MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

6. From Forgetfulness To Fruitfulness: Joseph’s Rise To Power (Genesis 41:37-57)

Related Media

We move on in the story of Joseph to a crucial turning point in his life. Now he will have the opportunity to make something of his life for God – but that will depend on his attitude. His attitude will determine whether he advances or stagnates, whether he puts the past behind him or lives in its shadow, whether he speaks for God or is silent out of fear. Now he can either take advantage of the opportunities God gives him or he can become paralyzed with the hardships he has already suffered and never do anything meaningful for God.

The subject in this study is: “Controlling your attitude”. You can consciously control your attitude in order to be effective for God. The overall principle in this segment of Joseph’s life is that... “when life is painful, you can choose to forget the past and be fruitful for God in the future.”

I. To Be Fruitful For God, We Need To Speak Boldly For Him (Gen. 41:37-40): Pharaoh Adopts Joseph’s Proposal

Following Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream and his suggested action plan, Pharaoh liked what he heard. “The advice was good in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of all his servants” (41:37). He obviously believed Joseph’s interpretation of his dream and that convinced him to accept Joseph’s proposed action plan. And who better to carry out that action plan than the interpreter of the dreams himself. “Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?” (41:38). The rhetorical answer is: “No! There is no one quite like him.”

More importantly, Pharaoh recognized and acknowledged that Joseph’s abilities (both practical and spiritual) came from God – the Spirit of God was in him. This could not be said of the wise men of Egypt, who had utterly failed the test but Joseph had passed with flying colors. What Joseph had promised had come true – “It is not me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer” (41:16).

Now Pharaoh joins all the others who put their trust in Joseph. Just as Potiphar had promoted Joseph over his whole household, so now Pharaoh promotes Joseph over the whole land. Just as the prison warden had committed all the prisoners to Joseph’s supervision and care, so now Pharaoh commits all the people of Egypt to Joseph’s supervision and care. Just as the chief butler had recommended Joseph for his ability to interpret dreams, so now Pharaoh recognizes Joseph’s abilities to govern Egypt. But more than that, Pharaoh recognized and acknowledged that Joseph’s abilities were divine in origin. Joseph is a man “in whom is the Spirit of God.” Nothing like this could ever be said of the wise men of Egypt – they had nothing to offer. But what Joseph offered was a direct result of his spirituality. What greater commendation can be made of anyone?

Should not people say the same of us? Is this not the highest approbation we can receive when others notice that the Spirit of God is in us? Is this not how we should live in such a way that others attribute our abilities and character to God? Do others see that in us? When they see our actions, our attitudes, our relationships, our values, our ethics, do they attribute them to the indwelling of the Spirit of God? Do our lives point others to God? Or, do we attract attention to ourselves?

Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Inasmuch as God has shown you all this, there is no one as discerning and wise as you. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall be ruled according to your word; only in regard to the throne will I be greater than you.” And Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘See I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” (41:39-41).

How much higher are God’s ways and thoughts than ours. Joseph had hoped that the chief butler would have secured his freedom to go back to his old position in Potiphar’s house. But now, he would go to a much higher position in Pharaoh’s house, as ruler of the land! This was far beyond anything the chief butler could have done for Joseph. Was the 2 year wait hard? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes! The time and circumstances had to be just right for this to happen. God’s timing and his ordering of our circumstances are always right.

Our challenge is to let God be God and order our lives according to his providential ways for our good. Notice these details of God’s sovereign care and control:

1. God ensured that Pharaoh needed Joseph! He needed Joseph to interpret this dream. His own wise men were totally inadequate and useless. Joseph was the only one who could solve the riddle. And he needed Joseph to solve a real and urgent problem - what to do about the impending disaster.

2. God created Pharaoh’s need. God had caused Pharaoh to have these dreams. God had rendered the wise men incapable and useless, so that Joseph stood out head and shoulders above them by comparison.

3. God provided Pharaoh’s solution. The man he needed was right in front of him. “Can we find such a one as this?... There is no one so discerning and wise as you.” There wasn’t anyone else in the whole of the Egyptian kingdom who could come close to Joseph, and Pharaoh knew it.

4. God orchestrated Pharaoh’s response. Pharaoh didn’t turn to Potiphar or his other senior officers. Instead, under the providential ordering of God, he turned to Joseph, God’s man – (a) without having had any experience with Joseph’s leadership; (b) without requiring Joseph to prove himself (no probationary period); (c) without concern for Joseph’s recent incarceration as an accused rapist who was imprisoned for an indeterminate sentence with no chance of parole; (d) without requiring Joseph to take out Egyptian citizenship even.

Pharaoh could have minimized or ridiculed what Joseph said. He could have written off Joseph’s interpretation as being a melodramatic, trumped up, highly imaginative interpretation. After all, wasn’t Egypt the world power? Wasn’t Egypt prosperous and secure? But, God opened his understanding to the reality and truth of the dreams and to the realization that only Joseph could solve the problem.

How much higher are God’s ways and thoughts than ours! We cannot fathom the ways of God nor can we contemplate the thoughts of God. As the apostle Paul puts it: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and his ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counsellor? ... For of him and through him and to him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:33-34). Or, as the prophet Isaiah puts it: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD (Isa. 55:8).

We need to learn to trust the Lord’s ways and thoughts. “For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (Jer. 29:11-13). Again in Isaiah: “... those who wait on the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint” (Isa. 40:31). And again in Romans: “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). Do we really believe that?

So, suddenly, Joseph’s life changes and he has authority over all Egypt; only Pharaoh was higher than he. What a dramatic turn of events! What a roller coaster ride from Potiphar’s house to Pharaoh court; from prison to parliament; from obscurity to notoriety; from false accusation to true recognition. I wonder what he must have thought about his life so far. Was he beginning to see the big picture? Could he see a pattern here? Was his life beginning to make sense? Could he see how God was working? Did the pain of betrayal, false accusation, and mistreatment begin to blend into the background of God’s sovereign ways? Did he now realize that all the events that had transpired so far in his life were part of a bigger plan? Could he now see the future with clarity?

When Joseph was suddenly promoted by Pharaoh he must have pumped a little fist: “Yes! Finally!” All of sudden he must have seen the culmination of his dreams of greatness from 13 years ago. All of a sudden he was vindicated! Dreams do come true! The dreams he had had so many years before were a revelation from God and not the stomach flu!

II. When We Speak Boldly For God, He Opens Up Opportunities We Never Dreamed Of (Gen. 41:41-45): Joseph’s Appointment And Authority

Pharaoh is convinced of Joseph’s suitability for this position. First, because Joseph had demonstrated his spiritual power by interpreting dreams with 100% accuracy. That’s a spiritual power that no one else in the kingdom had. No wonder Pharaoh concluded that the Spirit of God was in him.

And second, because Joseph had demonstrated his practical skills. He had served Potiphar well when he was in charge of his house (39:4). He had served the prison keeper well when he was in charge of the prisoners (39:22). So, now Pharaoh sets Joseph over the whole land. “See I have set you over all the land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh took his signet ring off his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand and he clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. And he had him ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried out before him, “Bow the knee!” So he set him over all the land of Egypt” (41:41-43).

Joseph is endowed with privilege, power, and prestige. That’s what high ranking government official have.

1. Joseph had royal privilege. He rode in his own private chariot from Pharaoh’s collection, just like having the presidential seal on the side, or like having the ER II emblem on the side. His royal privileges extended to private body guards who went ahead of his chariot, clearing the way of any security risks or demonstrators or hindrances (41:43).

2. Joseph had dictatorial power. The extent of his power was total. It stretched from Pharaoh’s house and to all the people of Egypt. He was set “over the whole land of Egypt” (41:41). He would “rule” over the entire land; his word was final (41:40). He was the king’s vice regent. First, his power was authorized and sealed with the gift of Pharaoh’s “signet ring” (41:42). This gave Joseph financial and legal authority. He could seal all the official documents with this ring. He was now the king’s official right hand man with all the power that went with that position. He could sign documents and authorize actions just as though the king was doing it himself. Second, his power was evident in his “garments of fine linen” (41:42). Now he had a wardrobe fit for a king: it went with the position. Fine linen was the most expensive Egyptian fabric (cotton). Third, his power was displayed in the “gold chain around his neck” (41:42). This was the symbol of power and wealth and position. Joseph had full and complete political power. There was no one was greater than he in the land, except Pharaoh himself. No one had more authority than he, except Pharaoh himself. Pharaoh said, “I am Pharaoh and without your consent no man may lift his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt” (41:44). That’s incredible power and position and privilege.

Not only was Joseph the most powerful man in Egypt under the king, but he was also the most powerful political ruler in the known world!

3. Joseph had presidential prestige. He rode in a royal chariot and his own front men cleared the way and demanded that people “bow the knee” before him. This was the height of prestige and pomp. And on top of all this…

4. Joseph had a cultural identification (41:45). First, Pharaoh gives Joseph a new, Egyptian name – “Zaphenath-Paneah.” Among the various translations of Joseph’s new name, “the God who speaks and lives” seems to be the most common. While the reference to “God” might refer to the Egyptian gods (“Nath” was an Egyptian goddess), nonetheless, perhaps Pharaoh was recognizing Joseph’s God who had enabled Joseph to interpret his dreams – “the God who speaks and lives.” So, perhaps this was a clever way for Pharaoh to acknowledge Joseph’s God while at the same time giving Joseph a more acceptable Egyptian name.

Second, Pharaoh gives Joseph a new Egyptian wife – “Asenath, daughter of Poti-Phera, priest of On” (41:45). I suppose Pharaoh would have concluded in his pagan logic that Joseph should have a religious wife, in keeping with Joseph’s religious bent. This woman’s name includes the same reference to “nath” and her father was a priest. So, Joseph was solidly identified with Egypt, even though he probably would not have chosen this way of doing it. As Gene Getz observes: “Together this couple not only represented the king of Egypt but deity as well. Their name would constantly remind people of their religious position in the kingdom” (Getz, 104).

III. When God Opens Up Opportunities, He Gives Us The Ability We Need (Gen. 41:46-57): Joseph Puts His Plan Into Action

Notice that the narrator repeats: “Joseph went over all the land of Egypt (vv. 45 and 46) doing what a new prime minister does - getting to know his country and his people. And between these two clauses is sandwiched the statement that “Joseph was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh the king of Egypt” (41:46). By structuring the story this way, the narrator is forcing us to ask some questions:

1. Would a young man of 30 years old with no governing experience be able to govern this vast, new country? Would the people respect him? Would he have the knowledge? Would he be able to handle the power?

2. Would a young man of 30 with no political experience be able to deal with the country’s worst economic recession? What would he do? Would he carry out his own advice? How would he administer this program? Will his God who interprets dreams also enable him to deliver them from the famine?

3. Would a young man of 30 be able to handle the position with its privilege, pressure, power, and prestige? Will he fall flat on his face? Will he be trapped by pride? Will he squander this opportunity?

The narrator has given us some pointers for the answers. First, Joseph had already proven that he was a survivor. Through God’s protection and deliverance he has already survived the depths of rejection in a pit. He has already survived the shame of slavery. He has already risen from slavery to Potiphar’s estate manager. He has already survived sexual temptation by the boss’ wife. He has already survived prison life and behaved admirably. He has already risen from a prisoner in general population to the prison supervisor.

This is a man who has faced numerous enormous obstacles in his short life and has come out smelling like a rose, or, to coin a biblical phrase, “like gold refined in the fire”(Rev. 3:18; cf. 1 Pet. 1:7). Severe testing was Joseph’s strong point. He evidently had nerves of steel. He evidently had the smarts to withstand extreme pressure. He evidently had the courage to face obstacles head on. He evidently had the confidence in God to carry him through. He evidently had the right attitude to survive, not becoming bitter or wallowing in self-pity but always being willing to leave things with God and move on.

So, first, one pointer as to whether Joseph was up to the job was that he had already proven himself to be a survivor. And another key (and the primary) factor is that God was with Joseph. Here is the key to understanding the whole of Joseph’s variegated life. Remember our thesis of this study: No matter what others may have meant for evil, God meant it for good.” God had been weaving together the multi-colored strands of his life to produce a beautiful tapestry that no multi-colored coat could equal or portray.

Let’s consider now how this applies to our own lives:

1. We need to be constantly aware of the providence of God in our lives. This is what helps us to deal with disappointments, false accusations, injustice. This is what keeps us going through the hard times.

2. We need to be convinced of God’s role for us in life. If we are living in obedience and using the gifts he has given us, then that gives us assurance during hard times. Joseph knew that his dreams would come true. Undoubtedly that’s what kept him going, even though he may have had his moments of doubts and questions. But there were significant purposes for his testing:

a) So that he would mature spiritually, physically, and emotionally.

b) So that he could gain valuable experience – e.g. managing Potiphar’s estate, supervising prisoners.

c) So that when the time came, Pharaoh would know that he was the only man who could solve his problem.

d) So that he could experience God’s sustaining grace in the most desperate of circumstances, which grace would stand by him during the hard leadership years ahead.

e) So that he would learn to wait on and trust God.

f) So that he would know without a doubt that God was working on his behalf carrying out his purposes.

g) So that his perseverance would be fully developed, for he would certainly need it in the years to come.

While we wait, let’s do so in the confidence that God is working out his purposes in our lives. He hasn’t forgotten about us nor has he cast us aside. Getting us prepared and ready for the next stage in life is all part of God’s purposes for us. So, consider the times of waiting, of mistreatment, of false accusations etc.. to be all part of God’s preparation of us.

Joseph now has to prove that he can do the job and that the plan will work (Gen. 41:47-57). As Joseph predicted, there were 7 years of plenty (41:47-49). And Joseph executes the plan exactly as he had described it to Pharaoh. If you don’t have a plan, one thing is for certain, you’ll never achieve it. “Plan your work and work your plan” was a motto that Joseph followed. So, he organized the storage of the excess crops during these 7 plentiful years. Just as he had said, the “ground brought forth abundantly” (41:47). And in every city, Joseph put in storage food from the surrounding fields (41:48). In fact, he “gathered very much grain as the sand of the sea until he stopped counting, for it was immeasurable” (41:49). That’s how productive and fruitful the crops were, like the grains of sand on the sea shore, immeasurably abundant.

When God carries out his promises, he does so in abundance so that there is no doubt that this is from God; so that no one could question the connection between these 7 years of plenty and Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream. In Paul’s words, “so that the excellence of the power may of God and not of us” ( 2 Cor. 4:7).

This doesn’t mean that Joseph escaped criticism. Even though it was obvious to any casual observer that this was the direct result of Joseph’s prediction, there were probably those who grumbled and criticized him. I can hear them now, saying: “Why can’t we eat this food and enjoy it while it lasts. Who says there are going to be 7 bad years - no one knows the future? This man’s nothing but a dictator, on a power trip.” These are the kind of comments, complaints, and criticism that leaders have to deal with.

Then, after the seven years of plenty, as Joseph predicted, came the 7 bad years (41:53-57). The entire known, inhabited world was thrown into economic and social chaos as the famine spread. After year 1, I can hear some people saying: “Well, we’ve had years like this before. I remember 1936 when the sun was so hot we fried eggs on the steps of the town hall.” Or, “The climate has always gone in cycles. This is nothing new – this too shall pass.” Or, “We’ve had droughts as long as I can remember. In fact western Canada has experienced multi-year episodes in the 1890s, 1910s, 1930s, 1960s, 1980s, and the early 2000’s. So, this is no big deal. We’ll get through this. In fact, we’ll come out of this stronger than ever. We know how to look after ourselves. We don’t need this power-monger in Cairo telling us what to do.”

But as year followed year without any abating of the famine, there was one difference between Egypt and the rest of the world: “The famine was in all the lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was bread” (41:54).

So, year 1 was followed by year 2 and by year 2 by year 3. By now the people were hungry. Children are crying to their parents for food. Old people were languishing from lack of nourishment. Households were desperate all across Egypt and around the world. “So when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread. Then Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, ‘Go to Joseph; whatever he says to you, do’” (41:55). Joseph had both the responsibility and authority for administering the program for the entire country

How much trust Pharaoh expressed here in Joseph! “He’s my man! Talk to him! He’s got the plan!” It’s almost as if Pharaoh said to the people: “Look, don’t call me; go to Joseph.” Actually, Pharaoh knew that only Joseph and Joseph’s God could pull them through this crisis for “The famine was over all the face of the earth and Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians. And the famine became severe in the land of Egypt” (41:56).

Well, Joseph’s food bank program worked flawlessly. But human nature being what it is there must have been enormous challenges facing Joseph, like how to maintain honesty and fairness among people desperate for food. He probably had to deal with food lines that erupted in fist fights, people trying to steal food for the black market, and how to handle illegal immigrants who were sneaking across the Israeli border into Egypt looking for food, for “all countries came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain, because the famine was severe in all lands” (41:57).

Joseph was dealing with a worldwide famine. All eyes were on him. The survival of millions of people depended on his program. Where do you think that Joseph first learned how to handle this kind of administration (albeit on a smaller scale)? That’s right, in Potiphar’s household (no small task) and in prison where he supervised all the prisoners (no small task). Now he is “set over all the land of Egypt” (41:41) and Pharaoh is directing people to deal with him alone – and whatever he tells you to do, just do it (Maybe that where Nike got there line from – “just do it”)

Now while all of this is going on Joseph’s family expands (41:50-52). In between these two paragraphs (vv. 47-49 and vv. 53-57), the narrator tells us about Joseph’s family life. While the food bank program is in its first stage (storing food for later), Joseph’s family expands. “Before the year of the famine came... Joseph had two sons” (41:50). He was “making proverbial hay while the sun shines.” Soon he would have no time for this. His firstborn son he names Manasseh: “For God has made me forget all my toil and all my father’s house” (41:51). Isn’t that great! This must surely be the key to Joseph’s survival - his attitude! All the pain and suffering of the last 13 years he puts behind him. All the rejection by his father’s house he puts behind him. Now he has his own life to live and nothing of the past is going to hold him back. God had removed the sting of the past and he has moved on.

