked out in terms of organisation (sic). Neighbourly love, once a readiness to help compatriots in the covenant people of Israel, is now service rendered to fellow-citizens in the new people of God. It implies making the welfare of the brotherhood the guiding principle of conduct.

3 Stauffer, TDNT, 1:51; “Decisive definition is given to brotherly love, however, by the cosmic, historical kairov" [“time”] which demands it. Brotherly love is the only relevant and forward looking attitude in this time of decision between the cross and the tevlo" [“end”]. It stands under the sign of the cross. It is a readiness for service and sacrifice, for forgiveness and consideration, for help and sympathy, for lifting up the fallen and restoring the broken in a fellowship that owes its very existence to the mercy of God and the sacrificial death of Christ…With love the power of the future age already breaks into the present form of the world. As for Jesus, so for Paul agaph is the only vital force which has a future in this aeon [i.e., now until Christ returns] of death.”

Thus love is the active pursuit of other people and those things which are beneficial for them. Paul wanted the Philippians to understand that love, not division (4:2-3) or selfish ambition (2:3-4), should characterize their church. They ought to love one another, caring for the needs of others and humbly stand united in the defense of the gospel (1:26-30). There is an eschatology or future looking aspect to love in other letters of Paul and so also in Philippians. Paul says that it is his desire that their love abound…until the day of Christ.

4 The term epignwsis is used by Paul some 15 times in his letters (cf. the only verbal use in 2 Cor 1:13) and refers to such things as one’s personal knowledge of sin through the explicit demands of the Law (Rom 3:20). In Ephesians 1:17 Paul prays for the Ephesians (and others to whom the letter was sent) that God might give them spiritual wisdom and understanding so that they might have a better knowledge of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13; Col. 1:9). Thus it is a personal kind of knowing that is in view, not just mental assent to certain facts, like the width and depth of the Grand Canyon. Further, it is the kind of knowledge that is also closely related to ethics and behavior. Paul prays that the Colossians will be filled with the knowledge of God’s will so that they might walk worthily of the Lord (Col. 1:9-10). There is a focus in the pastoral epistles on the kind of knowledge that is according to the truth and leads to godliness (see 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; 3:7; Tit 1:1). Outside of Paul 2 Peter 1:3-4 suggests that God’s power in our lives is made operative through our knowledge of him who called us (cf. 2 Pet 1:2, 8; 2:20). The writer of Hebrews also held a logical connection between epignwsis and moral behavior (Heb 10:26). Thus the reference here is to knowledge and depth of insight as “wisdom.”

The term aisqhsei occurs only here in the New Testament. It does, however, appear 27 times in the Greek Old Testament, 22 of which are in Proverbs. In Exodus 28:3 it refers to wisdom given to men by God for making garments for Aaron. In Prov 1:7 it is associated with the fear of the Lord and must be sought after from God (2:3). It is concerned with practical matters like speaking (10:14; 11:9; 12:23; 22:12) and general prudence and discernment concerning how to live rightly in relationships. It can be referred to as “tact” and the ability to understand relationships and situations with a view to practical action. Cf. O’Brien, Philippians, 77.

5 Jane E. Brody, “Human Eye Is Reported to Set Clock for the Body,” New York Times 5 (Jan 1995): section A, p.8. “Light passes through the retina and travels through a special tract in the optic nerves to a region of the brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus, the brain’s pacemaker. The light impulses then go on to the pineal gland, stopping to release a hormone called melatonin. Melatonin, the so-called hormone of darkness, normally reaches a peak in the blood at night when the lights are out. But when bright light is shown in the eyes, melatonin production shuts down.”

6 Hawthorne, Philippians, 28.

7 Friedrich Büchsel, TDNT, 2:397-98.

8 Bonne Steffen, “Cross-country Revivial,” Christian Reader (Sept/Oct 1995): 80.

Related Topics: Love

An Introduction to Leviticus

Related Media

I. TITLE:

A. Hebrew: In Hebrew the title for this book comes from the opening words wayyiqra (aqyw) meaning “and he called” 1:1

B. Greek: In the Greek LXX the term is Leuitikon (LEUITIKON) an adjective used to describe the book as dealing primarily with ritual worship

C. Latin: The Vulgate (a revision of the Old Latin) rendered the Greek heading Liber Leviticus (Book of Leviticus) from which the English is derived1

1. This is an adjective suggesting the complete title “the Levitical book” or the “book pertaining to the Levites”

2. The book is really about cultic service which the descendants of Levi would participate in.2 The principle people in the book are Aaron and the priests to whom was committed the Aaronic priesthood

3. Later a distinction was made between the Levites and the Priests, and thee Levites could not claim Aaronic descent

II. CHRONOLOGICAL SETTING:

A. The Passover occurred on the first day of the first month of the year (Ex 12:2)

B. The tabernacle was erected at Mount Sinai exactly one year after the Exodus (Ex 40:2, 17)

C. One month later the nation prepared to leave Sinai for the Promised Land (Num 1:1)

D. It seems that the book of Leviticus was given to Moses during the one month period between the erection of the Tabernacle and the departure of the people for the Promised Land from Mount Sinai

Because YHWH is now dwelling among His people in holiness, He provides prescriptions mediated through Moses for the people to remain in relationship with Him (e.g., through ritual and cleanliness).

III. AUDIENCE:

A. Aaron and his sons as the priests to serve in the rituals and duties of the tabernacle (Lev 6:9--7:38; 11:1; 13:1; 15:1; 21:1)

B. The Redeemed nation at Sinai (Lev 18:2; 19:2; 23:2; 26:46)

IV. PURPOSES:

A. Priests: To remind the priests who officiate before YHWH that He must be treated as holy and honored before all the people (Lev 10:3)3

B. Individual: To instruct the individual that they must come before YHWH in worship through cleanness, atonement, and holy living4

C. Nation: To remind the nation of their covenant obligations which are necessary for continued occupation of and blessing in YHWH’S HOLY LAND5

D. Culture: To instruct Israel to establish their culture by narrating the revelation and the first steps in approaching into God’s presence as well as the revelation of living with God

E. Stipulations: To present his redeemed, covenanted people with a collection of cultic, civil, social, moral, and economic stipulations in order that the Holy God may continue to dwell amid an unholy people as He continues His work through them in the world. These stipulations are designed to prevent the withdrawal of YHWH from His people who will bring about defilement of the sanctuary

F. Reveal: To reveal YHWH in His holiness, righteousness, mercy, and sovereignty who blesses Israel with His presence dwelling in the midst of their nation administered in specific instructions for approaching God’s presence and for living in the community of God’s people6

G. Model: To demand that the Israelites live in a way that would show to the contemporary Near Eastern nations the true nature of holiness7


1 R. K. Harrison, Leviticus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), 13.

2 Exodus 13:2, 13; 22:29; Numbers 3:12.

3 Philip Powers, Analysis of Leviticus a paper presented in 371 Seminar in the Pentateuch (DTS, November 1989), 10.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid. The emphasis is not on conditions for God's presence, but on conditions for the people to be in the land with His presence! The danger is that the individual will be cut off from the people in the land and that the Nation will be removed from the Land.

6 Elliott E. Johnson, Notes in 371 Seminar on the Pentateuch (DTS, Fall 1989).

7 R. K. Harrison, Leviticus, 26.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

An Introduction to Deuteronomy

Related Media

I. AUTHOR--MOSES: Particular internal evidence argues that Moses was the author of most of Deuteronomy. There was also an editor who concluded the book after Moses’ death

A. Moses was the author of most of Deuteronomy:

1. These are the words Moses spoke at the Transjordan (1:1-5) across from the Jordan in the valley opposite Beth-peor in the land of Sihon (4:44-49), in the land of Moab (29:1)

2. “Moses went and spoke these words to all Israel ... I am 121 years old ... no longer able to come and go ...” and not allowed to cross the Jordan (31:1-2)

3. 40 years after what should have been an 11 day journey Moses spoke to the children of Israel according to all that YHWH had commanded him to give to them 1:2-3

4. Moses says, “The LORD our God” 1:6

5. All throughout chapters 1-4 Moses refers to himself as among the people: “we” (1:19; 2:1,8; 3:1,4,6,7,12), “I and you” (1:9,13,15,16,20,24,29,43; 3:13,15,16,18,19,20,21,23; 4:1,2,5,8ff; 5:5; 6:2; 8:1,19; 9:9,15-21,25-26; 10:2-3,5,10; 12:32; 13:18; 30:15,18,19; 31:2 ), “me”(1:14,17,22,23,37,41,42; 2:1,9 17; 3:2; 4:5; 6:1; 10:11; 18:15 ), “our” (1:6,19,20,25; 3:3; 5:2,3; 9:10), “us” (1:20,25; 3:1; 5:2), to this day (8:18)

B. Someone beyond Moses concluded the book of Deuteronomy:

1. The parenthetical discussion of the need for Israel not to take the land The Lord has given to another just as the nation will take the land of thier possession is presented in the past tense indicating that it was written after Israel had already taken the land and thus after Moses died: “just as Israel did to the land of their possession which the LORD gave to them” (2:10-12)

2. “As it is to this day” (3:14) seems to imply a later editor.

3. The settings are written from a 3rd person perspective “this is the ... which Moses ....” (1:1-5; 4:41-43,44--5:1a; 27:1; 29:1; 31:1,30; 32:48; 33:1). This could have been done by Moses as well as an “editor.”

4. The final chapter is written in the the 3rd person (except for 34:4 which is a direct discourse of the Lord with Moses from Mt. Nebo). This could have been added by Joshua with the Lord’s words communicated by Moses to him just before he died or communicated by the Lord to him. However one phrase, “since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses” sounds as though it goes beyond Joshua to a time when Israel was an established nation in the land. Beyond that one can not be certain of the timing of this last chapter

II. DATE: The internal record of the chronology from Egypt to Moab is helpful in a reconstruction of the date of 1406 B.C. (or following) for the writing of Deuteronomy:

A. The people departed from Egypt on the fifteenth day of the first month--March/April [Nisan] 15, 1446 (Num 33:3; cf. Ex. 12:2 ,5)

B. The people reached the wilderness of Sinai on the first day of the third month--May/June [Sivan] 1, 1446 (Ex 19:1)

C. The tabernacle was erected on the first day of the first month of the second year--March/April [Nisan] 1, 1445 (Ex. 40:17)

D. Leviticus is given during the one month interval immediately following the filling of the Tabernacle by the glory of YHWH and before the people prepared to leave Sinai for the promised land--March/April [Nisan] 1-30, 1445 (Num 1:1; cf. Ex 40:17)

E. Numbers opens with a census taken on the first day of the second month in the second year--April/May [Iyyar or Ziv] 1, 1445 (Num 1:1)

F. The cloud is taken up to begin to lead the people to the promised land from the wilderness of Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month of the second year--April/May [Iyyar or Ziv] 20, 1445 (Num 10:11)

G. The people sin at Kadesh=Barnea (Num 13--14) and are sentenced to wander 40 years in the wilderness (Num 14:33). Numbers covers 38 years and nine months (cf. Num 1:1 with Deut 1:3)

H. Aaron dies on Mount Hor on the first day of the fifth month in the fortieth year--July/August [Ab] 1, 1406 (Num 33:38)

I. Deuteronomy opens on the Transjordan on the first day or the eleventh month of the fortieth year after what should have been an eleven day journey--January/February [Shebat] 1, 1406 (Deut 1:1-3

J. Therefore, a more precise date for the giving of the book of Deuteronomy would be January or February 1, 1406 B.C.

III. AUDIENCE: The Audience was all of Israel

All Israel

   
 

Across the Hordan

in the wilderness

in the Arabah

 
   

opposite Suph

between Paran and Tophel and
Leban and Hazeroth and Dizahab 1:1

A. 40 years after what should have been and 11 day journey Moses spoke to the children of Israel 1:2-3

B. Chapters 1-3 describe historical Israel from the Exodus to their time at the Transjordan.

C. Chapter 4 is a charge to Israel (4:1) at Beth-peor (3:29)

D. The nation is charged outside of the land (7:1)

E. Chapter 5 is a summons to Israel across form Beth-peor (4:44-49; 5:1a)

F. The nation is about to cross the Jordan to possess the land (11:31)

G. The nation is about to disposses the nations from the land (12:2)

H. The nation has not yet come to the resting place and the inheritance which the Lord is giving them (12:9)

I. The nation is told what to do “when you enter the land” (17:14; 18:9)

J. God has not yet cut off the nations or had Israel dispossess the nations and settle in their houses (19:1)

K. Israel is told “when you enter the land” implying that they are yet outside of it (26:1)

L. Israel is spoken to about the “day when you cross the Jordan to the land” (27:2,4,12

M. The sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days (34:8)

IV. INSTRUCTION / DESIGN:

A. rab in the piel has the sense of “making clear, distinct, explaning or expounding (cf. Hab. 22; Deut. 27:8 cf. BDB, p. 91) This is what Moses was doing with the Law which they had.