How can he do this? The name of his firstborn sons tells us: “For God has made me forget all my toil and all my father’s house” (41:51). He attributes it all to the grace of God. He didn’t do it – God did. He knew exactly that in the eyes of God he was elect and precious, and nothing was going to rob him of that.

So many people can’t ever get out of what Bunyan called “the slough of despond.” Their past haunts them like a never-ending nightmare. They know where they want to run but can’t. They never get past asking, “Why me?” They never get past searching for answers. They never enjoy what God has provided for the present – forgiveness, peace, joy, family, friends etc. They never look forward to what God has for the future. They live their lives constantly digging around in the attic of their past with all its skeletons and bad memories.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t reflect on the past, we should, but not to dwell on it, not to stay there. But rather to turn bad into good, to rid ourselves of any bitterness, or malice, to see how the experience of the past can shape our thinking, attitudes, behavior, and relationships for good going forward. I don’t want to diminish the pain of those experiences – they are tragic and painful. I have had them; I know. I know how painful it felt when my father criticized me and cut me out of his life for many years. He even quoted 2 Cor. 13:5 to me, doubting my salvation, all because I was not adhering to the church tradition he was. And this just when I was about to enter the most spiritually fruitful time of my life! Anyway, I decided to move on past that – not live there; not dwell on something for which he was responsible, not me. And while I don’t have the capacity to consciously forget something, I can live in the control of God’s Spirit, not in the control of my memory. I decided that my life would not be ruined by someone else’s distorted thinking. I can live in the joy of God’s abounding grace and not in the pain of the past. The whole point of salvation is that we are new creatures in Christ, “the old is gone, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17).

Joseph named his second son Ephraim: “For God has cause me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction (41:52). Unbelievable! What a wonderful attitude! What emotional healing had taken place without a psychiatrist, counsellor, or self-help group! It was all of God.

What a transformation that would make in our country if our leading politicians lived in such consciousness of God. And if we can just get this notion through our heads, our whole attitude to life would change too. You can make a conscious choice how you live your life. You can decide to spend your life trapped in the past, wallowing in despair and self-pity, or you can spend your life living in the joy of the Lord, being “fruitful” for him “in the land of your affliction.” By the grace of God you can turn sorrow into joy. You can turn barrenness into fruitfulness for God. It’s your choice. You decide whether you want your to life to count for something for eternity or not. You decide what kind of legacy you want to leave behind. You decide whether to live looking in the rear view mirror or looking ahead through the windshield of the future. It’s all a matter of attitude – it’s your choice. And by the grace of God you can change your attitude.

Remember out thesis for this study: “When life is painful you can choose to forget the past and be fruitful for God in the future.” You can go like Joseph “from forgetfulness to fruitfulness.” Joseph had turned his back on the past and was using all of the talents and opportunities God had given him to make a difference now, to be fruitful now, even in “the land of his affliction.” By God’s grace you can turn away from the past and face the brightness of God’s future in Christ and make your life count for God.

FINAL REMARKS

Well, even though most of us will not experience this rags-to-riches story of Joseph, we will benefit from the same principles as he did.

1. You can endure significant, lengthy trials by God’s grace, even betrayal, false accusations, and injustice. For 13 long years Joseph’s life was the pits. It must have seemed like eternity until his life turned a corner. But despite the suffering and the length of time, Joseph did not lose hope in God. He may have been a slave in Egypt but he did not become a slave to the past or to self-pity. He may have been a prisoner in Egypt but he did not become a prisoner to doubt or discouragement.

2. You can be free from the burden of bad memories. While you cannot erase your memories (only God can consciously forget), you can be free from their burden. You do not need to be controlled by bad memories; they need not defeat you or hold you captive. By God’s sustaining and liberating grace and mercy you can consciously choose whom you will serve. Like Joseph, “when life is painful, you can choose to forget the past and be fruitful for God in the future.”

Paul says this: “Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16). You can choose whether you want to be a slave to bad memories, bad experiences, bad relationships, bad friends, bad behavior, bad habits. You can choose whether to occupy your thoughts with good things – those things that “are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report” (Phil. 4:8) – or with bad things. If you can’t do it on your own, then find a mentor or professional counsellor who can help you deal with it, but don’t spend your life tormented by the past.

3. Don’t let the past hold you back from serving God now. Joseph could have easily pleaded inability (emotional, psychological, experiential etc.) to step into the position that God opened up for him, but he didn’t. Instead he stepped out in the boldness of faith which God supplied, trusting God for daily ability, strength etc. Like Joseph, “when life is painful, you can choose to forget the past and be fruitful for God in the future.” So many people fail to use their lives productively for God because something in the past haunts them. This is the work of Satan and not of God.

4. Let the past experiences prepare you to persevere. Joseph had seen the hardship of a lifetime by the time he was 30 years old - favoritism, rejection by family, mistreatment, injustice, false accusations, betrayal. But instead of that crippling him it enabled him to face the future, it strengthened him to meet obstacles head on. In all the tests and trials that lay ahead in his life nothing would daunt him, discourage him, or deter him. His sufferings had truly taught him to persevere. The Hebrew Christians were becoming discouraged with opposition and suffering, so much so that they were in danger of quitting their Christianity. So, the writer of Hebrews spurs them on: “You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised” (Heb. 10:36). It says of Moses that he “persevered because he saw him who is invisible” (Heb. 11:27). Writing to encourage the Thessalonians, Paul says: “We boast of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure” (2 Thess. 1:4). James says: “Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (James 1:4). And Peter says: “For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love” (2 Pet 1:5-7).

It’s all a matter of attitude, and you can control that. Satan wants you to give up but you can choose to be fruitful in the land of your affliction. Let us make our past experiences of hardship and suffering and bad memories the building block for future fruitfulness rather than the depth charge of despair and doubt.

Related Topics: Character Study, Christian Life

7. The Truth About Reconciliation, Pt.1: The Conscience Must Be Activated (Gen. 42:1-28)

Related Media

After spending 27 years in prison for his fight against apartheid, Nelson Mandela was finally released and subsequently elected president of South Africa. At his inauguration he invited his jailer to join him on the platform for the ceremony. Then, in a bold step to try to diffuse the violence and hatred that revenge often generates, he appointed Archbishop Desmond Tutu to head an official government panel called “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (TRC). For the next 2 ½ years, news of atrocities became public as the TRC heard case after case.

In his book, Rumours of Another World, Philip Yancey writes:

“... the rules were simple: if a white policeman or army officer voluntarily faced his accusers, confessed his crime, and fully acknowledged his guilt, he could not be tried and punished for that crime. Hardliners grumbled about the obvious injustice of letting criminals go free, but Mandela insisted that the country needed healing even more than it needed justice.

At one hearing, a policeman named van de Brock recounted an incident when he and other officers shot an 18 year old boy and burned the body, turning it on the fire like a piece of barbecue meat in order to destroy the evidence. Eight years later, van de Brock returned to the same house and seized the boy’s father. The wife was forced to watch as policemen bound her husband on a woodpile, poured gasoline over his body, and ignited it.

The courtroom grew hushed as the elderly woman who had lost first her son and then her husband was given a chance to respond. “What do you want from Mr. Van de Brock?” the judge asked. She said she wanted Van de Brock to go to the place where they burned her husband’s body and gather up the dust so she could give him a decent burial. With his head down, the policeman nodded agreement.

Then she added a further request, “Mr. Van de Brock took all my family away from me, and I still have a lot of love to give. Twice a month, I would like for him to come to the ghetto and spend a day with me so I can be a mother to him.”

Spontaneously, some in the courtroom began singing “Amazing Grace” as the elderly woman made her way to the witness stand, but Van de Brock did not hear the hymn. He had fainted, overwhelmed.

Justice was not done in South Africa that day, nor in the entire country during months of agonizing procedures by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Something beyond justice took place. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” said Paul. Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu understood that when evil is done, one response alone can overcome it. Revenge perpetuates the evil. Justice punishes it. Evil is overcome by good only if the injured party absorbs it, refusing to allow it to go any further. And that is the pattern of the other worldly grace that Jesus showed in his life and death.” (Philip Yancey, “Rumours of Another World”, 222-224).

Well, we can fully understand from Joseph’s history how he could have been full of anger and the desire for revenge against his brothers for the injustices that they had done to him. But, of course, we must never take revenge or retaliation against those who offend us, not even our enemies, according to Jesus. Instead, what we must do is what Joseph did – seek reconciliation the biblical way.

And the biblical approach to reconciliation is (1) to make the offender aware of their sin against you; (2) assure them of your love for them in the Lord; (3) await their confession of the sin; (4) give time for their evidence of genuine repentance; (5) then assure them of your forgiveness.

Our subject is, “The Truth About Reconciliation” and the sometimes painful process of reconciliation between estranged parties. The lesson in this passage is that the conscience must be activated in the process of reconciliation and forgiveness.

Pop psychology currently promotes the idea that if someone sins against you, all you need to do is forgive them, whether that person acknowledges their sin or not, whether that person is repentant or not. Unilaterally forgiving the offender may make you feel better about yourself but it is not the biblical approach to dealing with offences; and it doesn’t bring about reconciliation, which ought to be our aim in all relational offences – i.e. “to win our brother.”

Now, I’m not talking here about minor offences, which should never be made an issue. Minor offences should not be made into federal cases. Most minor offences we leave with the Lord, seeking his grace so that we do not develop a bitter spirit. This must be our first concern – to deal with our own hearts. Sometimes I think that when people talk about unilaterally forgiving someone for a heinous crime what they are really talking about is dealing with their own hearts. And we must deal with our hearts before God. We must not let a root of bitterness spring up. That can destroy us, cause havoc in the church and damage the public testimony to the gospel.

If we seek to right every wrong no matter how minor by confronting offenders about their offence, we could spend most of our lives dealing with these issues. Most offences fall into the category of “minor” and are not worthy of any further action. In many cases, the person might not even have been aware that they had offended you. But where there is a significant offence, as in the case of Joseph and his brothers, forgiveness cannot be truly extended by the offended party unless there is an acknowledgement of sin by the offender, accompanied by evidence of genuine repentance. This is the only biblical process to true and lasting reconciliation. This is the biblical approach to true forgiveness. Forgiveness is not a unilateral act.

Some people quote Jesus on the cross, claiming that he unilaterally forgave his enemies. But is that true? Yes, he prayed, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). But this was a request of his Father, one which was only granted, I would argue, upon the confession of their sins and repentance. They were not instantly absolved of their sin of crucifying Jesus, as Peter in Acts makes clear (e.g. Acts 2:36; 3:14f.).

Now I know that some people find it hard to forgive. Perhaps you’re one of them. Self-vindication is a powerful emotion. Retaliation rises so quickly in our hearts. It is to these responses that Jesus spoke when he said we should do good to those who hurt us.

In Joseph we see the epitome of godly reconciliation with those who have offended him. And it’s worse, isn’t it, when it’s our own flesh and blood. Yet, Joseph’s first desire is to bring about healing and wholeness to their relationship. Already we have seen many instances when Joseph could have become mired in (1) self-pity (“Why me? Why did I get thrown into a pit like an animal? Why did I get sent to prison for a crime I didn’t commit?”) and (2) retaliation (“I’ll get that butler when my time comes.”).

Sometimes God uses strange and harsh circumstances to bring about the restoration of relationships. Who would have thought that the primary focus of the famine in Egypt was to reconcile Joseph and his brothers? Is that overkill or what? No! This is how strongly God views relationships.

Now let’s look at the story as it continues to unfold. We begin now to trace this story through the process of reconciliation and we find that in order for reconciliation to take place, the conscience must be activated. There are several ways in which a person’s conscience can be activated…

I. The Conscience Is Activated Through Confrontation (42:1-14)

In God’s providence, the famine drives Joseph’s brothers to Egypt. Somehow, Jacob gets word that there is food in Egypt (42:1-2). It seems that Joseph’s brothers weren’t terribly motivated to do anything about the food situation. They were probably sitting around telling each other how bad things were but not taking any initiative. Their irresponsible attitude continues – nothing has changed. So, Jacob says to them: “Don’t just stand there ... do something!” “Go down to that place and buy for us there, so that we may live and not die” (42:2). That’s how bad things were – this was a matter of life and death. It would only be a matter of time before they starve to death.

But Jacob, wily as ever, “did not send Joseph’s brother Benjamin with his brothers, for he said, ‘Lest some calamity befall him’” (42:4). Evidently, Jacob is still smarting and grieving over Joseph’s apparent death by a supposed animal. Joseph had been his favorite son and now, apparently, Benjamin has taken that place. What an irony! A “calamity” had previously befallen his first favorite son; now Jacob fears a “calamity” for his second favorite son. Evidently Jacob did not trust his 10 sons – and quite justifiably. These were the boys who had killed the men of Shechem. Judah was the son who made his daughter-in-law pregnant after committing harlotry with her. These weren’t exactly lily white Sunday School boys.

“And the sons of Israel went to buy grain” (42:5). You can hear the music in the background – dum-de-dum-dum. The storyteller is bringing us to the inevitable moment when the brothers meet Joseph (42:6-14). Joseph is now governor over the land and everyone who wanted to buy grain came before him. Imagine this scene as the ten brothers “bowed down before him with their faces to the earth” (42:6). Another huge irony! The very thing they said years before that they would never do, they are now doing (37:8, 10-11).

We can only imagine what Joseph must have been feeling. What was going through his mind? How would he react? There were only 10 of them - where is Benjamin? Should he reveal himself to them right away? But if he did perhaps he might not find out what he really wanted to know; perhaps they would lie to him - after all, he knew what they were like. So, “he acted as a stranger to them and spoke roughly to them. The he said to them, ‘Where do you come from?’ And they said, ‘From the land of Canaan to buy food’” (42:7).

Joseph immediately “recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him (42:8). This is understandable as he was only a 17 year old teenager when they saw him last and some 23 years have intervened. They hadn’t seen hide nor hair of him since the day they handed him over to the Midianite slave traders on that fateful day (37:27-28). Probably his appearance had changed, not just from the passage of time but also due to his cultural and regal attire. And furthermore, they certainly didn’t expect to meet him in this position, the Prime Minister of Egypt, the governor of state.

Then Joseph remembered the dreams (42:9), the dream of their sheaves of wheat bowing down to his sheaf, the dream of the 11 stars and the sun and moon bowing to him. And he remembered their reaction to his dreams, their hatred, their murderous plot. This dream was really coming true! God was confirming once more that he was with Joseph and that the dreams were visions from God. Perhaps in that instant, he understood the sovereign ways of God in his life – something perhaps that he had not fully understood before. God had orchestrated all the events of his life – the good, the bad, and the ugly – to accomplish his purposes not only in Joseph’s life but also in the lives of his brothers, his father, and all their descendants who would comprise the nation of Israel.

What would he do now? Would he retaliate as he certainly could? If so, how? Perhaps he would send them to death row to experience the threat of death that he had experienced. Perhaps he would deny their request for food and send them home empty handed to let them slowly starve to death. But no, Joseph wasn’t looking for retaliation nor to scare them. You can see the wheels turning in Joseph’s mind - what to do? Perhaps he would reveal everything right now.

But no, wisely Joseph decides to hold back. Before anything else he must find out the truth. After all, they were expert liars – he knew that from experience. These were men without moral scruples. These were men who would stop at nothing to accomplish their purposes. Had they changed since he last knew them? Were they reformed men? Were they still treating their father with disrespect? Worse yet, had they killed Jacob to keep their dirty little secret safe? How were they treating his little brother? Was he still alive?

So, this is what he decided to do - Joseph confronts them: “You are spies! You have come to see the nakedness of the land!” (42:9). The threat of spying must have struck fear into their hearts. Images of the gallows must have danced in their heads. Desperately they plead their innocence. You can hear the terror in their reply: “No, my lord, but your servants have come to buy food. We are all one man’s sons; we are honest men; your servants are not spies (42:10-12). Really? Honest men? Since when?

Notice now, Joseph is their “lord” and they are his “servants”. Funny how things change, isn’t it? Perhaps if they revealed their family history, that would boost their credibility with this man, the governor of the land? Well, that’s exactly what Joseph wanted to hear. Evidently, he had questioned them about this (cf. 43:7) for they say: “Your servants are 12 brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and, in fact, the youngest is with our father today, and one is no more” (42:13). “Oh, really?” Joseph must have thought. “Is that so? I don’t believe you. But we’ll find out.”

So, first, the conscience is activated through confrontation. And second ...

II. The Conscience Is Activated Through Testing (42:15-28)

Test #1: The test of guilt (42:15-24). “‘In this manner you shall be tested: By the life of Pharaoh, you shall not leave this place unless your youngest brother comes here. Send one of you, and let him bring your brother; and you shall be kept in prison, that your words may be tested to see whether there is any truth in you; or else, by the life of Pharaoh, surely you are spies!’ So he put them all together in prison three days” (42:15-16). “If what you say is true (that your youngest brother is at home with your father and that another brother is “no more”), prove it. One of you go and fetch your youngest brother and the rest of you can jolly well stay in jail until he comes so that your words can be tested to see whether you are telling the truth.”

That was clever wasn’t it? Keep nine of them as collateral security (otherwise known as hostages) to ensure that the other one comes back with Benjamin. I think I hear Joseph say: “So there! Let’s see if you are honest men.” I think that’s what Joseph was saying when he “put them all together in prison for three days (42:17). There, they could think for a bit about who they were and what they had said and done. The pressure must have been overwhelming. They all needed time to cool down and think.

What an ironic reversal of fortunes now! They had previously thrown Joseph into a pit. Now the tide had turned and they were being thrown into jail by Joseph! Things aren’t looking good for the boys.

After three days, Joseph softens his approach and test. “Do this and live, for I fear God” (42:18). Here was the first clue that Joseph gave to his brothers as to who he was - he was a worshipper of Yahweh, just like them. And the question that is inferred to the others is: Are you right with God? Do you worship him? Or are you still living like heathen men?

Here’s the test of their spiritual condition: they must bring Benjamin to Joseph. “‘If you are honest men (the implication being: if you are, you don’t have anything to lose or fear), let one of your brothers be confined to your prison house; but you, go and carry grain for the famine of your houses. And bring your youngest brother to me; so your words will be verified and you shall not die.’ And they did so.” (42:18-20). Perhaps, after thinking about it for three days, Joseph decided that keeping nine brothers in custody while one returned for Benjamin might be a bit stiff. So, he reversed it – one will stay while nine will go home to fetch Benjamin. Perhaps, as he reflected on the situation, he realized that for them to take grain home for Jacob it would require more than one person. Or, perhaps he figured that it would be too hard on his father if only one brother returned. In any event, the brothers agreed to the test – after all, what choice did they have?

You see guilt must be realized. It cannot be masked forever; it will eventually come out. What had been their worst nightmare all these years now is verbalized by them. Try as they might have for the last 23 years to hide their sin, it was just like yesterday. Isn’t that the way our consciences work? You might try to put things behind you but unless they are dealt with, they keep coming back. Your conscience nails you, like a jack hammer pounding away in the background, saying, “You’re going to get caught. You know you did it. You need to confess.” Sometimes, my wife and I watch detective shows about real detectives, investigating real crimes. And so often, they wait and wait to find the culprit and when they get someone, they interrogate them until they finally confess. And all the while the culprit is being interrogated you can see their consciences pounding away at them.

That’s what happened to the brothers. “They said to one another, ‘We are truly guilty concerning our brother, for we saw the anguish of his soul when he pleaded with us and we would not hear; therefore this distress has come upon us’” (42:21). Perhaps this was the first time they had discussed their guilt openly with one another. That’s what prison can do to you! Reality sets in and the conscience pricks oh so hard and “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Lk. 6:45). This was the only way they could get some relief – to talk about it. And they not only talk about it, they actually confess what they had done was sin. This is good! Spiritual progress is being made now. Joseph’s wisdom in handling this encounter was evident again. God is with him.

Reuben said to his brothers: ““Did I not speak to you saying, ‘Do not sin against the boy’ and you would not listen? Therefore, behold, his blood is now required of us”“(42:22). “This is why we are in this mess – because you would not listen to me. I told you so.” There’s always an “I-told-you-so” in the crowd. Perhaps this was a way for Reuben to lessen the guilt – “If you had just listened to me, things would be different now. I am morally a step above the rest of you. It’s all your fault.”

Don’t you see the dramatic irony here? I think it’s wonderful how the biblical narrators constructed their stories so very carefully, very skillfully. The story teller says (like an “aside” in a play): “But they did not know that Joseph understood them, for he spoke to them through an interpreter (42:23). Hearing their conversation, Joseph was overcome emotionally, so “he turned himself away from them and wept” (42:24a).

Doesn’t this remind you of John 11:35, “Jesus wept.” Jesus wept in sympathy with the grief of Mary and the Jews at the grave of Lazarus. He wept perhaps because of their unbelief in his power. He wept perhaps because of the ravages that sin had caused – disease, depression, disaster, sorrow, guilt, and death. And here Joseph wept. Perhaps he too wept because of all the sorrow and trouble that sin had caused in his family. Perhaps because of the lost years of family relationships. Perhaps because he saw the torment of soul through which his brothers were currently passing. Perhaps because it didn’t have to be this way - they could have acted differently back then; they could have believed his dreams, or at least waited to see if they came true. Perhaps he wept as he realizes that this was the moment that God had been preparing him for all these years. Perhaps he wept out of a combination of sorrow and joy - sorrow about what had happened and the consequences for his brothers, but joy that he can see the possibility of reconciliation because of their recognition of guilt.

But is this true and lasting remorse? It’s one thing to be sorry for what you’ve done because you got caught. It’s quite another thing to be truly remorseful for your sin. Remember our thesis for this message: The conscience must be activated in the process of reconciliation and forgiveness. Evidence of true repentance takes time. That’s why people should not be in a hurry in matters of reconciliation. Acknowledge and accept the expression of remorse, yes. But only time will tell if the offender is truly remorseful. Genuine repentance is manifested in a dramatic and lasting change in a person’s behavior, relationships, attitudes, speech, spiritual practices etc. Only when that is evident can there be true and lasting reconciliation.

In order to be sure his brothers are truly repentant, Joseph still did not reveal himself to them. Joseph would not let emotion override what he knew to be the right course of action. So, “he took Simeon from them and bound him before their eyes” (42:24b). What a dramatic turn of events from a few years ago. They had captured Joseph and bound him in a pit. Now the tables are turned and there is nothing they can do about it – Joseph is all powerful. All they can do is return home as he had instructed them. But what would they tell their father? How would they explain Simeon’s disappearance? With another lie? How would they persuade Jacob to let Benjamin return with them? These may have been the questions uppermost in their minds but little did they know that worse was yet to come.

Test #2: The test of honesty (42:25-28). Joseph gave the command to “fill their sacks with grain, to restore every man’s money to his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey. This he did for them. So they loaded their donkeys with the grain and departed from there (42:25-26). They probably departed with a sigh of relief but also with trepidation for what lay ahead, for they still had to tell Jacob what happened and they still had to get Simeon back. There were still big tests ahead.

Isn’t that the way it is with backsliding and sin? The way back is simple but it’s not easy. It’s simple – confess your sin, repent, and change. But it’s not easy, as there will be many tests to prove the genuineness of your repentance. The way back is simple but it’s not always quick. There are lessons to be learned, relationships to be fully restored, trust to be regained.

Joseph didn’t have to fill their sacks with grain but “this he did for them.” He could have made them wait until they brought Benjamin, but his heart would not have it so – they and their father must have food. And he gave it to them free of charge for as one of them opened his sack to give his donkey feed at the encampment, he saw his money; and there it was, in the mouth of his sack. So he said to his brothers, ‘My money has been restored, and there it is, in my sack!’” (42:27-28a).

They had stopped for the night and one brother makes the shocking discovery that the money he had paid for the grain was in his sack. How gracious is that of Joseph! What an amazing demonstration of unconditional love is that! What a dramatic contrast with the previous actions of his brothers towards him! They had sold him to slave traders and pocketed twenty shekels of silver from the deal (37:28). What did they do with that money? The question is, what will they do now with this money? This was a really clever test by Joseph. He had accused them of spying. Were they also thieves? Or, were they truly “honest men” (11) as they claimed?

When the one brother tells the others about this discovery “their hearts failed them and they were afraid” (42:28b). Basically they wet their pants with fear. Joseph already thought they were spies, Simeon is in custody and now they might be caught stealing! Things are going from bad to worse. But listen to what they said to one another, “‘What is this that God has done to us?’” (42:28c).

Finally, they seem to be getting it. Finally, there seems to be evidence that they are changed men – their consciences are at last active and they recognize God’s hand in all of this. God has been involved all along. God is in control of all that is happening to them. This isn’t just Joseph’s doing, this is God’s doing. Previously they had recognized that what was happening was the consequence of their sinful actions to Joseph. But now the lights go on – God is holding them responsible. They can’t escape God’s judicial ways.

Do you see where one sin can lead? One decision can lead us down a long road of trouble. They had gone to Egypt to buy food but look what happened – one brother’s money was in his sack. How would they explain this to Joseph? How would they explain everything to their father? He has already lost Joseph and now Simeon. How would they convince him to let them take Benjamin? “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive” (from Sir Walter Scott’s epic poem, Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field). The longer we try to cover up sin, the more complicated our lives become. The easiest and quickest way to deal with sin is to respond to our conscience by confessing it, repenting of it, and changing. Remember our thesis for this message: The conscience must be activated in the process of reconciliation and forgiveness.

Final Remarks

So, what are some of the principles in this story about sin, forgiveness, and reconciliation?

1. Sin is our worst enemy. Unconfessed sin causes us untold, extended problems.

If we try to cover it up, recovery from sin can be a long road back.

2. We need to keep short accounts with God. We must deal ruthlessly with sin in our lives. Don’t hide sin or let it linger unjudged as Joseph’s brothers had done all these years. We need to maintain an open, transparent relationship with God that makes us sensitive to sin, unable to rest until it is dealt with.

3. God will work in our lives to restore us when we sin. “... for whom the Lord loves he chastens and scourges every son whom he receives (Prov. 3:12. This is a guarantee for all believers. God does not abandon us when we sin but works in us for our restoration.

4. Before we can truly forgive someone, the offender must confess the offence and repent of it. You can’t forgive someone unless they see the need for it – otherwise, what is there to forgive? You can’t forgive sin that the other party doesn’t recognize. To do so would make forgiveness a farce. And that’s what it has become in pop psychology. There is a proper process for forgiveness of significant sins against us and the reconciliation with the offender. That’s the principle we learn from this story: The conscience must be activated in the process of reconciliation and forgiveness.

I would argue that the biblical approach to forgiveness and reconciliation is (1) to make the offender aware of their sin against you; (2) assure them of your love for them in the Lord; (3) await their confession of the sin; (4) give time for their evidence of genuine repentance; (5) assure them of your unconditional forgiveness; and (6) restore a trust relationship.

5. The restoration of the offender must be our first priority. When someone sins against us, their relationship with God should be our foremost concern, not our self-vindication. God will vindicate us if we are wronged. We must focus on the spiritual restoration of the offending party.

Related Topics: Character Study, Christian Life

8. The Truth About Reconciliation, Pt. 2: Trust Must Be Earned (Gen. 42:29-44:34)

Related Media

In the previous edition (Part 7) of this series on Joseph, our subject was: “The Truth About Reconciliation: The Conscience Must Be Activated.” We noticed that the process Joseph followed in dealing with his brothers and their offences against him was solidly based on the principles of Scripture regarding forgiveness. The process of forgiveness is not without its challenges, as each case must be evaluated on its own circumstances. In dealing with significant offences, the biblical process is that the offender must repent and confess before forgiveness can be extended and reconciliation take place.

Nonetheless, throughout this process, grace must blanket all our dealings with the offender so that he / she knows that we hold no ill feelings towards them and that we are willing to forgive. The overriding objective is to “win our brother / sister” not only to be reconciled with us but more particularly to be reconciled to God. This principle and process is supported in the N.T. by such texts as Matt. 18:15-20 (dealing with church discipline of a sinning brother), as well as in texts that deal with the reconciliation of a sinner to God – repentance and confession leads to forgiveness and reconciliation.

The foundation of reconciliation is trust. That’s our subject in this message on reconciliation: Trust must be earned. The overriding principle that we will learn from our passage is that “trust is the foundation of true, full, and lasting reconciliation.”

The question in Joseph’s mind is surely about trust. Are his brothers telling him the truth or not? Have they truly repented or are they merely sorry that they are in trouble? Are they changed men? Can he safely proceed to the next step – namely, to reveal himself to them, express his forgiveness, and be reconciled to them? Can he trust them?

Notice firstly that…

I. Trust Must Be Earned With Everyone Else Involved (Gen. 42:29-38)

Joseph’s brothers’ returned home to face a standoff with Jacob (42:29-36). Upon returning to Canaan the brothers recounted to Jacob everything that had happened in Egypt, including (1) the harsh treatment by “the man who is lord of the land” (42:30), who “spoke roughly to us and took us for spies of the country” (42:30); (2) their self-defense as to their honesty and family background (42:31-32); (3) the refusal by “the man, the lord of the country” (42:33) to believe them; and (4) his test of their honesty by keeping Simeon hostage and demanding that they return with Benjamin (42:33-34). These were the terms on which they could return and “trade in the land” (42:34). This was the ultimatum: “Do what I say or starve to death in Canaan.”

Then, the plot got even more complicated. Upon opening their sacks of grain in front of Jacob, they found that, not only had one of them received his money back in his sack, but they all had! “Surprisingly each man’s bundle of money was in his sack; and when they and their father saw the bundles of money, they were afraid” (42:35).

Immediately, Jacob weighed in on the situation. He was, understandably, vexed and this revealed his own misgivings and distrust of his sons. “You have bereaved me: Joseph is no more, Simeon is no more, and you want to take Benjamin. All these things are against me” (42:36). Clearly, Jacob holds them responsible for Joseph’s disappearance and now Simeon’s.

So, Reuben tries to persuade Jacob (42:37-38). Reuben is the negotiator, the compromise maker. Years before he tried to negotiate a compromise with his brothers when they were bound and bent on killing Joseph (35:22). And now he tries to negotiate with Jacob, “Kill my two sons if I do not bring him back to you; put him in my hands and I will bring him back to you” (42:37). Of course, this was a ridiculous and totally irrational offer. Did he really think that Jacob would kill his own two grandsons if Benjamin failed to come back? What kind of security would this afford Jacob? None! In fact, it would only add to his tragic loss.

Anyway, Jacob didn’t trust Reuben, understandably. He didn’t trust him because Reuben had had sex with Jacob’s concubine, Bilhah (35:22), something that Jacob resented until his dying day (49:3-4). And, he didn’t trust Reuben because, as the oldest son, he should have protected Joseph but had failed miserably to do so. Oh, Reuben had probably tried to rationalize everything: (1) that Bilhah was only his father’s concubine and anyway, how can something that feels so good be so wrong; (2) that he had at least saved Joseph from death at that time; (3) that he had planned on returning to rescue Joseph from the pit; and (4) that it was just “unlucky” timing that, before he got there, the other brothers had sold Joseph to slave traders - there was nothing he could have done about it.

Human beings are masters at self-rationalizations. We can rationalize just about anything if we want to. We can even rationalize sin as being God’s will! Like leaving one’s spouse to go live with another woman, as some have argued.

To give Reuben the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps this offer to kill his two sons was Reuben’s attempt to gain back his father’s trust and to fulfill his responsibility as the oldest son. But, Jacob was intransigent – he wouldn’t budge. “My son shall not go down with you, for his brother (Joseph) is dead and he (Simeon) is left alone. If any calamity should befall him along the way in which you go, then you would bring down my gray hair with sorrow to the grave (42:38). Reuben’s attempt to regain his father’s trust and broker a deal to help his brothers failed once more.

Sometimes, trust cannot be regained easily. Relationships can be fractured so badly that they are beyond repair, at least for a time. I think that’s why Jesus affirmed that divorce is an option when one spouse commits sexual immorality - such an act can so destroy trust that, sometimes, it cannot be regained. The act of sexual immorality effectively “kills” the marriage relationship and to renew it might not be possible. So, Reuben’s offer failed to persuade Jacob and it seemed that for the time being, life back at the ranch carried on for a while (43:1-2). They had grain now from Egypt (9 sacks full in fact) but that eventually ran out.

Hunger is a powerful motivator, isn’t it? Do you know that people will do anything to satisfy hunger - it’s a built-in survival response. Mothers will steal, kill, prostitute themselves or whatever it takes to feed their children. And we shouldn’t sit here and moralize about that since we are not in their situation.

The prospect of hunger arouses Jacob to revisit this issue of going back to Egypt, so he said to the brothers, “Go back, buy us a little food” (43:2). But to go back meant he is going to have to rethink the whole issue of sending Benjamin.

Previously, Reuben had tried to persuade Jacob; this time Judah tries to persuade Jacob (43:1-10). Judah reminds Jacob of Joseph’s demand that they bring Benjamin with them (43:3), saying, in effect, “So, Daddy dear, if you want us to go back to Egypt, Benjamin must come with us, otherwise we aren’t going. Take it or leave it.” (43:4-5). It was one thing for Jacob to deny this request earlier when they had food but now the food was all gone.

But Jacob is still resentful, distrustful. “Why did you deal so wrongfully with me as to tell the man whether you had still another brother?” (43:6). In Jacob’s convoluted way of thinking, when the brothers told Joseph about their younger brother Benjamin back home, they were “dealing wrongfully with me” (i.e. Jacob). Why did Jacob think it had anything to do with him? Because he was pleading the “poor me” approach now. Well the answer is simple: “The man (whoever he is) asked us pointedly about ourselves and our family saying, “Is your father still alive? Have you another brother (43:7a), Judah replied, “So, that’s why we told him. How were we to know he would tell us to bring Benjamin down there?” (43:7b).

Then Judah played his final card. “Send the lad with me and we will arise and go, that we may live and not die, both we and you and also our little ones. I myself will be surety for him: from my hand you shall require him. If I do not bring home back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever” (43:8-9). “Trust me,” Judah says, “not Reuben or the others – just me. In fact,” he continues, “if you had agreed the first time, we would already have been there and back by now” (43:10). It’s as though he is blaming Jacob for the delay and for their present dire circumstances.