B. The purpose of Moses’ exhortation is so that the nation might live, possess the land, and obey God (4:1-2; 6:3, 17-19, 24-25; 8:1; 10:12--11:32)

C. Moses warns the nation so that they might not be judged but blessed by the Lord in the land (6:15-19, 24-25; 7:4, 9-16; 15:4-6,10)

V. THE INTERNAL COMPONENT: GENRE (narrative, covenant, etc.)

A. Parenthetical discriptions are given to explain Israel’s actions (2:10-12, 20-23; 3:9-11; 21:23)

B. Historical setting 1:1-5; 3:29; 4:44--5:1a

C. A recounting of History with respect to Israel’s wanderings 1:6--3:28

D. Story or recounting of the event is employed (1:19-46; 2:1,8,13b,24-25, 26-30, 32--3:1,3-8,12-22,23,26,29; 4:41-43; 5:22-23, 28a)

E. Dialogue (or direct discourse) is employed (1:6-8, 9-14, 16-18, 20-22, 27-31, 35-43; 2:2-7,9,13a,18-19,31; 3:2, 24-25, 26-28; 4:1-40; 5:1-5, 6-21, 24-27, 28b-31; 32-33)

F. A listing of commands -- legal literature
(NB -- many of these sections begin with an introduction concerning “the statutes,” or “commandments”)

1. 10 commandments 5:6-21

2. To Love God 6:1-25

3. To destroy the nations 7:1-26

4. To remember their historical relationship with the Lord (8--11)
(This is developed through the retelling the story of history with direct discours from Moses and God to heighten its effect. There is also a historical)

5. To not copy the practice of those in the land whose places of worship Israel is to destroy but to worship at a central location which the Lord will reveal (12)

6. To destroy anyone who would attempt to lead the nation away from YHWH to any false gods (13)

7. To separate themeselves from those in the land in how they mourn for the dead and eat their food (14:1-21)

8. To tithe of their produce each year before the Lord except for every 3rd year where it goes to the Levite in their city (14:22-29)

9. To remit all debt at the end of the seventh year for those of Israel for the Lord to bless them (15:1-18)

10. The first born are to be consecrated and then offered in a sarifical meal before the Lord except for those with defect (15:19-23)

11. Three times a year all of Israel’s men are to appear before the Lord with an offering: the Feasts of: Unleavened bread, Weeks, and Booths (16:1-17)

12. Israel is to appoint judges who rule uprightly and execute the judgements of God in order to purge the evil from the land (16:18--17:13)

13. Israel’s king is to be appointed by God from among the people andto not multiply horses, wives or silver and gold, but is to obey the Lord for continuity of his reign in the generations to come (17:14-20)

14. The Levitical priests from the whole tribe of Levi shall have no portion of the inheritance of the land with Israel but shall be specifically provided for, in addition to any of their own assets, through the offerings to the Lord since He is their inheritance (18:1-8)

15. When Israel enters into the land, the Lord does not permit them to imitate the detestable spiritual practices of the nations: child sacrifices, divination, whtchcraft, interpreting omens or sorcery, casting spells, or acting as a medium or spiritist by calling up the dead so that they will not be driven out of the land as the nations before them are are being driven (18:9-14)

16. The Lord will raise up a prophet like Moses to speak as a mediator between the people and the Lord, as the people requested of Moses, bringing judgement from the Lord upon all of those who do not listen to him (18:15-19)

This is developed by:

 
 

affirmation (18:15)

 

The recounting of the story of history (16-19)

 

direct discourse (16-19)

17. Any “prophet” who speaks for another god or who says that he speaks for the Lord but is proven to be false since his words do not come true is to be killed by the people (18:20-22)

18. Israel is to prepare at least three and upto six cities of refuge (under God’s blessing) so that the nation might protect the unintentional manslayer from an angry advenger but not to protect the premeditated manslayer who must be brought before his advenger so that the Lord will continue to bless the land (19:1-13)

19. Israel is not to move his neighbor’s boundary mark from here the ancestors placed it to mark off the inheritence of the Lord (19:14)

20. A matter against a man is never confirmed on the witness of one person but on the evidence of two or three witness with false witnesses receiving the punishment they intended for their brother so as to purge the evil from the land and to be a deterent to others (19:15-21)

21. When Israel comes to battle against powerful enemies they are to realize that it is the Lord who is fighting for them, send home those who have unfinished beginnings in the land and to either wage a measured attack on distant cities or an unmeasured destruction on those peoples near to them (20:1-20)
(This unit contains: commands (1-20)which are often expressed through direct discourse (20:3-4,5-9)

22. In the event of an undetected homicide in the open country, the elders of the nearst city had to make atonement by breaking the neck of a heifer and then confessing their innocence before the priests above the dead heifer whereupon God would remove the bloodguiltness from upon the people (21:1-9)

23. Command with direct discourse by the elders (21:7-8)

24. Laws concerning the family are expounded: marring a captive woman, blessing the first born of an unloved wife and stoning a rebellous son (21:10-21)

25. Laws concerning community life in the land are given: buryial of a crimminal, responsibility toward neighbors, dress, animal life, building codes, purity rather than mixture in all of life, men who rape women, and children with stepmothers (21:22--22:30)

26. Laws concerning congregational life are given: whom to allow into the assembly, what to do with bodily funcitons, how to deal with runaway slaves, not to seek furtility from pagan gods (23:1-18)

27. Laws concerning the weak are given: charging interest, vows, eating when hungry, divorce, marriage taking pledges, kidnapers, leprosy, paying wages, responsibility for sin, widows, orphans and aliens, punishment of the wicked, leverite marrage, talionic justice, measuring weights, dealing with the ruthless Amalekites (23:19--25:19)

28. When Israel enters the land they are to offer the first fruits to the Lord at the place where He chooses to dwell declaring the Lord’s faithfulness to him and on the third year he is to give it to the Levite, stranger, orphan, and stranger in his city asking for the Lord’s blessing in obedience (26:1-15)

Legal perscription (26:1-3a,4-5a,10b-11,12-13a)

Story/direct discourse (26:3b,5b-10a,13b-15)

29. In a summary charge the Lord commands Israel to do all of the statutes and ordinances given with all of their heart and soul since they are in covenant relationship with Him so that in their obedience He may exalt the them as a people seperated unto Him (26:16-19)

30. Moses, the elders, and the Levites, exhort Israel to keep all of the commndments of the Lord and to proclaim them to the nation by writing the curses on Mt. Ebal where an alter and sacrifice are also to be placed and by writting the blessings on Mt. Gerizim by proclaiming them from each mountain as they cross the Jordan to the people (27:1-26)

Narrative (27:1a; 9a, 11)

Commands/direct discourse (27:1b-8, 9b-10, 12-26

31. The Lord promises to either bless or curse Israel in the land according to whether or not she follows Him in deligent obedience (28:1-68)

32. Moses renews the covenant with Israel at Moab by reviewing their historical relationship with the Lord, presenting it before those present and a future generation, telling of a future time when the nation will remember this covenant and be restored to its blessing, reminding them that these words are reachable so that they might obey the Lord, and reminding them that disobedience will bring about judgement from the Lord so they should choose obedience and life (29--30)

Narrative (29:1-2a)

The story of history (29:2b-8)

Legal exhortation (29:9--30)

Prophetic exhortation (29:16-28; 30:1-10

G. In a recounting of final charges Moses encouraged the Nation and Joshua to not fear but enter to take the Land, he gave the completed Law to be read to the nation each Year of Remission before the Lord, he was told by the Lord to write a song as a witness against the nation when Joshua was commissioned by the Lord, and he had the Law placed by the ark of the covenant as a witness against the nation (31:1-27)

H. Gathering all of Israel together to procliam one last time the need for obedience on their behalf for there to be blessing, Moses proclaims in his song the Lord’s magnivicant character which Israel will rebell against, and thus suffer judgment under the hand of the nations and then be delivered after they realized that the Lord alone is God (31:28--32:47)

Direct discourse (31:28-29; 32:46-47)

Narration (31:30, 44-45)

Poetry (32:1-43)

I. Before Moses goes to Mt. Nebo to see the land which he may not enter due to his sin and then to be gathered to his people in death, He prophetically blesses the nation tribe by tribe (32:48--33:29)

narration (32:48a; 33:1)

direct discourse (32:49-52)

J. As the last days of Moses came, he was shown the land from Mt. Nebo by the Lord, died and was buried in the plains of Moab according to the word of the Lord, mourned over by Israel, replaced in leadership by Joshua, but not replaced in Israel as a supreme prophet before the Lord (34:1-12)

Narration/story (34:1-3,5-12)

direct discourse (34:4)

VI. Purposes of Deuteronomy:

A. THE PERMISSION OF EVIL

1. YHWH does permit the nation to grumble at Kadesh-barnea (1:26-33)

2. YHWH does permit the defeat of his rebellious people in the land (1:44)

B. THE JUDGMENT OF EVIL

1. The nation receives the Judgment of God for not taking the land as commanded: the men and Moses will not see the Land (1:34-40)

2. The nation is defeat by the Amorites when they go to take the land against the command of YHWH (1:41-44)

3. YHWH does not hear the nation’s grief in their sin (1:45)

4. YHWH commands that the nation goes into wandering for 40 years 2:1

5. The Lord does warn the nation of judgment for rebellion against their covenant (4:1-40)

6. YHWH Elohim will judge his people if they disobey his law (5:8-10, 11,

C. THE DELIVERANCE OF THE ELECT

1. Promise is given by YHWH that even though Moses and the men of the exodus will not see the land, Caleb, Joshua and the nation’s sons will see and inherit the land (1:34-40)

2. YHWH commands the nation to go back toward the Land after 40 years (2:3 cf. vs. 7)

3. Moses recounts the statutes and judgments in order that the nation may live and possess the land (sounds contingent) (4:1)

4. The Lord does promise to deliver his people from judgment if (when) they turn again to him and listen to Him (4:29-31)

D. THE BLESSING OF THE REDEEMED

1. YHWH intends to bless his people with the possesion of the Land (1:6-8a)

2. YHWH Elohim intendends to bless His people if they will obey the Law (5:29, 32-33 “note under administration ‘Mosic covenant’”)

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

An Introduction to the Book of Joshua

Related Media

I. A BROAD INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORICAL BOOKS:

A. A Recurring View of History based upon YHWH’s covenants:

1. Western view of history is primarily linear as it traces events in a chronological line from A to Z with cause and effect viewed in naturalistic terms

2. An Ancient Near Eastern view of history is primarily cyclic (often around the regular cycle of seasons) with cause and effect viewed in supernatural terms

3. The Ancient Near Eastern neighbors of Israel sought to direct (or control) their historical cycles of destiny by the recitation of appropriate incantations or omens

4. Israel was forbidden in their Law to practice divination, omens, and incantations, therefore, they sought to direct (or control) their history by conforming to their covenant with YHWH

5. Therefore theology and history merged for Israel through the covenants of YHWH, and the historical books unfold YHWH’s sovereign, covenant work in history:

a. Cause and effect are understood in view of God’s covenant response to human activities and decisions:

1) Note the cycles of Judges

2) Note the apostasy in the books of Kings

b. In particular, the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants explain YHWH’s sovereign unfolding of history for Israel

B. The Theology of the Historical Books is Deuteronomistic:

1. The concept of a Deuteronomistic History was a development of the earlier source-critical approach to the Pentateuch (JEDP), but first found its detailed expression in 1943 by Martin Noth in his work The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1981)

2. A classic Deuteronomistic History would affirm that the historical books of Deuteronomy--2 Kings were the editorial work of prophets during the eighth century B.C. in order to promote religious reform which did not occur until after Josiah read the book (cf. 2 Ki. 22-23)

3. The problems of this classic approach are enormous for the conservative student of scripture including deception concerning Mosaic authority for Deuteronomy, and a rewriting of history for political purpose by the eighth century prophets

4. There are many levels upon which one can address the veracity of the classic Deuteronomistic approach (see Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament) including the fact that 2 Chronicles 34 places the reforms of Josiah before the discovery of the book of the Law in the temple. Therefore, it seems best to reject the historical reconstruction of a classic Deuteronomistic History

5. Nevertheless, the theological emphasis of a Deuteronomistic History is valuable for understanding the historical books because Israel’s history is viewed in terms of her loyalty to the covenant--especially Deuteronomy 27--30:

a. Obedience to the Mosaic Law and faith in YHWH will bring blessings and prosperity of the Mosaic covenant

b. Disobedience to the Mosaic Law and a refusal to trust in YHWH will bring cursing (cf. Deut. 4; Josh. 23; Judges 2:11-23; 1 Sam. 12; 2 Sam. 7; 1 Ki. 8; 2 Ki. 17:7-23)

c. Nevertheless, Israel is continually disobedient and deserving of judgment, but God does not completely destroy the nation because of his covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12)