Finally Jacob relents (43:11-14). He had no other choice – let Benjamin go or die. So, “If it must be so, then do this. Take some of the best fruit of the land in your vessels and carry down a gift for the man – a little balm and a little honey, spices and myrrh, pistachio nuts and almonds. And take double the money in your hand, and take back the money that was returned in your sacks – perhaps it was an oversight (43:11-12). Jacob, ever the schemer, adds a sweetener to the deal with a gift for “the man” (whoever he is; whatever his name is). In addition, they were to take double the money they had taken before (just in case they needed it), as well as the money that had been returned to them. Perhaps the returned money was an “oversight.” Well, no harm in some positive thinking, is there? “I mean, surely my boys wouldn’t have knowingly stolen the money, would they? It must have been an oversight.”

“And take your brother also and arise, go back to the man. And may God Almighty give you mercy before the man that he may release your brother and Benjamin (43:13-14a). It’s funny how people start talking in terms of “God” when things get desperate, isn’t it? When you’re in trouble, it just seems to be the right thing to start calling on God. “Anyway, when it’s all said and done,” Jacob says, “if I’m bereaved, I’m bereaved (43:14b). A kind of matter-of-fact fatalism takes over – “whatever will be will be, the future’s not ours to see, que sera sera.”

So, not only must trust be earned with everyone else involved (for all of them were implicated in this), but in addition…

II. Trust Must Be Earned Specifically With The Offended Party (43:15-44:34)

The boys arrived back in Egypt, only to be ushered into the governor’s mansion for a surprise welcome in Egypt (43:15-34). Just the sight of Benjamin puts Joseph in a celebratory mood. They’re all going to enjoy a noon-hour banquet (43:16). Like the father in Luke 15, Joseph must have thought: “This my brother was dead and is alive again, was lost and is found.” For him this was cause for rejoicing. But for them, it was cause for fear, which generates their rationalization of what was happening: “It’s because of the money which was returned in our sacks the first time, that we are brought in, so that he may make a case against us and seize us, to take us as slaves with our donkeys” (43:18).

So, what would you do if you were in their shoes? You would probably do exactly what they did – to plead their case to someone who has influence with Joseph. So, they told Joseph’s steward what had happened, how they had discovered the money in their sacks on their way home the last time. “So we have brought it back in our hand and we have brought down other money in our hands to buy food. We do not know who put our money in our sacks” (43:21-22). “Honestly,” they say. “Scouts honor. Cross our hearts and dare to die. We didn’t know.” (That’s just my free flowing translation).

To their utter shock, the steward reveals the mystery. “Peace be with you, do not be afraid. Your God and the God of your father has given you treasure in your sacks; I had your money (43:23a). Really? God actually did that? Our God? “Yes, that’s right. Your God is in control - I put the money in your sacks.” They were learning great things about their God – how their God acts on their behalf even through a pagan Egyptian! “Well, wad’ya know!”

So, the noon hour party took place. They gave Joseph the presents they brought for him and “bowed down before him to the earth” (43:26). Then Joseph inquired about their father “and they bowed their heads down and prostrated themselves (43:28). Within two verses (26 and 28) they bowed down twice before Joseph. They must have been getting weak in the knees by now with all these push-ups. Joseph’s dream was coming true!

Then Joseph looked right at Benjamin. He couldn’t have recognized him after all this time for he had grown from a one year old into a 23 year old man. But perhaps there was something about his features, or his movements, or his demeanor that he recognized. After all, they were blood brothers with the same mother and father. And immediately, Joseph pronounced a benediction on him, “God be gracious to you, my son” (43:29).

There’s more talk about God here than they have heard in years. Actually, they didn’t want to hear about God or talk about God before. After all, who wants to talk about God when you’ve done what they’ve done. When sin is present in your life the last thing you want to talk about is God. Your conscience cries out in protest. You can’t live in sin and talk about God – they don’t go together. You have to rid yourself of sin in order to enjoy talking about and with God. For God himself will not tolerate sin. Sin is an immediate barrier to fellowship with him.

Now the emotion of the whole moment was too much for Joseph. “His heart yearned for his brother” and yet it still was not the right time to reveal his identity, so he goes to his bedroom to weep in private (43:30). Once he had regained his composure and washed his face, dinner was served. According to Egyptian custom, Joseph was seated by himself, the brothers by themselves, and the Egyptians by themselves. And so they sat before Joseph in birth order, all the way from “the firstborn according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth; and the men looked in astonishment at one another” (43:33). No one wonder they were astonished: “How could he possibly know our ages? This is scary. He knows all about us.”

You can only imagine their further confusion when the food was served and “Benjamin’s serving was five times as much as any of theirs (43:34a). “How come he’s giving our youngest brother five times as much food as us?” they must have thought. “So they drank and were merry with him” (43:34b). Happy days were here again! Or so they thought. But, before the happy days would come, there was ...

The final test (44:1-34). Evidently, Joseph still wasn’t prepared to trust his brothers. So deeply had he been hurt by them before, so untrustworthy had they proven themselves before, so conniving and devious had their lives been, that Joseph had to bend over backwards to determine if they had really changed. Could they be trusted? Were they telling him the truth? Was everything as it seemed on the surface? Or, were they acting this way just because they needed food? So, he administered a final test of their trustworthiness.

As they were leaving for home, Joseph’s steward was instructed “to fill their sacks with food as much as they could carry and put each man’s money in the mouth of his sack” (44:1). This is the same test as the last time but with a twist. Joseph’s silver cup was to be put into Benjamin’s sack (44:2)! Again, you can hear the drum beat (dum-de-dum-dum) as something ominous is about to happen.

They set off for home as before but barely had they made it outside the city limits, than Joseph’s steward caught up with them to lower the boom. Specifically, on Joseph’s instructions, when they find Joseph’s silver cup in Benjamin’s sack, they say, “Why have you repaid evil for good? Is this not the one from which my lord drinks, and with which he indeed practices divination? You have done evil in so doing” (44:4-5). Now this does not infer that Joseph actually practiced divination. While divination using liquids in a cup was common in Egypt, it was not practiced by the Israelites. I would argue that this reference to divination is just another part of the “trick” that puts pressure on the brothers. This cup was not just any old drinking cup, but one that is used in divination to discover the will of the gods by how oil and water mixed. The implication is, “So, how do you think you would not be discovered?” This threat is repeated in 44:15.

The irony here is that the brothers were truly innocent. We know it, they knew it, the steward knew it, and Joseph knew it. This was just one big charade, a trick, but with the very genuine, purpose of testing and revealing the brothers’ hearts.

Of course, the brothers denied such a charge. “Far be it from us that your servants should do such a thing”(44:7). “We are honest men,” they argue. “In fact, we brought back the money that was in our sacks the last time (and, by the way, we didn’t have to – but we’re honest men, remember). So, why would we steal silver or gold from your lord’s house? In fact, we’re so confident, here’s what we’ll do. Whoever is found with the silver cup in his sack shall die. Oh, and we’ll add to that, the rest of us will be your lord’s slaves” (44:8-9).

This is like the TV commercials. You won’t pay $500, $400, or $200 – you’ll only pay $99. But wait, there’s more. If you order within the next 30 seconds, we’ll double the offer. That’s what the brothers were doing: The thief will die. But wait, there’s more. We will be your lord’s slaves.

But Joseph’s steward modified the terms of the deal. After all, he knew what the tricky test was all about and he really didn’t want anyone to die over this. So the final terms are: “He with whom the silver cup is found shall be my slave (not Joseph’s) and the rest of you shall be blameless (44:10). On those terms Joseph’s steward searched the sacks and, lo and behold, he found the cup in Benjamin’s sack (44:11-12). Now, what would they do? How would they react? Would they do the same as they did to Joseph – go wild with anger and kill Benjamin? That’s what the old, unchanged brothers would have done. They had no scruples at all as to how to settle a score.

Well, they go wild alright but with fear and shock, not anger (44:13). Just when they thought they were in the clear, now this. In fact, they were sure that the governor really liked them (for some strange reason), sufficiently so that he had actually entertained them in his mansion! Now they had the food, they had retrieved Simeon from custody, Benjamin is with them and they’re on their way home. Things were finally looking up and now this. Talk about a reversal of fortunes!

But there is no violence, no accusations against Benjamin. Instead, with their shoulders drooping low, they trudge back to the city to face the inevitable music. And they did the only thing they could do: “They fall before Joseph on the ground (44:14). That must have been a pretty sight for Joseph!

Did you know that this was when the first Kodak camera was made? I’m pretty sure that Joseph had commissioned his wise men to invent a camera just for this Kodak moment (although the text doesn’t say so). No, actually, I think this was when the first Panasonic movie camera was used – to catch the brothers coming back into the courtyard of the governor’s mansion, their donkeys in tow, their clothing all torn in their anguish, tears probably coursing down their faces, making their beards look like matted straw. They were indeed a pathetic sight. But to Joseph they were a picture of beauty! To Joseph they were changed men. This must have done his heart good. The test had worked. It had revealed their hearts. They were different men now.

“And Joseph said to them, ‘What deed is this you have done? Did you not know that such a man as I can certainly practice divination?’” (44:15). Did they not realize that someone in Joseph’s position and with his power could, and almost certainly would, find out who had stolen the cup?

Judah now rises to the occasion (44:16-34). Judah, the one who had led the group in getting rid of Joseph, the one who had finally persuaded Jacob to let Benjamin go with them, the one who had told Jacob he would bear the blame if they didn’t bring Benjamin back, now he is the spokesperson for the group. To Joseph’s accusation, Judah pleads: “What shall we say to my lord? What shall we speak? Or how shall we clear ourselves? God has found out the iniquity of your servants; here we are, my lord’s slaves, both we and he also with whom the cup was found”(44:16). There was nothing they could say. They couldn’t clear themselves. They were caught red-handed. They were powerless and Joseph was all-powerful. This was a new day. The tables were turned. So powerful was this realization, that Judah confesses the truth: “God has found out the iniquity of your servants.” “God has revealed the sin of our hearts,” he confesses. “Here we are – we have no excuses, no rationalizations, no defense, no counter arguments, no one else to blame. Just do what has to be done. We are now your slaves, all of us, not just Benjamin.”

This was there only option in dealing with this disaster. Judah knew he couldn’t appeal for justice, so he did the only thing he could – he appealed for mercy. This was a clear confession of sin, going all the way back to casting Joseph in the pit. This was the sin that God had now uncovered. Now he realized that this was divine retribution for how they had acted years before.

Then the worst news of all: “The man in whose hand the cup was found, he shall be my slave. And as for you, go up in peace to your father” (44:17). What? Really? We can go? But what about Benjamin? And more particularly, what about our father Jacob? Judah had offered all the brothers to be Joseph’s slaves but no, Joseph only wanted Benjamin? How could they possibly return to their father in peace? They couldn’t. They were all complicit in this together. They must all bear the blame together.

This is undoubtedly what Joseph wanted to hear. He knew that they had treated Benjamin with compassion and mercy in this disaster; now Joseph wanted to know how they would treat their father.

Now, Judah is at his absolute finest (44:18-34). He articulated the most heart-wrenching account of what they had told Joseph before about their aged father and his attachment to his youngest son, Benjamin, and how Joseph had insisted that they bring Benjamin to Egypt, how they had pleaded with Joseph that their father would die if Benjamin left him (44:19-22), but how Joseph had been unmovable in his demand (44:23), and how they had recounted this to their father and their father had reminded them that Rachel (his favorite wife) had born him two sons – the one disappeared (apparently torn apart by a wild beast) and if anything happens to the other son “it will kill me” (44:27-29). So now, Judah pleaded, if they return home without Benjamin, as soon as their father sees that he is missing, he will drop dead on the spot (44:30-31). And furthermore, “your servant (Judah) became surety for the lad to my father, saying, ‘If I do not bring him back to you, then I shall bear the blame before my father forever.’ Now therefore, please let your servant remain instead of the lad as a slave to my lord, and let the lad go up with his brothers (44:32-33).

Notice that everything in this marvelous plea is focused on others. Firstly, it focuses on the best interests of Benjamin. Judah not only does not accuse Benjamin of getting them into this mess, but he actually offers to be his substitute! He is fully prepared to carry out his promise to Jacob – he will be the surety for Benjamin. And secondly, it focuses on the best interests of Jacob. If Judah stays and Benjamin goes back, Jacob will live. And his final pleas is this: “I just couldn’t bear to see my father die from this” (44:34).

Now Joseph knew for sure the answers to his doubts. These were trustworthy men of integrity and compassion. And Judah, who had made the deal to sell Joseph to slave traders, now offered to be a slave in the place of Benjamin. Judah, who at one time couldn’t have cared less about his father’s sorrow at losing his son, Joseph, now was willing to become a slave in Egypt in order to protect his father’s feelings and life.

This is genuine repentance. Genuine change. Their sensitive consciences convicted them of their earlier sin that needed to be dealt with now. They freely and openly admitted guilt. They were willing to do whatever it takes to make right the wrong, even being a substitute for Benjamin.

Final Remarks

And that’s how you earn and regain trust. Not by trying to make excuses, not by trying to find technical loopholes in the law, not by trying to implicate others. But by simply and honestly confessing the truth and repenting of your sin, changing the way you think, act, and speak. This is the stuff of which trust is made - repentance and forgiveness lead to reconciliation, which, over time, re-establishes trust.

Remember our thesis for this message: “Trust is the foundation of true, full, and lasting reconciliation.”

So, what do you do if you lose trust in someone? The relationship needs to be properly restored, and a relationship is properly restored only when trust is earned and re-established. And trust is re-established when there is confession and repentance by the offender, forgiveness by the offended person, and personal reconciliation between the parties through trust that is earned over time by the offender.

If trust isn’t there, the relationship at best is flimsy. Even though the offender may have repented and you may have extended forgiveness and reconciliation may have taken place (at least at a superficial level), there must also be trust. And, as this part of Joseph’s story shows, trust has to be earned and demonstrated over time. This is true in marital relationships, employment relationships, friendships, and church relationships.

What is trust? To trust someone is to have no doubt in your mind as to that person’s integrity, confidentiality, and loyalty. You may love someone, but you may not fully trust that person. Many relationships are that way. And I would argue that such relationships will never progress to full, lasting, and genuine relationships if they are based solely on love. In addition to love, there must be full and complete trust in order for a relationship to be more than superficial.

When I do pre-marital counselling, I often ask: “Why do you want to marry this person?” And the reply is invariably: “Because I love him / her.” And I say something like: “Is that all?” Marriage relationships must have not only “love” but also “commitment” and “trust”. Love without commitment means that when things get rough, the marriage may fall apart. Love without trust means that the relationship will be strained, plagued with doubt, suspicion, even paranoia: “I wonder where he is now? Why did she say that?” etc.

Today there is a trend toward “open” marriages. Open marriages are where the two spouses say, “We love each other but we may not be able to fulfill each others needs, so we are open to our spouse having relationships with other men / women.” This fundamentally cannot work on a long term basis. If you break trust, you effectively break the relationship until and unless that trust is re-earned and re-established. And sometimes the breach is of such a nature that trust cannot be re-established.

How is trust earned?

1. Trust is earned over time. You can’t rush it.

2. Trust is earned by your attitude. Never give cause for suspicion. Always be truthful – deception kills trust. Always have mutual respect – lack of respect kills trust. Don’t be condemning of the other person’s shortcomings, weaknesses, mistakes, habits, idiosyncrasies.

3. Trust is earned by your actions. Be reliable. Do what you say, keep your promises, make your word your bond. Be supportive. Demonstrate confidence in the other party. Nurture a healing, healthy, safe environment where you can be yourself without fear of reprisal.

4. Trust is earned by your communications. Openness, transparency, for example, about your feelings. Let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”. Keep confidential communications confidential. If you break confidentiality, you break trust.

5. Trust is earned by your beliefs - sharing mutual beliefs and sharing a mutual commitment to the Lord. Herein lies the key to trust.

Now you can see why Joseph followed a long, drawn-out process with his brothers. He was willing to forgive from day one, but he didn’t do so until he saw honest confession and repentance and the evidence that he could trust them again. And the evidence was in their change of attitude, behavior, speech, and their belief in God.

Related Topics: Character Study, Christian Life

9. Recognizing God’s Providence: Fellowship Restored (Gen. 45:1-28)

Related Media

In this passage we come to the climax of Joseph’s story. Here we are going to learn some deep theology from Joseph about how God works in the world and in our lives in particular. In the case of Joseph and his brothers, their consciences had been activated and their trust had been earned. All that remains is for fellowship to be restored.

Fellowship is restored when everything is out in the open. That moment has now arrived. The brothers are back in front of Joseph for the third time. Now, Joseph can no longer keep his identity hidden from them. The tests about forgiveness and reconciliation are complete. And trust, that has been earned, can now be established because Joseph now knows that his brothers are changed men. They are trustworthy, honest, and compassionate men. They have been changed from the inside out.

The story doesn’t tell us why or how this change took place, but I think it is fair to assume that the last 23 years of experiences have changed them and, in particular, this experience with the famine and Joseph has changed them, so much so that they have finally confessed their sin and repented before God and Joseph. Now the time has come for “the man who is the Lord of the land” (Gen. 42:30) to reveal his identity.

So, Joseph commands everyone to go out and leave him alone with his brothers (Gen. 45:1). This must surely have struck terror into his brothers’ hearts since they were actually standing before him, waiting for his decision concerning Judah’s plea bargain – namely, that Benjamin be allowed to return with the others to their father and that he (Judah) would remain as “surety” (Gen. 44:32-34). To hear Joseph then command everyone to leave them alone must have made them conclude the worst. Perhaps they would all be thrown into prison or worse yet, sentenced to death. After all, they had been caught with the money and the silver cup. To their utter surprise, Joseph “wept aloud” (45:2a), so loud, in fact, that “the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard it” (45:2b). Surely, they must have thought, such emotion must stem from either intense personal grief or deep, built-up anger.

Perhaps you’ve experienced this in your life. Perhaps you have borne such a burden of grief (e.g. through the death of a loved one or rejection by someone you love and respect) that you have wept oceans of tears before the Lord. Perhaps you’ve experienced physical pain or extended illness that has caused tears. Perhaps, resentment has built up in you to the degree that you burst into tears. Or perhaps, sheer joy has produced floods of tears.

The Psalmist certainly experienced tears of anger and grief. Probably Joseph himself had found crying to be a relief for his pent up feelings. Just think about what he had been through - abandoned and sold as a slave by his own family; unjustly imprisoned; and betrayed by the chief butler. But now his crying is not out of a sense of injustice or anger because of how he had been treated, but out of the relief and joy of final reconciliation and restoration of fellowship with his brothers. He probably thought this day would never come. In any event, this flood of tears came from so deep within him, after such a long time and after such painful experiences, that his sobbing was uncontrollable.

Finally, Joseph reveals his identity.I am Joseph; does my father still live?” (45:3a). Now, no longer is Joseph the seemingly stern, demanding ruler of Egypt, but their brother. No answer was needed to his question about his father. Judah had made it very clear that Jacob was alive. In fact, his father’s well-being had been one of his greatest concerns. But the declaration that “I am Joseph” must have come down on the brothers like a hammer blow. The cycle of fear and hope that they had recently experienced - the money in their sacks, the silver cup, bargaining with their father, and the trips back and forth to Egypt - were nothing compared to this. Suddenly they must have understood the tricks that had been played on them, the cross examinations about their father and Benjamin, and their royal luncheon in the governor’s mansion. And the first thing that must have crossed their minds is that it’s all over – the game is up, retribution is surely coming.

No wonder they were struck dumb without a word to say “for they were dismayed in his presence” (45:3b). They were completely at a loss for words, dumbfounded, terrified. How stupid they must feel after having told Joseph several times that he (Joseph) was dead, only to see the dead man standing before them! No wonder he had been so interested in their younger brother and their father. No wonder he knew their ages when he seated them at the banquet in birth order. And, oh yes, no wonder they had bowed down to him - his dreams had come true, not from wishing upon a star (as in the fantasy world of Disney) but through God’s providence. Now all that’s left is for judgement to fall on them! Their minds must have been a blur of terror-filled thoughts, none of which, of course, were true.

Their fears are assuaged when Joseph initiates intimacy. It wasn’t sufficient to merely reveal who he was, they must know how he feels. Seeing their response to who he was, Joseph says: “‘Come near to me, please.’ So they came near. Then he said, ‘I am Joseph your brother whom you sold into Egypt’” (45:4). “OK, OK. Don’t remind us,” they must have thought. “This is bad enough without you rubbing it in. We know what we did! That was bad enough, but this is incomprehensible.” You see, the brothers could not grasp God’s purposes in all of this, except their condemnation perhaps. Their sin had found them out for sure. That’s the only purpose they could see in all of this. But Joseph is about to teach them something about the theology of God’s providential ways that they and we need to get hold of.

Before continuing we must ask the question: “What is providence?” This is a term we don’t hear much today. The root word is made up of two parts: “pro” (which, in Latin, means either “on behalf of” or “in advance”) and “vide” (which, in Latin, means “to see to / to take care of ”). Thus, when used of God, “providence” means to take care of something in advance, to make provision for something beforehand. God’s providence, then, refers to his preserving and sustaining care and control of all things with the view of achieving his divine purposes.

So, our subject in this study is: “The truth about providence.” The primary theological principle that we learn from this episode in Joseph’s life is that God works providentially in our lives to accomplish his purposes.

Notice this first theological principle...

I. God Providentially Preserves Our Lives (Gen. 45:5-8)

The restoration of fellowship is taking place here under the sensitive and wise direction of Joseph. He has learned that fellowship is restored when divine providence is recognized and acknowledged. This is key to understanding the unfolding scene and truths that we learn from Joseph. Joseph points out two key reasons for which God had preserved his life and for which He preserves ours…

1. God Preserves Our Lives To Accomplish His Purposes (45:5-6)

“Do not be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you” (45:5). God was at work in Joseph’s life long before the brothers had sold him to the slave traders. Though what they did was cruel (and they were fully responsible for what they did), nonetheless God was at work, using their wicked treatment of Joseph to accomplish his sovereign purposes. This is an enormously important theological truth that we need to grasp for ourselves as well: God providentially orders the sequence and circumstances of our lives to prepare us for what he wants us to do in the future.

Seeing the obvious look of terror and shame on their faces, and knowing the self-condemning thoughts that must have been going through their heads, Joseph reassures them: “When you sold me to slave traders, God overruled to send me ahead of you. Now you’re here yourself as well. In the providence of God, I just went ahead to get things ready. So, you didn’t send me here, God did!”

God was in control of his life, not the brothers. Just as Joseph recognizes that God had caused the events of his life to take place in the sequence, at the time, and in the way that they did, so we need to recognize that God sovereignly overrules the course of our lives. That’s the right perspective, something the brothers knew nothing about. They were about to get a theology lesson like none they had ever had before about how God works in the world, that God is in control of all our circumstances as he fulfills his purposes for our lives. Indeed, in Joseph’s life, God overruled the brothers bad actions to achieve his good purposes. That’s what Joseph wants his brothers to understand, that what had happened was all according to the providential ways of God. If they can grasp this truth, it would bring some relief for their troubled consciences.

Do you see how an understanding of this truth helps us to cope with bad circumstances, how it soothes the troubled heart, how it helps to answer the questions that flood our minds? Why did this happen to me? How can this turn out for good? Remember our thesis: “God works providentially in our lives to accomplish his purposes.” It’s true that “for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). God sovereignly overrules the course of our lives. Our part is to submit to His providential ways. Joseph had submitted to the providential control of God in his life. The implication is that his brothers needed to submit to the ways of God in their lives too, even though they didn’t understand it.

Isn’t it true, that many things occur in our lives that we don’t understand, but which are part of God’s providential care and control of all things? God is sovereign in our lives and we need to submit to his ways with us. Of course we need to distinguish between, on the one hand, our own sin and folly that causes certain consequences in our lives and, on then other hand, what the will of God is for us. But this story is telling us that even those things that result from our bad decisions and circumstances God can use for good. That should encourage us, shouldn’t it?

Do you see how this narrative links to Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:22-24f.? Jesus’ circumstances were the worst we can imagine – being put to death as an innocent man because of the wicked thoughts and acts of evil men. And yet those circumstances were according to the “the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God.” Wicked men put Jesus to death but that act was all under God’s control and according to God’s divine foreknowledge. That did not negate or minimize those men’s responsibility in the death of Christ. Rather, they were the conduit through whom God fulfilled his plan of redemption.

When or how Joseph came to understand this deep theological truth about the providence of God, we don’t know. Was it when the brothers bowed down before him? Was that when he realized that his dreams were from God? Anyway, even though we don’t know how or when Joseph came to understand the truth of God’s providence, one thing is clear, he believes it and submits to it completely. Notice that there is no hint of bitterness or resentment or anger in Joseph; everything is submitted to God’s purposes for his life. “God sent me before you to preserve life. For these two years the famine has been in the land and there are still five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvesting (45:5b-6).

Not only did Joseph recognize that God providentially orders the sequence and circumstances of our lives, but he also recognized that God uses us for the benefit of others – specifically, in Joseph’s case, to protect others’ lives from harm and danger. Don’t forget that all this is taking place in the context of a massive famine which has already existed for two years with five more years to go according to God’s revelation to Joseph when he interpreted Pharaoh’s dream. That dream had come true just like Joseph’s own dreams. Joseph knew with absolute certainty that there would be no plowing or harvesting for five more years. And God had sent him to Egypt for such a time as this to preserve life – the lives of the Egyptians who came to buy food and especially the lives of his own family.

But there’s another reason why God providentially preserves our lives. He preserves our lives to accomplish his purposes, and ...

2. God Preserves Our Lives To Fulfill His Promises (45:7-8)

“God sent me before you to preserve a posterity (a remnant) for you in the earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance (45:7). Many years before, God had promised their great grandfather Abraham in a vision that he would make of him a great nation and in his seed, all the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 15:1ff.; cf. also 13:3). Later, God re-affirmed his promise to their grandfather, Isaac, and subsequently to their own father, Jacob. Throughout Joseph’s history, God was keeping his promise “to preserve a posterity for you in the earth.” And in so doing, God sent Joseph to Egypt “to save [their] lives by a great deliverance.” This was all part of God’s eternal plan to fulfill his promises.

“So now, it was not you who sent me here, but God” (45:8). And not only that, but God “has made me a father to Pharaoh and lord of all his house and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt” (45:8). There was no question that God had sent him here and that God had given him great authority, authority that would not only bless Pharaoh and all of Egypt, but specifically, Joseph’s own family.

So, the first theology lesson that Joseph teaches his brothers about God’s providence is that God providentially preserves our lives. The second theology lesson about God’s providence is that...

II. God Providentially Meets Our Needs (Gen. 45:9-24)

In the unfolding process of restoring unhindered fellowship, Joseph evidently understands that fellowship is restored when our needs are met through care and compassion. Now every barrier to reconciliation with his brothers is removed, Joseph can now reveal his plans for them and his father, plans which Pharaoh would wholeheartedly endorse. Joseph now spells out how, in God’s providence, all their needs will be met in Egypt.

God providentially meets our needs in two ways...

1. God Providentially Meets Our Emotional Needs (45:9-10)

That’s a great blessing from God. In their case, the restoration between Joseph and his family was God’s provision for their emotional needs. “You shall dwell in the land of Goshen and you shall be near me” (45:10), Joseph says. Joseph’s heart of goodness and blessing and compassion now poured out toward his brothers. They were to go back and tell Jacob what had happened, who Joseph is, and what’s going to happen next. “Guess what, Dad, we’re all moving to Egypt where we can be near Joseph.” That’s what was uppermost in Joseph’s mind – full reconciliation and life as it should be among a family.

That’s the grace of God in meeting our emotional needs. The nuclear family is God’s creation. The family unit is God’s provision to protect us, encourage us, support us, provide for us, and nurture us.

God providentially meets our emotional needs, and…

2. God Providentially Meets Our Physical Needs (45:11-23)

“There [i.e. in Goshen] I will provide for you lest you and your household, and all that you have, come to poverty; for there are still five years of famine” (45:11). In Goshen, they will have the best agricultural land in Egypt that will guarantee there prosperity and protection from poverty. God has made provision for their physical needs before they ever knew it. “Now go home,” Joseph says, “and tell my father of all my glory in Egypt and of all that you have seen; and you shall hurry and bring my father down here (45:13).

Through his providence, God meets our physical needs in ways that we cannot imagine. Who would have thought that Joseph’s various experiences and disappointments would have brought him to this position and for this purpose? Who would have thought that what had happened to Joseph would ultimately lead to the blessing of his family – healing their emotional needs and supplying their physical needs?

And as if to confirm his sincerity and to release all his love for his brothers that was in his heart, Joseph “fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept and Benjamin wept on his neck. Moreover he kissed all his brothers and wept over them, and after that his brothers talked with him” (45:14-15). His most endearing feelings were toward his full blood-brother, but he loved the rest of them as well with unfeigned love. Now, finding their tongues again, his brothers “talked with him.”

After reconciliation is established, then fellowship must be fully restored. Fellowship is restored when we recognize God’s providence in our lives and begin to demonstrate his care and compassion to each other. That means meeting each others’ needs, enjoying one another’s company, talking about all that you have been through, voicing your concerns and joys and feelings. One of the characteristics of a healthy family (and a healthy church family) is fellowship through hospitality, getting together to enjoy one another’s company. This is what takes place here with Joseph and his brothers, something that perhaps they had never experienced before.

All of Joseph’s plans were now confirmed by Pharaoh (45:16-20). Joseph had gained such respect and trust in Pharaoh’s court that Pharaoh not only affirmed Joseph’s generous provision for his family but actually added to it. Pharaoh not only affirmed that the brothers bring their father and their households to Egypt, but adds “I will give you the best of the land of Egypt and you will eat the fat of the land” (45:18). Joseph had said, “You shall dwell in the land of Goshen” (45:10), but Pharaoh sweetens the provision in Egypt. He will give them “the best of the land” to live in and they shall have “the fat of the land to eat.”

But there’s even more. Pharaoh provides all the carts to transport their families and their father on the journey (45:19). And there’s even more yet. They don’t even have to bother to bring “[their] goods” (45:20a) – i.e. their personal provisions – “for the best of all the land is yours” (45:20b). This is extravagant and abundant provision for their needs. This is the heart of God, who provides for us “abundantly above all that we could ask or think” (Eph. 3:20). This is the heart of God to those who are repentant, forgiven, and reconciled.

Joseph immediately “gave to all of them, to each man, changes of garments; but to Benjamin (his beloved, younger brother) he gave three hundred pieces of silver and five changes of garments” (45:22). His brothers had sold Joseph to the Midianite traders for 20 pieces of silver but Joseph returns 15 times that amount. His brothers had sold Joseph as a slave for roughly 8 ounces of silver, but Joseph gives Benjamin roughly 8 pounds of silver. Years before the brothers had returned to their father with Joseph’s torn and blood-stained coat, but Joseph gives Benjamin 5 sets of unstained garments. And to his father he “sent ten donkeys loaded with the good things of Egypt, and ten female donkeys loaded with grain, bread, and food for his father for the journey” (45:23). This was the heart of Joseph pouring out in benevolence toward his repentant brothers and his dear, deceived father. Even while they were still in Canaan, Joseph wanted the household of Jacob to witness and experience the finery, the abundance, and the riches of Egypt that lay ahead of them.

So, God providentially preserves our lives and provides for our needs. And the third theology lesson about God’s providence is that ...

III. God Providentially Pacifies Our Hearts (45:24-28)

In the final step of restoring fellowship with his brothers, Joseph teaches us that fellowship is restored when hearts are healed and at peace with one another. When we encounter troubling circumstances that we often don’t understand, especially those that appear to have severed our relationship with others, God can and does providentially bring to us words of truth that bring healing and peace to our troubles hearts.

1. God Providentially Pacifies Our Hearts Through Words Of Truth That Bring Comfort (45:24-27)

Joseph had given his brothers material gifts to take back with them to Canaan, but there was a gift much greater even than these. The greatest gift of all was his parting words. Just as the brothers set off on this historic journey, Joseph’s parting words were: “See that you do not become troubled along the way” (45:24). Now this word “troubled” is translated in the NIV as “quarrel” and it certainly can be translated that way. But in most cases it seems to refer to the sense of fear, trouble, disquietedness. In any event the two translations are not mutually exclusive; they easily go together here.

Perhaps Joseph was telling them to “not quarrel along the way” because he knew their natural tendency to fight and accuse and bicker and scheme. He knew their background and character better than anyone. So, perhaps, he is challenging them to live according to their new found faith and relationships, not according to their old habits and attitudes.

We all need this exhortation, don’t we? We all need to be reminded of our own predisposition to sin, the sin which does so easily beset us (cf. Heb. 12:1). No one knows what those sins are better than those nearest to us. And no one is as qualified to remind us of our natural tendencies than our own closest family. In fact, I would argue, that we are only qualified to make this kind of exhortation if we have earned a position of trust and love, as Joseph had.

So, this may read, “Do not quarrel along the way,” but I think Joseph is telling them to “not become troubled along the way.” Surely this fits the context better, for they had many reasons to be troubled as they travelled back to Canaan. They would naturally be troubled about what to say to Jacob, for now, for the first time in all these years, they would have to tell him the truth about Joseph. Now they were caught in the lie that they had concealed so long and so well. In addition, they might be troubled about this whole process. After all, they had packed their donkeys and done this return trip twice before, each time with disastrous results (money in their sacks, a silver cup etc.). Might this happen yet once more? Also, they might be troubled about returning to Egypt. How would they live among the Egyptians, people of different language, culture, and religion? How would they be treated when they returned? Would their relationship with Joseph be smooth and happy?

So, in these parting words, we see Joseph’s heart revealed. This was his heart-gift to them, from his heart to theirs. This was his care of their relationships, their personal well-being as a family: “Do not become troubled along the way.” With these words ringing in their ears they head home to bring to Jacob words of comfort and encouragement.

As soon as they got home, they said to Jacob, “Joseph is alive and is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob’s heart stood still because he did not believe them” (45:26b). Initially, Jacob’s response was one of shock. This could have caused him to pass out. For the past 23 years or so, Jacob had lived under the delusion that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. And now, right out of the blue, he is told that “Joseph is alive.” And not only is Joseph alive, but he is “governor of the land of Egypt.”

Patiently, the brothers rehearse what Joseph had said and “when Jacob saw the carts which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived” (45:27). I can just imagine the brothers pouring cold water over Jacob and fanning him to bring him around. Just like the time I cut my thumb badly years ago. I came into the house and called out to my wife what I had done. My daughter, who had recently taken her first aid training with Red Cross, in accordance with what she had been taught came running out of the kitchen shouting, “I’m a first-aider. I’m in charge!” Well, I don’t know who was the first-aider in this group, but Jacob finally came around.

And the words that at first caused shock, now bring comfort. Finally, he believed their report when he saw the evidence with his own eyes – the carts, donkeys, food, new clothing. Most of all, he saw the evidence in Benjamin, his favorite son, loaded down with bags of money and 5 sets of new clothing. Perhaps a couple of Armani suits? Dress shirts made of the finest Egyptian cotton and matching 100% Italian silk ties? Perhaps a couple of Tommy Bahama sports shirts and shorts for when they stop at the beach on the way back to Egypt? You get the idea.