C. The Design of the Historical Books: To reveal God who works in accordance with his covenants

1. Western societies write history for information’s sake, or to learn lessons from others, or to analyze elements of naturalistic cause and effect

2. Ancient Near Eastern societies often wrote history as a tool of propaganda in order to honor those in power with “historical” accounts which ignored the negative and embellished the positive

3. However, Israel’s historical approach hardly could be considered to be with the design of propaganda (even for the Davidic dynasty) since it includes so much of the faults of its rulers (including David--2 Samuel)

4. The design of Israel’s historical literature was to teach about the way in which YHWH, their covenant God, acted in history--especially in view of Israel’s failures and unfaithfulness:

a. Legal literature declared God’s will which was designed to mold the moral, spiritual, and ethical direction of the nation

b. Historical literature was a revelation (record) of the sovereign work of God in accordance with his covenants in history

c. Prophetic literature was a declaration of the will of God in history in judgment of the nation’s historical dealings and in promise of God’s future blessing

d. Although Israel was unfaithful to their Mosaic covenant with YHWH and often received the judgment due them from their suzerain-Lord, YHWH was also committed to his people and delivered them in accordance with his promises to Abraham with an eye to a New Covenant which He would work in their hearts

II. AUTHOR/EDITORS: Joshua, Eleazar the high priest and his son Phinehas, and/or other contemporaries of Joshua who outlived him

A. Hexateuch: Some have identified this book with the Wellhausenian school which connected it with as part of a Hexateuch (Genesis-Joshua) with the same sources which made up the Pentateuch (JEDP) thus dating the book with eight and seventh century sources and a post-exilic author1

B. Deuteronomic History: Some understand this book to have been the product of the editorial work of prophets during the eighth century B.C. in order to promote religious reform

C. A Fifteenth Century Author: There is much evidence to support that the book of Joshua was written by an author (authors) who lived during or near to the time when the events occurred:

1. External Evidence:

a. The Talmud affirms that “Joshua wrote his own book” and that his death was recorded by Eleazar son of Aaron and that Eleazar’s death was recorded by his son, Phinehas.2

b. Jewish medieval expositors3 affirmed that most4 of the book came from Joshua’s time5

2. Internal Evidence: Supports Joshua and those who may have been his contemporaries:

a. The book has an eyewitness quality:

1) Especially in chapters 5--7

2) Note the “we” and “us” references in 5:1, 6

3) There are vivid descriptions of the sending of the spies, the crossing of the Jordan, the capture of Jericho, the battle of Ai

b. The details in the latter chapters suggest that those accounts were written by an author who was a contemporary with Joshua if not Joshua himself:6

1) The chief Phoenician city was Sidon (13:4ff; 19:28), but later, Tyre conquered it

2) Rahab was still alive (6:25)

3) The sanctuary was not yet permanently located (9:27)

4) The Gibeonites were still menial servants in the sanctuary (5:27; cf. 2 Sam. 21:1-6)

5) The Jebusites still occupied Jerusalem (15:8; cf. 2 Sam. 5:6ff)

6) The Canaanites were still in Gezer (16:10; cf. 1 Kgs. 9:16)

7) Old place names (Canaanite cities) are used and must be interpreted7

8) The Philistines were not a national menace to Israel as they became after their invasion about 1200 B.C.

9) Joshua is said to have written parts of the book himself (8:32; 24:26)

c. Some parts of the book were written latter than Joshua, but not much later:

1) The phrase “to this day” suggests a time later, but not much later, than the event itself8

2) Joshua’s death (24:29-32)

3) The relocation of Dan (19:40; cf. Judges 18:27ff)

4) Reference to the “hill country of Judah” and “of Israel” (11:21) may presuppose a division of the country after Solomon’s death, but this could have been a later editorial update

5) Passages which summarize the life of Joshua (4:14) or later Israelite history (10:14)

6) References to the book of Jashar (10:13; cf. 2 Sam 1:18)

7) References to Jair (13:30; see Judges 10:3-5)

8) Expansion of the territory of Caleb (15:13-19; see Judges 1:8-15)

d. Woudstra’s comments are helpful: “The lack of unanimity among those who argue for a late date, though paralleled somewhat by a similar deficiency among those favoring an early date, is nevertheless a just reason to examine the data afresh and to maintain a healthy skepticism with respect to some of the critics’ claims. Is this not ample justification for taking the presentation of the book to be more true to fact than has long been allowed? Would not that also have some bearing on its date of composition? Could not the view of history developed in Joshua have been the product of the days in which Israel, according to the book’s own testimony, ‘served the Lord’ (24:31), i.e., in the days of Joshua himself and of the elders who outlived him? The spirit of Joyful optimism which pervades the book by and large could perhaps be accounted for best by that assumption.”9

III. CANONICAL PLACEMENT OF JOSHUA:

A. Hebrew Scriptures: One of the Prophets

1. Joshua is grouped with the “Writings”

2. The “Prophets” is grouped into “Former Prophets” (Joshua-2 Kings [not including Ruth]) and “Latter Prophets” (Isaiah-Malachi [without Lamentations and Daniel])

3. It was the first book of the Former Prophets

4. Perhaps this book was included with the prophets for the following reasons:

a. Joshua was himself a prophet

b. The book of Joshua proclaims truths taught by the prophets

c. “Labeling them as prophetic rather than historical suggests that these books are primarily theological in nature rather than annalistic.”10

d. Classification of the Prophets11: The prophets may be identified within three basic categories--(1) pre-monarchy12, (2) pre-classical13, (3) classical14--as the following chart unfolds:15

PERIOD

FUNCTION

AUDIENCE

MESSAGE

EXAMPLES

PRE-MONARCHY

Mouthpiece-lead

People

Nation guidance, Maintenance of justice, Spiritual overseer

Moses
Deborah

PRE-CLASSICAL

Mouthpiece-adviser

King and court

Military advice, Pronouncement of rebuke or blessing

Nathan
Elijah
Elisha
Micaiah

       

Transition:

North-Jonah16

South-Isaiah

CLASSICAL

Mouthpiece-social/spiritual commentator

People

Rebuke concerning current condition of society; leads to warnings of captivity, destruction, exile, and promise of eventual restoration, Call for justice and repentance