So, God providentially pacifies our hearts through words of truth that bring comfort. And...

2. God Providentially Pacifies Our Hearts Through Words Of Truth That Bring Courage (45:28)

“It is enough. Joseph my son is still alive. I will go and see him before I die (45:28). Isn’t this a good news story now? We all like a story to end well and this one is ending well. Jacob is convinced that Joseph is alive and that realization breathes new life into him. Suddenly he has the courage to make the long trek to Egypt. Words of truth, words of good news bring Jacob comfort and courage. It takes courage to trust his formerly untrustworthy sons. But now, he says, “It’s true! I believe you. This is the greatest news I have ever heard. I will go and see him before I die. Let’s go!”

It takes courage to go to a far off country where he had never been; to go to the country that had caused him so much grief; to leave his home in Canaan forever on a one-way ticket.

Final Remarks

Do you see how God works providentially in our lives to accomplish his purposes? The story of Joseph is not unique to Joseph. This story is included in God’s word as an example for us to follow, because “whatever things were written before were written for our learning, so that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope (Rom. 15:4). And we can have hope in all our circumstances when we know that God is I control of all things and that he works providentially in our lives to accomplish his purposes.

Remember the three theological principles we have learned in this study about the providence of God: God providentially preserves our lives; God providentially provides for our needs; God providentially pacifies our hearts. This is how God works providentially for his people.

Related Topics: Character of God, Christian Life

5. The Poetical Books

Introduction

The previous survey of the first seventeen books (Law and History), Genesis through Nehemiah, covered the whole history of the Old Testament. All the remaining books, Poetical and Prophetical, fit somewhere into the history of those seventeen books. The next section to be covered, the Poetical, is a much smaller section consisting of five books—Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon.

Before examining them, we should note certain characteristics that all of these five books have.

The seventeen books which lie behind us are historical. These five poetical books are experiential. The seventeen historical books are concerned with a nation, as such. These five poetical books are concerned with individuals, as such. The seventeen have to do with the Hebrew race. These five have to do with the human heart. These five so-called “poetical books” are not the only poetry in the Old Testament Scriptures. There are stretches of unexcellable poetry in the writings of the prophets, which we shall come to later …

We ought clearly to understand, also, that the term “poetical” refers only to their form. It must not be thought to imply that they are simply the product of human imagination.… These books portray real human experience, and grapple with profound problems, and express big realities. Especially too they concern themselves with the experiences of the godly, in the varying vicissitudes of this changeful life which is ours under the sun …23

Important Comparisons

The Place of the Poetical Books in the Old Testament

The Old Testament divides into four major sections which relate to the nation of Israel as God’s chosen people in the following manner from the standpoint of their major characteristics or focus:

1. The Law—relates to Israel’s moral life.

2. The Historical—relates to Israel’s national development and life.

3. The Poetical—relates to Israel’s spiritual life.

4. The Prophetical—relates to Israel’s future life as fulfilled in the Messiah.

The Relation of the Poetical Books to Each Other

1. The Book of Job—Blessing through Suffering.

2. The Psalms—Praise through Prayer.

3. The Proverbs—Prudence through Precept.

4. Ecclesiastes—Verity through Vanity.

5. Song of Solomon—Bliss through Union.24

The Periods of the Poetical in the Old Testament

While Hebrew poetry occurred throughout Old Testament history, there were three primary periods of poetic literature.

I. The Patriarchal period—Job (c. 2000 B.C.)

II. The Davidic period—Psalms (c. 1000 B.C.)

III. The Solomonic period

A. Song of Solomon—a young man’s love

B. Proverbs—a middle-aged man’s wisdom

C. Ecclesiastes—an old man’s sorrow (c. 950 B.C.)25

Christ in the Poetical Books

As noted previously, Christ, the Messiah, is the heart of all the Bible. With the two disciples on the Emmaus road who were so saddened and perplexed over the events of the previous days as the crucifixion, death, and reports of the resurrection, the resurrected Savior came along side and explained the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures (Luke 24:27). Then later when he appeared to the eleven and He said: “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, than all things which are written about Me in the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44).

With this in mind, before launching into the overview of each of these poetical books, it would be well to get their Christological perspective. Regarding this element Geisler writes:

Whereas the foundation was laid for Christ in the Law and preparation was made for Christ in the books of History, the books of Poetry reveal the aspiration for Christ in the hearts of the people. They aspired to a life fulfilled in Christ in both an explicit and an implicit way, both consciously and unconsciously. The following list will serve as an overall guide to the Christ-centered aspirations of the poetical books:

1. Job—aspiration for mediation by Christ.

2. Psalms—aspiration for communion with Christ.

3. Proverbs—aspiration for wisdom in Christ.

4. Ecclesiastes—aspiration for ultimate satisfaction.

5. Song of Solomon—aspiration for union in love with Christ.26

Hebrew Poetry

The Nature of Hebrew Poetry

Hebrew poetry, so characteristic of the wisdom literature of the Old Testament (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon), is unlike English poetry which emphasizes rhyme and meter. Hebrew poetry relies on other characteristics for its impact. Parallelism is the chief characteristic of biblical poetry, but it has other features that distinguish it from the typical prose or narrative we find in the rest of Scripture. First, there a relatively greater conciseness or terseness of form, and second there is a greater use of certain types of rhetorical devices. These are parallelism, rhythm, a rich use of imagery, and figures of speech.

The Three Kinds of Hebrew Poetry

There are three kinds of poetry: (1) lyric poetry, which was originally accompanied by music on the lyre (the Psalms); (2) didactic poetry, which, using maxims, was designed to communicate basic principles of life (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes); (3) dramatic poetry, which used dialog to communicate its message (Job and the Song of Solomon).

The Two Key Elements of Hebrew Poetry

Parallelism. In contrast to English verse which manipulates sound and emphasizes rhyme and meter, Hebrew poetry repeats and rearranges thoughts rather than sounds. Parallelism refers “to the practice of balancing one thought or phrase by a corresponding thought or phrase containing approximately the same number of words, or at least a correspondence in ideas.”27 There are several types of parallel arrangement of thoughts, with three being basic.

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

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

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

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

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

Figures of Speech. Like the Hebrew language itself, Hebrew poetry uses vivid images, similes, metaphors, and other rhetorical devices to communicate thoughts and feelings. Some of these are as follows:

1. Simile: This is the simplest of all the figures of speech. A simile is a comparison between two things that resemble each other in some way (cf. Ps. 1:3-4; 5:12; 17:8; 131:2).

2. Metaphor: This is a comparison in which one thing is likened to another without the use of a word of comparison as in “like” or “as.” In Psalm 23:1, David says, “The Lord is my Shepherd,” that is, He is to me like a shepherd is to his sheep (see also 84:11; 91:4).

3. Implication: This occurs when there is only an implied comparison between two things in which the name of one thing is used in place of the other (cf. Ps. 22:16; Jer. 4:7).

4. Hyperbole: This is the use of exaggeration or over statement to stress a point (Ps. 6:6; 78:27; 107.26).

5. Paronomasia: This refers to the use or repetition of words that are similar in sound, but not necessarily in sense or meaning in order to achieve a certain effect. This can only be observed by those who can read the original Hebrew text. Psalm 96:10 reads, “For all the gods ( kol-elohay) of the nations are idols ( elilim). This latter word means nothings, or things of naught; so that we might render it, “The gods of the nations or imaginations.”28 (see also Ps. 22:16; Prov. 6:23).

6. Pleonasm: This involves the use of redundancy for the sake of emphasis. This may occur with the use of words or sentences. In Psalm 20:1 we are told, “May the Lord answer you in the day of trouble! May the name of the God of Jacob set you securely on high!” Here “name” appears to be redundant. It means God Himself and has more emphasis than if only the term “God” had been used.

7. Rhetorical question: The use of a question to confirm or deny a fact (Ps. 35:10; 56:8; 106.2).

8. Metonymy: This occurs where one noun is used in place of another because of some relationship or type of resemblance that different objects might bear to one another (Ps. 5:9; 18:2; 57:9; 73:9).

9. Anthropomorphism: The assigning of some part of the human anatomy to God’s Person to convey some aspect of God’s being like the eyes or ears (cf. Ps. 10:11, 14; 11:4; 18:15; 31:2).

10. Zoomorphism: The assigning of some part of an animal to God’s Person to convey certain truths about God (cf. Ps. 17:8; 91:4).

JOB (Blessing Through Suffering)

Author:

While we know the title of this book obviously comes from its main character, Job, and that he was an historical person (Ezek. 14:14, 20; James 5:11), the author is unknown and there are no textual claims as to the author’s identify. Commentators have suggested Job himself, Elihu, Moses, Solomon, and others.

Date:

It is important to distinguish between the date of writing and of the events of the book. Regarding the date, Ryrie writes;

The date of the events in the book and the date of the writing of the book are two different matters. The events may have taken place in a patriarchal society in the second millennium B.C., around the time of Abraham. Several facts support this dating: (1) Job lived more than 140 years (42:16), a not uncommon life span during the patriarchal period; (2) the economy of Job’s day, in which wealth was measured in terms of livestock (1:3), was the type that existed in this period; (3) like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Job was the priest of his family (1:5); (4) the absence of any reference to the nation Israel or the Mosaic Law suggests a pre-Mosaic date (before 1500 B.C.).

Three principal views exist concerning the date of writing: (1) in the patriarchal age, shortly after the events happened; (2) in the time of Solomon (950 B.C.); (3) at the time of the Exile or after, though the mention of Job by Ezekiel (Ezek. 14:14) negates such a late date. The detailed report of the speeches of Job and his friends seems to argue for the book’s being written shortly after the events occurred. On the other hand, the book shares characteristics of other wisdom literature (e.g., Pss. 88, 89) written during the Solomonic age and should be regarded as a dramatic poem describing real events, rather than a verbatim report.29

Title of the Book:

Set in the time of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, the Book of Job derives its name from its chief character, a man called Job, who, experiencing extreme suffering (the loss of wealth, family and health), struggles with the question of why? The English name, Job, comes from the Hebrew áIyo‚b. Some believe it comes from áa„yab, which basically means, “to be hostile to, to be an enemy,” by there is little linguistic evidence to support this.30 But not all agree.

Earlier attempts to determine an etymology of the name have given way to evidence from a well-attested west Semitic name in the second millennium found in the Amarna Letters, Egyptian Execration texts, Mari, Alalakh, and Ugaritic documents. The original form of the name was Ayyabum, which can mean “Where is [my] father?” or possibly “no father.” Either form might suggest an orphan or illegitimacy.31

Theme and Purpose:

The book is a theodicy (a vindication of God’s goodness, justice, and sovereign character in the face of the existence of suffering and evil). As such,

The book wrestles with the age-old question: Why do righteous men suffer, if God is a God of love and mercy? It clearly teaches the sovereignty of God and the need for man to acknowledge such. Job’s three friends gave essentially the same answer: All suffering is due to sin. Elihu, however, declared that suffering is often the means of purifying the righteous. God’s purpose, therefore, was to strip away all of Job’s self-righteousness and to bring him to the place of complete trust in Him.32

Gleason Archer gives and excellent summary of the theme:

This book deals with the theoretical problem of pain and disaster in the life of the godly. It undertakes to answer the question, Why do the righteous suffer? This answer comes in a threefold form: (1) God is worthy of love even apart from the blessings He bestows; (2) God may permit suffering as a means of purifying and strengthening the soul in godliness; (3) God’s thoughts and ways are moved by considerations too vast for the puny mind of man to comprehend. Even though man is unable to see the issues of life with the breadth and vision of the Almighty; nevertheless God really knows what is best for His own glory and for our ultimate good. This answer is given against the background of the stereotyped views of Job’s three “comforters,” Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar.33

A further purpose is certainly to demonstrate the conflict of the ages between God and Satan and to show the relationship of suffering to this conflict. In the end, it demonstrates the truth of Romans 8:28.

Key Words:

The key words are “affliction, misery, hardship, etc.” (9 times), “righteous” or “righteousness” (20 times), but the key concept is the sovereignty of God.

Key Verses:

2:3-6 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to ruin him without cause.” And Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. “However, put forth Your hand, now, and touch his bone and his flesh; he will curse You to Your face.” So the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life.”

13:15 “Though He slay me, I will hope in Him. Nevertheless I will argue my ways before Him.”

42:5-6 “Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me. ‘I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes.”

42:10 And the Lord restored the fortunes of Job when he prayed for his friends, and the Lord increased all that Job had twofold.

Key Chapters:

Chapters 1-2 are key in that they introduce the reader to the source of Job’s suffering—Satan’s accusations and the affliction that fell upon Job.

Chapters 38-42 While chapters 3-37 record the counsel of Job’s friends who raise the question, “Does God allow the innocent to suffer?” the next key chapters are chapters 38-41, God’s speech and silencing of Job, followed by Job’s repentance and restoration, chapter 42.

Key People:

Job, a blameless and upright man, Satan, Job’s accusers, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zopher, and Elihu, the younger and wiser of Job’s friend who sought to give Job counsel.

Christ as seen in Job:

Christ is seen in several ways in Job. Job acknowledges a Redeemer (19:25-27) and prays for a Mediator (9:33; 33:23). He knows he needs someone who can explain the mystery of “suffering” which is answered only in Christ Who identifies with our suffering and ultimately both answers Satan’s accusations, which are ultimately against God, and defeats him (Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15; Rom. 8:32-34).

Outline:

I. The Prologue: the Disasters (Afflictions) of Job (1-2)

A. His Circumstances and Character (1:1-5)

B. His Calamities and their Source—Satan (1:6-2:10)

C. His Comforters (2:11-13)

II. The Dialogues or False Comfort of the Three Friends (3:1-31:40)

A. First cycle of debate (3:1-14:22)

1. Job’s lament (3:1-26)

2. Eliphaz’ reply (4:1-5:27; and Job’s rejoinder, 6:1-7:21)

3. Bildad’s reply (8:1-22; and Job’s rejoinder, 9:1-10:22)

4. Zophar’s reply (11:1-20; and Job’s rejoinder, 12:1-14:22)

B. Second cycle of debate (15:1-21:34)

1. Eliphaz’ reply (15:1-35; and Job’s rejoinder, 16:1-17:16)

2. Bildad’s reply (18:1-21; and Job’s rejoinder, 19:1-29)

3. Zophar’s reply (20:1-29; and Job’s rejoinder, 21:1-34)

C. Third cycle of debate (22:1-31:40)

1. Eliphaz’ reply (22:1-30; and Job’s rejoinder, 23:1-24:25)

2. Bildad’s reply (25:1-6; and Job’s rejoinder, 26:1-31:40)

III. The Words of Elihu (32:1-37:24)

A. First speech: God’s instruction to man through affliction (32:1-33:33)

B. Second speech: God’s justice and prudence vindicated (34:1-37)

C. Third speech: the advantages of pure and consistent piety (35:1-16)

D. Fourth speech: God’s greatness and Job’s guilt in accusing God of unfairness (36:1-37:24)

IV. God’s Revelation from the Whirlwind (38:1-42:6)

A. The First Revelation: God’s omnipotence proclaimed in creation; Job’s self-condemning confession (38:1-40:5)

B. The Second Revelation: God’s power and man’s frailty; Job’s humble re-response (40:6-42:6)

V. The Epilogue: God’s rebuke of the false comforters; Job’s restoration and reward of a long and blessed life (42:7-17)

PSALMS (Praise Through Prayer)

Author:

The Book of Psalms is not only the largest book of the Bible, but it perhaps the most widely used book in Scripture because of the way it speaks to the human heart in all of our experiences in life. Again and again sighing is turned into singing through prayer and praise. For the most part, though the texts of the psalms do not designate their authors, the titles do often indicate the author of the various psalms. The following chart designates the authors of these psalms as they are found in the titles:34

   

Authorship of the Psalms

David

73

Book 1, Book 2, 18, Book 3, 1, Book 4, 2; Book 5, 15

Asaph

12

Ps. 50, 73-83

Korahites

12

Ps. 42-49; 84; 86; 87; 88

Solomon

2

Ps. 72, 127

Moses

1

Ps. 90

Ethan

1

Ps. 89

Division and Classification of the Psalms:

Divisions of the Psalter

The Psalms are really five books in one. Each of the following book division concludes with a doxology while Psalm 150 occupies the place of the doxology and forms an appropriate conclusion to the entire collection.

Epiphanius said, “The Hebrews divided the Psalter into five books so that it would be another Pentateuch.” The Midrash of Psa. 1:1 states, “Moses gave the Israelites the five books of the Law, and to correspond to these David gave to them the Book of the Psalms in five books.”35

This correspondence to the Pentateuch may be seen in the following outline:36

1. Psalms about man and creation (1-41)—corresponds to Genesis.

2. Psalms about Israel and redemption (42-72)—corresponds to Exodus.

3. Psalms about worship and the Temple (73-89)—corresponds to Leviticus.

4. Psalms about our sojourn on the earth (90-106)—corresponds to Numbers.

5. Psalms about praise and the Word of God (107-150)—corresponds to Deuteronomy.

Another way of looking at the book divisions:

Book

Psalms

Author

General Content

Book I

Psalms 1-41

David

Songs of worship

Book II

Psalms 42-72

David & Korah

Hymns of petition

Book III

Psalms 73-89

Mainly Asaph

Hymns of petition

Book IV

Psalms 90-106

Mainly Anonymous

Anthems of praise

Book V

Psalms 107-150

David and Anonymous

Anthems of praise

Categories or Types of Psalms

As to their types, the following illustrates a generally agreed upon set of categories:

1. Lament or Petition, either individual (Ps. 3) or communal (Ps. 44);

2. Thanksgiving or Praise, either individual (Ps. 30) or communal (Ps. 65);

3. Trust in God (Ps. 4);

4. Enthronement hymns of Yahweh: psalms concerning Jerusalem (Ps. 48), and royal psalms (some of which are messianic; Ps. 2, 110);

5. Didactic and Wisdom psalms (Pss. 1, 37, 119).

6. Theme psalms: The psalms may also be classified according to special themes as: creation (Ps. 8, 19), nature psalms (Ps. 19; 104), acrostic or memory device psalms (Ps. 111, 112, 119), the Exodus (Ps. 78), imprecation (Ps. 7), penitence (Ps. 6), pilgrim psalms (Ps. 120), and Messianic psalms, those that include prophecies about Messiah as Psalm 2, 8, 16, 22, 40, 45, 72, 110, 118.