Writing Prophets

Best example: Jeremiah

B. Greek/English Scriptures: One of the Historical Books

1. As with the Greek Septuagint (LXX) Joshua is grouped along with the twelve historical books (Joshua to Esther).

2. As Walton and Hill write, “the books share a prophetic view of history in which cause and effect are tied to the blessings and cursings of the covenant.”17

IV. DATE: Any time after 1399 B.C.

A. Some place the time of the conquest early (fifteenth century B.C.) and some date the conquest late (twelfth century B.C.) depending upon their date for the Exodus

B. This writer holds to an early date for the Exodus (1446 B.C.) in accordance with a literal interpretation of the biblical numbers in Exodus 12:40 (“Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years”), Judges 11:26 (“While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are on the banks of the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?”) and 1 Kings 6:1 (“Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord”)

1. A plausible (and approximate) reconstruction of the Exodus would be as follows:18

a. 966 = 4th full year (actually into the fifth) of Solomon’s reign (971-931) when the Temple was begun

b. +44 yrs = start of David’s reign (1010)

c. +40 yrs = start of Saul’s reign (1050)

d. +40 yrs = the time from Saul to Jephthah’s statement (1050-1090)

e. +300 yrs = the time in the land (Jephthah’s statement) (1390)

f. +16 yrs = Joshua’s leadership (1406)

g. +40 yrs = wilderness wondering (1446)

2. This matches 1 Kings 6:1 where 966 + 480 = 1446!
+430 yrs = the time that Israel lived in Egypt before the Exodus (Ex. 12:40) and therefore Jacob moved to Egypt in 1876 B.C.

C. The beginning of the conquest of the land was in 1406 B.C. forty years after the Exodus (1446)

V. THE DATE OF THE CONQUEST

A. The beginning of the conquest of the land was in 1406 B.C. forty years after the Exodus (1446)

B. The Actual Conquest lasted for 7 years or until 1399 B.C.:19

1. Caleb stated that he was 40 years old when he went to spy out the land in Joshua 14:7

2. The wilderness wanderings lasted 38 years (from that point)20 which brings Caleb’s age to 78 at the beginning of the conquest (40+38=78)

3. Caleb then stated that he was 85 years old at the end of the conquest (Joshua 14:10). This is confirmed by Caleb’s statement that the Lord provided for grace to the people for 45 years since Kadesh Barnea (38 years of wandering plus 7 years of conquest)

4. Therefore, If the conquest was begun in 1406 B.C. after the wanderings, and it was completed seven years later, then the book could have been written any time after 1399 B.C.

VI. ABOUT JOSHUA:

A. He was the son of Nun, an Israelite of the tribe of Joseph (half-tribe of Ephraim) born in Egypt, who was a young man at the time of the Exodus (Ex 33:11)

B. His name was Hosea (“salvation”), but Moses called him Jehoshua or Joshua (“YHWH saves”)

C. He was Chosen by Moses to be his assistant or personal attendant (Ex 24:13; 32:17; 33:11)

1. He was present on the mountain when Moses received the Law (Ex 24:13ff)

2. He was guardian of the tent of meeting when Moses met with YHWH (Ex 33:11)

D. He was given charge of a detachment of Israelites to repel an Amalekite attack at Rephidim (Ex 17:9)

E. He was one of the twelve spies sent into the land who trusted in the Lord to give the land to the people (Numbers 13:8; 14:30)

F. He was commissioned by YHWH to become leader when Moses died (Deut 31:14f, 23).

G. He courageously served as a godly servant before the Lord to bring the people into the promised land21

VII. PURPOSES OF JOSHUA:

A. For God to bless Israel with a land that He promised in His election of Abraham and his descendants

B. For God to complete the formation of the nation as an elect people, governed by God under law, and occupying a homeland

C. To demonstrate for Israel that the gifts of the land rested in the historical fulfillment of YHWH’s promises

D. To confirm that the Lord will fulfill His promises as the nation responds in obedience to the law of Moses22

E. Joshua and Judges are a study in Contrast:

JOSHUA

JUDGES

Creates Faith

Exposes unbelief and Disobedience

Describes Israel’s Possession of the Land

Describes Israel’s Occupation of the Land

Occurs in Fulfillment of God’s Promise

Experiences the Cursings and Blessings of the Mosaic Covenant

Presents a Unique Test of Faith

Presents the Normative Experience of a Sinful Nation

Presents the Consequences of Faithful Obedience

Presents the Consequences of Continued, Unchallenged Disobedience


1 Note that the Hebrew Scriptures places this book among the prophets rather than the historical books. This argues against a Hexateuch.

2 See Woudstra, The Book of Joshua, 5.

3 Rashi and David Kimchi.

4 They felt that 19:37 and 14:14-19 must have come from a later writer. Also Abrabanel was one who thought the expression until this day (4:9; 5:9; 7:26 etc.) identified Samuel as its author (see Woudstra, Joshua, 5).

5 Woudstra, Joshua, 5.

6 LaSor, Hubbard, Bush, Old Testament Survey, 202.

7 Baalah for Kiriath Jerim and Kiriath Arba for Hebron (15:9, 13).

8 Hill and Walton write, Joshua 16:10 mentions that the Canaanites were not driven out of Gezer and lived there 'to this day.' First Kings 9:16 reports that Pharaoh conquered Gezer and killed all the Canaanites living there; this suggests that Joshua was written before the time of Solomon (A Survey of the OT, 161-62). Perhaps this would point to contemporaries of Joshua who out lived him and placed the book in its final form.

9 Martin H. Woudstra, The Book of Joshua, NICOT, 12-13.

10 Walton and Hill, SOT, 155.

11 La Sor et al offers a complete list with central passages, Old, pp. 301-303.

12 These are Joshua, Deborah, Samuel (although Samuel is transitional as the last of the judges and the first of the monarchical [pre-classical] prophets).

They were called prophets because: (1) they were chosen in order to received revelation, (2) Moses is the prototype of a prophet [Deut. 18:18; 34:10], (3) Samuel marked a time when prophecy resumed [1 Sam. 3:7-9]. See La Sor et al, Old, pp. 300-301.

13 These are scattered throughout the historical books including oracles by Nathan, Elijah, Elisha.

14 These are most commonly identified with the writing prophets from the eighth through fourth century B.C. primarily including those who wrote books (Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Obed, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi).

15 Hill and Walton, A Survey, p. 311.

16 Jonah is unique because it does not contain a collection of prophetic oracles to the nation, but is narrative about the prophet.

17 Walton and Hill, SOT, 155.

18 Wood, A Survey of Israel's History, 88-90.

19 See Donald K. Campbell, Joshua, in BKC, 1:357.

20 The internal record of the chronology from Egypt to Moab is helpful in a reconstruction of the dates:

(1) The people departed from Egypt on the fifteenth day of the first month--March/April [Nisan] 15, 1446 (Num 33:3; cf. Ex. 12:2 ,5)

(2) The people reached the wilderness of Sinai on the first day of the third month--May/June [Sivan] 1, 1446 (Ex 19:1)

(3) The tabernacle was erected on the first day of the first month of the second year--March/April [Nisan] 1, 1445 (Ex. 40:17)

(4) Leviticus is given during the one month interval immediately following the filling of the Tabernacle by the glory of YHWH and before the people prepared to leave Sinai for the promised land--March/April [Nisan] 1-30, 1445 (Num 1:1; cf. Ex 40:17)

(5) Numbers opens with a census taken on the first day of the second month in the second year--April/May [Iyyar or Ziv] 1, 1445 (Num 1:1)

(6) The cloud is taken up to begin to lead the people to the promised land from the wilderness of Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month of the second year--April/May [Iyyar or Ziv] 20, 1445 (Num 10:11)

(7) The people sin at Kadesh=Barnea (Num 13--14) and are sentenced to wander 40 years in the wilderness (Num 14:33). Numbers covers 38 years and nine months (cf. Num 1:1 with Deut 1:3)

(8) Aaron dies on Mount Hor on the first day of the fifth month in the fortieth year--July/August [Ab] 1, 1406 (Num 33:38)

(9) Deuteronomy opens on the Transjordan on the first day or the eleventh month of the fortieth year after what should have been an eleven day journey--January/February [Shebat] 1, 1406 (Deut 1:1-3)

21 LaSor et al write, Bust Joshua was a servant who had experienced the deliverance from Egypt, and the giving of the law at Sinai, the terrible frustrations and sufferings of the wilderness, and the tremendous faith of Moses. It is entirely inconsistent with the whole thread of the story to suppose, as did scholars of a previous generation, that various strands of stories involving the gradual migration of Hebrews in Canaan over perhaps two or three centuries were woven into the story, and that only then was Joshua attached as its hero. (OTS, 201-202).

22 Woudstra writes, One might say, therefore, that the occasion for the writing of the book of Joshua was the covenant between God and Israel and the need, flowing from the covenant, to keep alive the memories of the past in order both to perceive thereby the significance of the present, and to open up vistas of the future (Joshua, 17).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

An Introduction to the Book of Judges

Related Media

I. AUTHOR: Possibly the Prophet Samuel

A. The Talmud identifies the author of Judges and Samuel as the prophet Samuel1

B. There are no specific allusions to Samuel in the book

C. There is some evidence which points to a time of writing early in the monarchy, perhaps shortly after Saul’s coronation (e.g. 1051 B.C.)

1. The repeated phrase “in those days Israel had no king” looks backward from a time when Israel did have a king

2. The Jebusites are reported as still living in Jerusalem (1:21); this was not true following David’s conquest of the city in 1004 B.C. (2 Sam 5:6-7)

3. The reference to Canaanites in Gezer suggests a date before the time the Egyptians gave that city to Solomon’s Egyptian wife as a wedding present (1 Ki 9:16)

4. The designation ‘Bethlehem-Judah” occurs only in Judges 17, 19, Ruth 1, and 1 Samuel 17:12.

D. The reference in 18:30 to the continuance of Dan’s idolatry “until the day of the captivity of the land” is probably not a reference to the deportation of Tiglath-pileser III in 733-32 or the final deportation under Sargon in 722-21, but to the Philistine invasion of 1 Samuel 4 which resulted in the capture of the ark (cf. 18:31 where the house of God is at Shiloh). Although the historical books contain no reference to the actual destruction of Shiloh, Jeremiah 7:12, 14; 26:6; Ps. 78:60 note such a destruction. Also Archaeological evidence shows “that the temple there was destroyed about 1050 B.C., which must have been immediately after the events of 1 Samuel 4”2

II. If Samuel was the author, than the audience was either the generation of Saul who wanted a king to rule over them (1 Sam 8), or perhaps king Saul himself.

III. CHRONOLOGY:

A. The Setting for the book is after the death of Joshua (1:1)

B. The Israelites are in the land of promise and are taking possession of the inheritance allotted to each tribe (1:1-36)

C. The author knows about a king in Israel (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25)

D. Some place the time of the conquest early (fifteenth century B.C.) and some date the conquest late (twelfth century B.C.) depending upon their date for the Exodus

E. This writer holds to an early date for the Exodus (1446 B.C.) in accordance with a literal interpretation of the biblical numbers in Exodus 12:40 (“Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years”), Judges 11:26 (“While Israel lived in Heshbon and its villages, and in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities that are on the banks of the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?”) and 1 Kings 6:1 (“Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord”)

1. A plausible (and approximate) reconstruction of the Exodus would be as follows:3

a. 966 = 4th full year (actually into the fifth) of Solomon’s reign (971-931) when the Temple was begun

b. +44 yrs = start of David’s reign (1010)

c. +40 yrs = start of Saul’s reign (1050)

d. +40 yrs = the time from Saul to Jephthah’s statement (1050-1090)

e. +300 yrs = the time in the land (Jephthah’s statement) (1390)

f. +16 yrs = Joshua’s leadership (1406)

g. +40 yrs = wilderness wondering (1446)

2. This matches 1 Kings 6:1 where 966 + 480 = 1446!

+430 yrs = the time that Israel lived in Egypt before the Exodus (Ex. 12:40) and therefore Jacob moved to Egypt in 1876 B.C.

F. The beginning of the conquest of the land was in 1406 B.C. forty years after the Exodus (1446)

G. The Actual conquest lasted for seven years or until 1399 B.C.:4

1. Caleb stated that he was forty years old when he went to spy out the land in Joshua 15:7

2. The wilderness wanderings lasted 38 years (from that point)5 which brings Caleb’s age to 78 at the beginning of the conquest (40+38=78)

3. Caleb then stated that he was 89 years old at the end of the conquest (Joshua 15:10). This is confirmed by Caleb’s statement that the Lord provided for grace to the people for 45 years since Kadesh Barnea (38 years of wandering plus seven years of Conquest)

4. Therefore, If the conquest was begun in 1406 B.C. after the wanderings, and it was completed seven years later, then the book of Joshua could have been written any time after 1399 B.C.