Date:

With their very broad chronological range, the wide thematic arrangement, and the many different audiences living under a variety of conditions, the psalms reflect a multitude of moods and experiences that make them extremely relevant to the reader regardless of the day in which he lives. Regarding the date of the various psalms, Archer writes:

Of these, the earliest would naturally be Ps. 90, by Moses, presumably composed about 1405 b.c. The Davidic psalms would have originated between 1020 and 975 b.c.; those of Asaph from approximately the same period; Ps. 127 from the period of Solomon’s reign, possibly 950. It is hard to date the descendants of Korah and the two Ezrahites who are mentioned; presumably they were pre-exilic. Of the psalms not carrying titles, some were undoubtedly Davidic (e.g., 2 and 33) and the others date from later periods all the way up to the return from exile (such as 126 and 137, the latter of which is at least as late as the Exile). No convincing evidence, however, has been offered for the dating of any of the psalms later than approximately 500 b.c.37

Title of the Book:

In the Hebrew, The Book of Psalms is titles, Tehillim (praise) or Sepher Tehillim (book of praises). A shortened form is Tillim. Only one psalm (145) is designated Tehillah (praise), but praise is the heart of the psalms. The Septuagint gives the name Psalmoi (psalms), that is “songs or poems sung with musical accompaniment.” Psalmos comes from psallein, “to pluck a stringed instrument” as an accompaniment to song.

Theme and Purpose:

The psalms provide us with a message of hope and comfort through the common theme of worship. They are, in essence, an antidote to fear and complaining. through a personal response to the person and work of God. They are an expression of the worship, faith, and spiritual life of Israel. In the psalms we have a mirror of the heart of God’s people recording the simple, universal human experiences of man in the light of God’s person, promises, plan, and presence.

As a collection of a 150 psalms they naturally cover a great variety of feelings, circumstances and themes. This means it is difficult to make any generalizations about a theme or purpose, but it is safe to say that all the psalms embody a personal response on the part of the believer toward the goodness and grace of God. Often they include a record of the psalmist’s own inner emotions of discouragement, anxiety, or thankfulness even when faced with the opposition of God’s enemies or in view of God’s varied providences. But whether the psalmist is occupied with a mournful or a joyous theme, he is always expressing himself as in the presence of the living God. There are a few psalms, of course, which mostly contain the thoughts and revelations of God Himself, such as Ps. 2, but these are most exceptional.38

Many of the psalms survey the Word of God, His attributes, and are Messianic in their scope in anticipation of the coming Messiah.

Key Word:

In thought, worship, is certainly a key word as expressed in the theme above. In this regard, praise, which occurs some 166 times and some form of the word bless, blessing, bless, occurs over a 100 times in the NASB.

Key Verses:

How do you list key verses in a book like psalms where nearly everyone is bound to have his or her own special verses that have been dear to their heart, but the following is a suggestion:

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

19:8-11 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. 10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward.

19:14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.

119:9-11 How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word. 10 With all my heart I have sought You; Do not let me wander from Your commandments. 11Your word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against You.

145:21 My mouth will speak the praise of the LORD; And all flesh will bless His holy name forever and ever.

Key Chapters:

As with the verses, so we also face difficulty in selecting key chapters, but the following are suggested. Psalm 1, 22, 23, 24; 37; 78; 100; 119; 121, and 150. Psalm 100 beautifully unites to central themes of praise and worship.

Key People:

Though the titles to the psalms do sometimes point to the subject or author of the psalm, like David or Korah, the text of the psalms does not. Rather, the focus seems to be more on the people of God in their worship and walk with Lord.

Christ as seen in Psalms:

Many of the psalms are Messianic and speak of the person and work of Christ. They fall into falling categories:

1. Typically messianic: These psalms are less obviously messianic. The psalmist in some way is a type of Christ (cf. 34:20; 69:4, 9), but other aspects of the passage do not apply. Perhaps, in this case Jesus and the apostles were applying familiar psalmic expressions to their experiences (e.g., 109:8 in Acts 1:20).

2. Typological-prophetic: though the psalmist describes his own experience, the language is such that points beyond his own life and becomes historically true only in the person of Christ (22).

3. Indirectly messianic: when the psalm was written it referred to the house of David or a specific king, but will find its final and ultimate fulfillment only in the person of Christ (2, 45, 72).

4. Purely prophetic: refers directly to Christ without any reference to any other person or son of David (110).

5. Enthronement or eschatological: these are psalms that anticipate the coming of the Lord and the consummation of His Kingdom as fulfilled in the person of Messiah, Christ (96-99).

Specific Prophetic fulfillments applied to Christ:

Prophecy

Psalm

New Testament Passage

1. Birth

104:4

Heb. 1:7

2. Humiliation

8:4

Heb. 2:6

3. Deity

45:6

Heb. 1:8

4. Ministry

69:9

John 2:17

5. Rejection

118:22

Matt. 21:42

6. Betrayal

41:9

John 13:18

7. Crucifixion events

22

Matt. 27:39, 43, 46; Luke 23:35

8. Resurrection

2 and 16

Acts 2:27

9. Ascension

68:18

Eph. 4:8

10. Reign

102:26

Heb. 1:11

Outline:

Book I: Psalms 1-41
  • Psalm 1: The Blessed Man: The Two Ways of Life Contrasted: that of Word and the World
  • Psalm 2: The Messiah King: The Confederacy Against God and Christ
  • Psalm 3: Quietness Amid Troubles: Protection in Danger
  • Psalm 4: An Evening Prayer of Trust in God
  • Psalm 5: A Morning Prayer of God’s Confidence in God’s Presence
  • Psalm 6: A Prayer of a Soul in Deep Anguish
  • Psalm 7: A Prayer for Refuge
  • Psalm 8: The Glory of the Creator and Man’s Dignity
  • Psalm 9: A Prayer of Thanksgiving for God’s Justice
  • Psalm 10: A Prayer for the Overthrow of the Wicked
  • Psalm 11: The Lord as a Refuge and Defense
  • Psalm 12: A Prayer for Help Against Lying Tongues
  • Psalm 13: A Prayer for Help in Trouble
  • Psalm 14: A Description of the Folly and Wickedness of Man
  • Psalm 15: A description of the Godly Man
  • Psalm 16: The Lord as the Refuge of the Saints
  • Psalm 17: A Prayer for Deliverance through God’s Justice
  • Psalm 18: A Prayer of Praise for Deliverance
  • Psalm 19: God’s Revelation in His Creation Work and Written Word
  • Psalm 20: Prayer for Victory Over Enemies
  • Psalm 21: The Lord as the Strength of the King
  • Psalm 22: A Portrait of the Cross: a Psalm of Anguish and Praise
  • Psalm 23: A Portrait of the Divine Shepherd: a Psalm of the Goodness of God
  • Psalm 24: A Psalm of the King of Glory
  • Psalm 25: An Acrostic Psalm: a Prayer for Deliverance, Guidance, and Forgiveness
  • Psalm 26: The Plea of Integrity and for Redemption
  • Psalm 27: A Prayer of Fearless Confidence in the Lord
  • Psalm 28: Prayer for Help and Praise for its Answer: the Lord My Strength and My Shield
  • Psalm 29: The Powerful Voice of God
  • Psalm 30: A Prayer of Thankfulness for God’s Faithfulness in a Time of Need
  • Psalm 31: A Prayer of Complaint, Petition, and Praise
  • Psalm 32: The Blessing of Forgiveness and Trust in God
  • Psalm 33: Praise to the Lord as the Creator and Deliverer
  • Psalm 34: Praise to the Lord as the Provider and Deliverer
  • Psalm 35: A Prayer for Vindication and Rescue from Enemies
  • Psalm 36: The Wickedness of Men Contrasted with the Loving Kindness of God
  • Psalm 37: A Plea for Resting in the Lord
  • Psalm 38: A Prayer for Reconciliation Acknowledging the Heavy Burden of Sin
  • Psalm 39: A Prayer Acknowledging the Frailty of Man
  • Psalm 40: Praise for the Joyful Experience and Expectation of Salvation
  • Psalm 41: Praise for God’s Blessings in Adversity
Book II: Psalms 42-72
  • Psalms 42-43: Longing For God and Hoping in the Lord’s Salvation
  • Psalm 44: National Lament and Prayer for Redemption
  • Psalm 45: The Wedding Song of a Son of David
  • Psalm 46: God is Our Refuge and Strength
  • Psalm 47: The Lord Is the Victorious King
  • Psalm 48: Praise for Mount Zion, the Beautiful City
  • Psalm 49: The Emptiness of Riches Without Wisdom
  • Psalm 50: The Sacrifice of Thanksgiving
  • Psalm 51: Confession and the Forgiveness of Sin
  • Psalm 52: The Futility of Boastful Wickedness
  • Psalm 53: A Portrait of the Godless
  • Psalm 54: The Lord as Our Help!
  • Psalm 55: The Lord Sustains the Righteous!
  • Psalm 56: Trust in the Midst of Our Fears
  • Psalm 57: The Exaltation of the Lord in the Midst of Alienation
  • Psalm 58: The Righteous Shall Surely Be Rewarded
  • Psalm 59: Prayer For Deliverance From Enemies
  • Psalm 60: Prayer For Deliverance of the Nation
  • Psalm 61: Prayer From a Fainting Heart
  • Psalm 62: Waiting On the Lord
  • Psalm 63: Thirsting God’s Love
  • Psalm 64: Prayer for Protection
  • Psalm 65: God’s Bounty for Earth and Man
  • Psalm 66:Remember What God Has Done
  • Psalm 67: A Call for All to Praise God
  • Psalm 68: God Is a Father to the Oppressed
  • Psalm 69: Prayer for Deliverance According to God’s Compassion
  • Psalm 70: Prayer for the Poor and Needy
  • Psalm 71: Prayer for the Aged
  • Psalm 72: The Glorious Reign of Messiah
Book III: Psalms 73-89
  • Psalm 73: Prayer for an Eternal Perspective
  • Psalm 74: Plea for Help in a Time of National Adversity
  • Psalm 75: Justice Is the Lord’s
  • Psalm 76: The Victorious Power of the God of Jacob
  • Psalm 77: In the Day of Trouble, Remember God’s Greatness
  • Psalm 78: Lessons From Israel’s History
  • Psalm 79: A Plea for the Lord to Remember the Sheep of His Pasture
  • Psalm 80: Israel’s Plea for God’s Mercy
  • Psalm 81: A Plea for Israel to Listen to the Lord
  • Psalm 82: Unjust Judges Rebuked
  • Psalm 83: Prayer for Judgment on Israel’s Enemies
  • Psalm 84: A Deep Longing for the Presence of God
  • Psalm 85: Prayer for Revival
  • Psalm 86: Prayer for Mercy on the Nation
  • Psalm 87: The Joy of Living in Zion
  • Psalm 88: A Prayer in the Darkness of Despair
  • Psalm 89: Claiming God’s Person and Promises in Affliction
Book IV: Psalms 90-106
  • Psalm 90: Teach Us to Number Our Days
  • Psalm 91: In the Shelter of the Most High
  • Psalm 92: In Praise of the Lord
  • Psalm 93: Yahweh Reigns Gloriously
  • Psalm 94: Yahweh Is the Judge of the Earth: Vengeance is His
  • Psalm 95: Let Us Kneel Before Our Maker: a Call to Worship
  • Psalm 96: Worship the Lord Who Will Judge the World in Righteousness
  • Psalm 97: Rejoice! The Lord Reigns
  • Psalm 98: Sing a New Song to the Lord
  • Psalm 99: Exalt the Lord Who Reigns
  • Psalm 100: Serve the Lord With Gladness: He is the Lord and He is Good
  • Psalm 101: Commitment to a Holy Life
  • Psalm 102: Prayer of a Saint Who is Overwhelmed
  • Psalm 103: Bless the Lord: His Compassions Never Fail!
  • Psalm 104: The Lord’s Care Over All Creation
  • Psalm 105: The Lord’s Faithful Acts in Salvation History
  • Psalm 106: A Remembrance of Yahweh’s Love and Israel’s Disobedience
Book V: Psalms 107-150
  • Psalm 107: Praise for God’s Deliverance from Manifold Troubles
  • Psalm 108: Praise and Prayer for Victory
  • Psalm 109: A Imprecatory Prayer for Vindication and Judgments Against Enemies
  • Psalm 110: Messiah Pictured as the Priest King Warrior
  • Psalm 111: Celebration of God’s Faithfulness
  • Psalm 112: The Triumph of Faith
  • Psalm 113: Praise to the Exalted Lord Who Condescends to the Lowly
  • Psalm 114: Praise for the Exodus
  • Psalm 115: The Impotence of Idols and the Greatness of the Lord
  • Psalm 116: Praise to the Lord for Deliverance
  • Psalm 117: The Praise of All People
  • Psalm 118: Praise for the Lord’s Saving Goodness
  • Psalm 119: In Praise of the Scriptures
  • Psalm 120: Prayer for Deliverance from Slanderers
  • Psalm 121: The Lord is My Guardian
  • Psalm 122: Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem!
  • Psalm 123: Plea for Mercy
  • Psalm 124: Our Helper is the Maker of Heaven and Earth!
  • Psalm 125: Peace Be on Israel
  • Psalm 126: Praise for Restoration!
  • Psalm 127: Praise for Children, a Gift from the Lord
  • Psalm 128: The Family Blessed by the Lord
  • Psalm 129: The Prayer of the Persecuted
  • Psalm 130: Waiting for God’s Redemption
  • Psalm 131: Childlike Trust in the Lord
  • Psalm 132: Prayer for the Lord’s Blessing on Zion
  • Psalm 133: The Blessedness of Brotherly Unity
  • Psalm 134: Praise to the Lord in the Night
  • Psalm 135: Praise for the Wondrous Works of God
  • Psalm 136: Praise for God’s Mercy Which Endures Forever
  • Psalm 137: Tears Over Captivity
  • Psalm 138: The Lord Answers Prayer and Delivers the Humble
  • Psalm 139: The Lord Knows Me!
  • Psalm 140: Prayer for Deliverance: You Are My God!
  • Psalm 141: May My Prayer Be Like Incense!
  • Psalm 142: No One Cared but the Lord; He Alone Is My Portion
  • Psalm 143: Prayer for Guidance; Lead Me on Level Ground
  • Psalm 144: The Lord is My Rock and My Warrior
  • Psalm 145: Praise for the Lord’s Greatness and Wonderful Works
  • Psalm 146: Praise to the Lord, an Abundant Helper
  • Psalm 147: Praise to the Lord Who Heals the Brokenhearted
  • Psalm 148: Praise to the Lord, the Wise Creator
  • Psalm 149: Praise to the Lord Who Delights in His People
  • Psalm 150: Praise to the Lord

PROVERBS (Wisdom Through Precept)

Author:

According to 1 Kings 4:32, Solomon spoke 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs. And while he wrote most of proverbs in this book, later chapters indicate that he was not the only author of the book. Three sections of the proverbs are ascribed to Solomon; chapters 1:1-9:18; 10:1-22:16, and 25:1-29:27. However, the proverbs in the latter section (25:1-29:27) were selected from Solomon’s collection by King Hezekiah’s committee (25:1). Proverbs 22:17 refers to the “sayings of the wise,” and 24:23 mentions additional “sayings of the wise.” Proverbs 22:17-21 serves as an introduction which suggests that these sections stem from a circle of wise men, not from Solomon himself. Chapter 30 is specifically attributed to Agur, son of Jakeh, and 31:1-9 to King Lemuel. Lemuel’s sayings contain several Aramaic spellings that point to a non-Israelite background.

Date:

950-700 B.C.

As a book of wisdom, Proverbs is not an historical book but rather the product of the school of wisdom in Israel. Solomon’s proverbs were written before his death in 931 B.C., and those collected by Hezekiah’s scribes probably around 700 B.C.

Title of the Book:

Proverbs obviously gets it name from its contents—short sayings or maxims that convey truth in a pointed and pithy way. The Hebrew word for proverb (from ma„sŒa„l, “to be like, represent”) means “parallel,” “similar,” or “a comparison.” It refers to a comparison or simile as underlying the moral maxim. As a pithy saying, a proverb centers in a comparison or an antithesis. The title comes from the fact this writing is a compendium of moral and spiritual instruction designed to enable one to live wisely.

Theme and Purpose:

As suggested by the title and the meaning of the term proverb, the theme and purpose of the book is wisdom for living through special instruction on every conceivable issue of life: folly, sin, goodness, wealth, poverty, the tongue, pride, humility, justice, family (parents, children, discipline), vengeance, strife, gluttony, love, laziness, friends, life, and death. No book is more practical in terms of wisdom for daily living than Proverbs.

The fundamental theme is “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7a). The absence of a fear of God leads to an unbridled and foolish life. To fear the Lord is to stand in awe of His holy character and power. At the same time, Proverbs shows that true wisdom leads to the fear of the Lord (2:1-5).