H. Therefore, Judges lasts for 300 years from 1390-1090 when Saul began to reign.

A Very Tentative Reconstruction is as Follows:

1. Introduction and background (1:1--3:6) = 20 years

2. The Accounts of the Judges (3:7--16:31) = 260 years

3. The Epilogue on the Judges period = 20 years

IV. Theology:

A. YHWH is the covenant God (2:1 who is delivering his people as He revealed himself in Exodus (10:11-12; 2:16; 3:9, 10). Every deliverance in the book of Judges is specifically attributed to YHWH

B. YHWH is the true Judge of Israel who delivers and whose judgments are right and just (11:27):

1. Note that Deborah is introduced as one judging Israel sitting under a tree and calling Barak to deliver the nation (4:4-7)

2. In the next account of the call of Gideon the angel of the Lord is sitting under a tree (6:11-14)

C. In Judges obedience is not a prerequisite to blessing. Judges shows that God’s covenantal blessings are apart from any human merit, which in turn call for a response of obedience. The judges are weak. God delivers, not on the basis of human merit or might, but according to His choice of covenantal faithfulness to Abraham.

D. The Role of a Judge (tpv):

1. One who delivered the people

2. One who ruled in Israel before the time of deliverance (4:4)

3. One who ruled in Israel after the time of deliverance (8:28; 12:7)

4. He/she had several tasks (Dt 16:18; 25:1):

a. To turn the people back from idolatry and thus restore the authority of the law

b. To vindicate YHWH’s righteousness by proving that He always remained faithful to His covenant with His vassal

c. Since YHWH was the King, He utilized the judge to effect His rulership over His vassal, Israel. The judge was invested with YHWH’s power and authority

The judges did not function properly. YHWH faithfully delivers his people through weak judges.

V. The Bethlehem Trilogy:6

JUDGES 17--18

JUDGES 19--20

RUTH 1--4

A Levite of Bethlehem (17:7)

A Levite of Ephraim who took as his maiden a concubine from Bethlehem

A movement from a Moabite to David in Bethlehem 4:17-22

Left to seek employment (17:7, 9)

Received his concubine from Bethlehem to which she had fled

A Man left Bethlehem, but unlike the other two stories does not ultimately deface the town, but enhances its name

Came to a young man of Ephraim (Micah) (17:1-5, 8)

Returned to Ephraim by way of Gibeah of Benjamin

Bethlehem became the subtle setting for the birthplace of King David

Served as a private chaplain in Micah’s illicit chapel (17:10-13)

Set upon by evil men who brutalized her and left her for dead

 

Hired by the tribe of Dan as a priest and relocated in Laish (N. Galilee)

Her husband related the event to all of Israel (cut up)

 

Established a cult center which continually caused God’s people to stumble

They attacked the tribe of Benjamin almost annihilating it

 

The Levite was Jonathan the son of Gershom and the grandson of Moses (18:30)

Repopulated Benjamin with women from Shiloh and Jabesh Gilead for the 600 surviving men of Benjamin

 
 

Jabesh-Gilead was (probably) the home of Saul’s ancestors [thus his interest in it]7

 
 

Reflects badly on Benjamin and by implication Saul--Saul’s ancestors humiliated and disgraced a Bethlehemite

 
 

Bethlehem suffered at the hands of Benjaminites

 

In Those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in His own eyes
(Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25; cf. Ruth 1:1)

VI. Purposes for Judges:

A. To develop the historical period from the conquest of the land to the time of Israel’s first king

B. Not simply to present history as it was, but to present a theological perspective on the period of the judges (cf. Joshua 24:14-28; Judges 2:6-13)

C. To present YHWH as faithful to His covenant to Abraham even through the people break their covenant with Him and never repent of their evil (cf. Deut 11:26-28; 28:15)

D. To remind the people that YHWH is faithful to His covenant and that He, not a judge or king, is the One ultimately responsible for the welfare of Israel

E. To stress for Saul (?) the obligation of obedience to YHWH with the understanding that blessing ultimately does not depend upon one’s own personal might or worthiness but upon YHWH’s faithfulness (1 Samuel will underscore this theme)

F. If God is raising up someone in every generation to do battle with evil (Gen 3:15) then the number of judges may be equal to the number of generations. This would make the book of Judges a complete list but with a theological theme.

If the book was written for King Saul, then he is one who is being raised up during a particular generation to do battle with evil and is thus being warned about evil battle before him!


1 Baba Bathra, 14b.

2 A.E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth, 192.

3 Wood, A Survey of Israel's History, 88-90.

4 See Donald K. Campbell, Joshua, in BKC, 1:357.

5 The internal record of the chronology from Egypt to Moab is helpful in a reconstruction of the dates:

(1) The people departed from Egypt on the fifteenth day of the first month--March/April [Nisan] 15, 1446 (Num 33:3; cf. Ex. 12:2 ,5)

(2) The people reached the wilderness of Sinai on the first day of the third month--May/June [Sivan] 1, 1446 (Ex 19:1)

(3) The tabernacle was erected on the first day of the first month of the second year--March/April [Nisan] 1, 1445 (Ex. 40:17)

(4) Leviticus is given during the one month interval immediately following the filling of the Tabernacle by the glory of YHWH and before the people prepared to leave Sinai for the promised land--March/April [Nisan] 1-30, 1445 (Num 1:1; cf. Ex 40:17)

(5) Numbers opens with a census taken on the first day of the second month in the second year--April/May [Iyyar or Ziv] 1, 1445 (Num 1:1)

(6) The cloud is taken up to begin to lead the people to the promised land from the wilderness of Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month of the second year--April/May [Iyyar or Ziv] 20, 1445 (Num 10:11)

(7) The people sin at Kadesh=Barnea (Num 13--14) and are sentenced to wander 40 years in the wilderness (Num 14:33). Numbers covers 38 years and nine months (cf. Num 1:1 with Deut 1:3)

(8) Aaron dies on Mount Hor on the first day of the fifth month in the fortieth year--July/August [Ab] 1, 1406 (Num 33:38)

(9) Deuteronomy opens on the Transjordan on the first day or the eleventh month of the fortieth year after what should have been an eleven day journey--January/February [Shebat] 1, 1406 (Deut 1:1-3)

6 This chart is adapted from the contents of the article by Eugene H. Merrill, The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes, Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (1985): 130-141.

7 See also 1 Samuel 31:11-13.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

Pages