Key Words:

The key word is “wisdom,” “wise,” etc., occurring some 110 times. Also important and related to wisdom are the terms, “instruction” and “taught, teach,” together occurring some 23 times.

Key Verses:

1:5-7 A wise man will hear and increase in learning, And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel, To understand a proverb and a figure, The words of the wise and their riddles. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.

3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and turn away from evil.

9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Key Chapters:

There are obviously many sections of proverbs that might be considered as key such as chapter 1:20-33 where wisdom is personified as a woman inviting all to come to her and learn, but the majority refuse to heed her appeal, but perhaps chapter 31 gets the honors as the key chapter.

The last chapter of Proverbs is unique in ancient literature, as it reveals a very high and noble view of women. The woman in these verses is: (1) A good woman (31:13, 15-16, 19, 25); (2) a good wife (31:11-12, 23-24); (3) a good mother (31:14-15, 18, 21, 27); and (4) a good neighbor (31:11-12, 23-24). Her conduct, concern, speech, and life stand in sharp contrast to the woman pictured in chapter 7.39

Christ as seen in Proverbs:

In chapter 8, wisdom is personified and seen in its perfection. It is divine (8:22-31), it is the source of biological and spiritual life (3:18; 8:35-36), it is righteous and moral (8:8-9), and it is available to all who will receive it (8:1-6, 32-35). This wisdom became incarnate in Christ “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). “But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30; cf. 1 Cor. 1:22-24).40

Outline:

I. Introduction: the Purpose of Proverbs (1:1-7)

II. The Precepts of Wisdom: Proverbs to Youth (1:8-9:18)

A. Obey Parents (1:8-9)

B. Avoid Bad Company (1:10-19)

C. Heed Wisdom’s Call and Advice (1:20-33)

D. Avoid the Adulteress (2:1-22)

E. Trust and Honor God (3:1-12)

F. The Blessings of Wisdom (3:13-20)

G. Be Kind and Generous to Others (3:21-35)

H. Get Wisdom (4:1-9)

I. Avoid Bad Company (4:10-19)

J. Above All, Keep Your Heart (4:20-27)

K. Do Not Commit Adultery (5:1-14)

L. Be Faithful to Your Own Spouse (5:15-23)

M. Avoid Surety (6:1-5)

N. Shun Laziness (6:6-19)

O. Avoid Adultery (6:20-35)

P. Avoid the Adulteress (7:1-27)

Q. Wisdom and Folly Contrasted (8:1-9:18)

III. The Proverbs of Solomon (10:1-24:34)

A. Proverbs Contrasting the Godly and the Wicked (10:1-15:33)

B. Proverbs Encouraging Godly Lives (16:1-22:6)

C. Proverbs Concerning Various Practices (22:17-23:35)

D. Proverbs Concerning Various People (24:1-34)

IV. The Proverbs of Solomon Copied by Hezekiah’s Men (25:1-29:27)

A. Proverbs Concerning Relationships with Others (25:1-26:28)

1. With kings (25:1-7)

2. With neighbors (25:8-20)

3. With enemies (25:21-24)

4. With yourself (25:25-26:2)

5. With fools (26:3-12)

6. With sluggards (26:13-16)

7. With gossips (26:17-28)

B. Proverbs Concerning Actions (27:1-29:27)

1. In relation to life (27:1-27)

2. In relation to law (28:1-10)

3. In relation to wealth (28:11-28)

4. In relation to stubbornness (29:1-27)

V. The Words of Agur (30:1-33)

A. Personal Words (30:1-14)

B. Numerical Proverbs (30:15-33)

VI. The Words of Lemuel (31:1-9)

VII. The Capable Wife (31:10-31)

ECCLESIASTES (A Search For Purpose)

Author:

There are two lines of evidence (external and internal) that point to Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes. For the external evidence, the Jewish tradition attributes the book to Solomon. Internally, a number of lines of evidence show that Solomon was surely the author. First, the author identifies himself as “the son of David, king in Jerusalem” (1:1). Then, references in the book to the author’s unrivaled wisdom (1:16), extreme wealth (2:7), opportunities for pleasure (2:3), and extensive building activities (2:4-6) all suggest Solomon as the author. There is simply no other descendant of David who measured up to these descriptions.

Date:

931 B.C.

According to Jewish tradition, Solomon wrote the Song in his early years, expressing a young man’s love. He wrote the Proverbs in his mature years, manifesting a middle-aged man’s wisdom. He reportedly wrote Ecclesiastes in his declining years, revealing an old man’s sorrow (cf. 12:1). Perhaps Ecclesiastes is the record of Solomon’s regret for and repentance from his grave moral lapses recorded in 1 Kings 11. The Book of Ecclesiastes, then, would have been written just before Solomon’s death and subsequent division of his kingdom that occurred in 931 B.C.41

Title of the Book:

The name Ecclesiastes stems from the title given in the Greek translation, the Septuagint. Greek term, ecclesiastes, means “assembly” and is derived from the word ekkle„sia, “assembly, church.” “The Hebrew title is Qoheleth, which means “one who convenes and speaks at an assembly,” or “an ecclesiastic” or “preacher.”

Theme and Purpose:

The basic theme is the futility of life apart from God. In the development of this theme, four key purposes emerge.42

First, in seeking to demonstrate that life without God has no meaning, Solomon is seeking to demolish confidence in man-based achievements and wisdom; he shows that all of man’s goals or the “way that seems right to man” must of necessity lead to dissatisfaction and emptiness.” Solomon recorded the futility and emptiness of his own experiences to make his readers desperate for God. He sought to show that their quest for happiness cannot be fulfilled by man himself in the pursuits of this life.

Second, Solomon affirms the fact that much in life cannot be fully understood, which means we must live by faith, not by sight. Life is full of unexplained enigmas, unresolved anomalies, and uncorrected injustices. There is much in life that man cannot comprehend nor control, but by faith, we can rest in the sovereign wisdom and work of God. Much like the Book of Job, Ecclesiastes not only affirms that man is finite, but that he must learn to live with mystery. Life down here on earth, “life under the sun,” cannot provide the key to life itself for our world fallen, bankrupt. In view of this, man must have more than a horizontal outlook; he must have the upward look to God, fearing and trusting Him. Enigmas and injustices must be left in His hands to resolve.

Third, Ecclesiastes presents a realistic view of life that counterbalances the optimism of Proverbs. It shows there are exceptions to the laws and promises of proverbs, at least from the standpoint of this life. Proverbs 10:16 affirms that justice is meted to the righteous and the wicked, but Ecclesiastes 8:14 observes that this is not always the case, at least not in this life. Are these contradictions? No, because Proverbs is noting the general laws of God without noting the exceptions that occur because we live in a fallen, sin-ridden world. Ecclesiastes points out that while a righteous order exists, as affirmed in Proverbs, it is not always evident to man as he views life “under the sun” from his finite perspective.

Fourth, Solomon showed that man, left to his own strategies will always find life empty, frustrating, and mysterious. The book, however, does not mean that life has no answers, that life is totally useless or meaningless. Meaning and significance can be found, he explained, in fearing God. Frustrations can thus be replaced with contentment through fellowship with God.

Key Word:

Vanity

Key Verses:

1:2 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”

2:24 There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good. This also I have seen, that it is from the hand of God.

12:13-14 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.

Key Chapter:

At the end of Ecclesiastes, the Preacher looks at life through “binoculars.” On the other hand, from the perspective of the natural man who only sees life “under the sun,” the conclusion is, “all is vanity.” Life’s every activity, even though pleasant for the moment, becomes purposeless and futile when viewed as an end in itself.

The preacher carefully documents the latter view with a long list of his own personal pursuits I life. no amount of activities or possessions has satisfied the craving of his heart. Every earthly prescription for happiness has left the same bitter aftertaste. Only when the Preacher views his life from God’s perspective “above the sun” does it take on meaning as a precious gift “from the hand of God” (2:24).

Chapter 12 resolves the book’s extensive inquiry into the meaning of life with the single conclusion, “Fear God and Keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (12:13).43

Christ as seen in Ecclesiastes:

Since Christ alone is man’s means to God where man finds wholeness and satisfaction, or life and life more abundantly (John 10:10; 7:37-38), the futility and perplexity experienced in life can only be removed through a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus. Man’s aspiration for significance and satisfaction are found only in the Savior.

Outline:44

I. Introduction: The Problem Stated (1:1-3)

A. The Problem Demonstrated (1:4-2:26)

1. The Futility of the Cycles of Life (1:4-11)

2. The Futility of Human Wisdom (1:12-18)

3. The Futility of Pleasure and Wealth (2:1-11)

4. The Futility of Materialism (2:12-23)

5. Conclusion: Enjoy and Be Content with the Providences of God (2:24-26)

II. God’s Immutable Plan for Life (3:1-22)

A. He Predetermines the Events of Life (3:1-11)

B. He Predetermines the Conditions of Life (3:12-13)

C. He Judges All (3:14-21)

D. Conclusion (3:22)

III. The Futility of the Circumstances of Life (4:1-5:20)

A. Evil Oppression (4:1-3)

B. The Emptiness of Hard Work (4:4-12)

C. The Emptiness of Political Success (4:13-16)

D. The Emptiness of Human Religion (5:1-7)

E. The Emptiness of Human Riches (5:8-17)

F. Conclusion (5:18-20)

IV. The Futility of Life as a Whole (6:1-1)

A. Wealth Cannot Satisfy (6:1-2)

B. Children Cannot Satisfy (6:3-6)

C. Labor Cannot Satisfy (6:7-12)

V. Counsel for Living With Vanity (7:1-12:8)

A. Counsel in View of Man’s Wickedness (7:1-29)

B. Counsel in View of God’s Inscrutable Providences (8:1-9:18)

C. Counsel in View of the Uncertainties of Life (10:1-20)

D. Counsel in View of the Aging Processes of Life (11:1-12:8)

VI. Conclusion (12:9-14)

SONG OF SOLOMON (A Royal Wedding)

Author:

Though some critics reject King Solomon as the author and take 1:1 to mean, “which is about Solomon,” the internal evidence supports the traditional belief that Solomon is its author. The contents of the book agree with all that we know about the abilities and wisdom of Solomon, and there is no compelling reason not to regard him as the author.45 Solomon is mentioned seven times (1:1, 5; 3:7, 9, 11; 8:11-12), and he is identified as the groom. Verse 1 asserts that Solomon wrote this song as one of many (in fact the best of the many) songs which he wrote (1 Kings 4:32 tells us he composed 1,005 such songs). Note that the text does not simply say, “The Song of Solomon” but “The Song of Songs, which are Solomon’s.”

Date:

About 965 B.C.

The Song was probably written early in Solomon’s career, about 965. At this point, Solomon had sixty queens and eighty concubines (6:8), but later in his life, he would have seven hundred queens and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

Title of the Book:

Regarding the title of this book Ryrie writes:

This book has been titled several ways: the Hebrew title from verse 1, The Song of Songs, which means “the most superlative, or best, of songs”; the English title, also from verse 1, The Song of Solomon, which designates the author; and the Canticles, meaning simply “songs,” derived from the Latin.46

Theme and Purpose:

The Song of Solomon is a love song filled with metaphors and imagery designed to portray God’s view of love and marriage: the beauty of physical love between man and woman. The book which is presented as a drama with several scenes, has three major player: the bride (Shulamite), the king (Solomon), and a chorus (daughters of Jerusalem). The purpose of the book will depend on the viewpoint taken as to the way the book should be interpreted. The following will illustrate this in the discussion of the three views presented here.

In summary, there have been three basic views on the interpretation of this Song of Solomon.

(1) Purely an Allegory: Some have regarded it only an allegory portraying fictional characters employed teach the truth of God’s love for His people. Regarding this view, Archer writes:

The allegorical interpretation prevailed from ancient times until the rise of modern scholarship. It identified Solomon with Jehovah (or else, according to the Christians, with Christ) and the Shulamite as Israel (or the Church). The historicity of Solomon’s love affair is of small importance to the exponents of this theory. They tend to interpret each detail in a symbolic manner; thus Solomon’s eighty concubines, according to some, represent the eighty heresies destined to plague the Church…

It must be admitted that these passages establish at least a typical relationship between human love and marriage and the covenant relationship between God and His people. Nevertheless, the allegorical view faces certain difficulties, not the least of which is that the book seems to speak of a historical episode in Solomon’s life and accords well with Solomon’s situation, at least in the earlier part of his reign (judging from the comparatively small number of his concubines).47

(2) The Literal View: Others regard the Song as simply a secular love song not intended to convey a spiritual lesson and expressing human love in a highly romantic way drawn from an historical event in the life of Solomon.

(3) The Literal/Typical View: This view sees a combination a literal historical event portraying the beauties of physical love along with a typical portrait of God’s Love and Christ’s love for the church.

Others rightly understand the book to be an historical record of the romance of Solomon with a Shulamite woman. The “snapshots” in the book portray the joys of love in courtship and marriage and counteract both the extremes of asceticism and of lust. The rightful place of physical love, within marriage only, is clearly established and honored. Within the historical framework, some also see illustrations of the love of God (and Christ) for His people. Obviously Solomon does not furnish the best example of marital devotion, for he had many wives and concubines (140 at this time, 6:8; many more later, 1 Kings 11:3). The experiences recorded in this book may reflect the only (or virtually the only) pure romance he had.48

This combined perspective is seen in Archers explanation of the theme of Canticles:

The theme of Canticles is the love of Solomon for his Shulamite bride and her deep affection for him. This love affair is understood to typify the warm, personal relationship which God desires with His spiritual bride, composed of all redeemed believers who have given their hearts to Him. From the Christian perspective, this points to the mutual commitment between Christ and His church and the fullness of fellowship which ought to subsist between them.49

Key Word:

Love

Key Verses:

7:10 “I am my beloved’s, And his desire is for me.

Key People:

The book has three major player: the bride (Shulamite), the king (Solomon), and a chorus (daughters of Jerusalem).

Christ as seen in the Song of Solomon:

This book illustrates Christ’s love for the church which is seen as the bride of Christ in the New Testament (cf. 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:23-25; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9).

Outline:

I. Title (1:1)

II. Falling in Love (1:2-3:5)

III. United in Love (3:6-5:1)

IV. Struggling in Love (5:2-7:10)

V. Maturing in Love (7:11-8:14)


23 J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore The Book, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1960, pp. 110-111.

24 Baxter, p. 13.

25 Norman L. Geisler, A Popular survey of the Old Testament, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1977, p. 180.

26 Geisler, p. 181.

27 Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press, Chicago, 1994, Electronic Edition, 1997, Parsons Technology, Inc.

28 E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1898, Reprinted in 1968, p. 311.

29 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition, Moody, p. 777.

30 R. Laird Harris, L. Archer, Jr. Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, p. 36).

31 Earlier attempts to determine an etymology of the name have given way to evidence from a well-attested west Semitic name in the second millennium found in the Amarna Letters, Egyptian Execration texts, Mari, Alalakh, and Ugaritic documents. The original form of the name was Ayyabum, which can mean “Where is [my] father?” or possibly “no father.” Either form might suggest an orphan or illegitimacy. Expositors Bible Commentary, Old Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1997, electronic media. So also Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Moody Press, Chicago, 1981, p. 673.

32 Ryrie, p. 777

33 Archer, Electronic Edition.

34 Ryrie, p. 831.

35 Charles L. Feinberg, Class Notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, p. 3, 1960’s. Feinberg pointed out this quote was very ancient. The Midrash is a Rabinical Commentary.

36 Geisler, pp. 195-196.

37 Archer, Electronic Media.

38 Adapted from Archer’s Survey of the Old Testament, Electronic Media.

39 Wilkinson and Boa, p. 164.

40 Wilkinson and Boa, p. 164.

41 Geisler, p. 214.

42 This section is adapted from Zuck, Roy. “God and Man in Ecclesiastes” Bibliotheca Sacra (vol 148:Jan-March, 1991), pp. 48-50.

43 Wilkinson and Boa, pp. 170-171.

44 Adapted from The Ryrie Study Bible, pp. 1016-1017.

45 Ryrie, p. 1032.

46 Ryrie, p. 1032.

47 Archer, Electronic Media.

48 Ryrie, p. 1032.

49 Archer, Electronic Media.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

6. Exegetical Commentary on John 3

OUTLINE:

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

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

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

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

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note on the Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note on Realized Eschatology and the Gospel of John:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three possibilities are suggested:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Related Topics: Christology, Soteriology (Salvation)

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

The Arrest

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

Peter’s Denial

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

Mocked and Abused

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

Condemned by the Sanhedrin

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Structure of our Text

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

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

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

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

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

Luke’s Account and the Rest of the Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter’s Denial
(22:54-62)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mocked and Abused
(22:63-65)

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

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

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

Condemned by the Sanhedrin
(22:66-71)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” 49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. 52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.” 54 Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Media

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

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

Romans 13.1-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indigenous Principle (Adaptation to the World)

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

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

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

The Pilgrim Principle (Confrontation and Separation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Christ

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

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

3. Conversion

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

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

4. The Kingdom of God/Heaven

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

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

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

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

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

a. Is there a sin issue involved?

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

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

i. We ought to stand for biblical truth.

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

c. Is the Holy Spirit convicting our spirit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Related Topics: Apologetics, Cultural Issues, Ecclesiology (The Church), Spiritual Life

What’s So Foolish About the Gospel?

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

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

“Irrational Faith”

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

A Fallen Perspective and Defective Standard

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

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

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

Preconceived Notions

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

Reasonable Faith

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

Unwanted Implications

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

Open Eyes

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

Related Topics: Apologetics

Pages