Editor's Note: For part one of this two part article Click Here.

Gregory Koukl and Alan Shlemon

Since the birth of the church, no Christian authority—no theologian, no church council, no denominational confession, no seminary—ever hinted that homosexual behavior was morally legitimate. Now congregations across the country are becoming “gay friendly” at an alarming rate, convinced that for two millennia we’ve all simply misunderstood our Bibles.

Organizations like The Reformation Project (TRP) are hosting sophisticated seminars in major cities training activists in revisionist, pro-gay theology and sending them out as missionaries, of sorts, to “reform” the church.

In our last issue of Solid Ground,¹ we began our critique of that trend by looking closely at the central biblical texts addressing homosexuality. We discovered that those verses consistently trade on a common-sense observation about the world that is central to human flourishing: Human beings are gendered creatures.

From the beginning, God designed man to function sexually with woman in a life-long union. Jesus’ summary of God’s plan was unambiguous: one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime (Matt. 19:4-6). Any sexual behavior outside of this kind of relationship—fornication, adultery, bestiality, rape, homosexuality—subverts God’s purpose and is uniformly condemned as rebellion against God.

The new theology claims otherwise. Scripture does not denounce all homosexual behavior, they say, only abusive or exploitive sex. Since the “Christian gay relationship”² TRP advocates is loving and committed, it doesn’t fall under the Scriptural ban.

This is no small matter. If the new theology is mistaken, multitudes of practicing homosexuals who self-identify as Christian are being led to believe they will inherit the Kingdom when in fact they are destined to perish forever.

We dealt with TRP’s training material talking points regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus, and Romans 1 in our last issue of Solid Ground and found their arguments fraught with false-starts and missteps. There’s one final set of passages to look at, though, before moving on to TRP’s other concerns.

Lost in Translation?

Talking Point #9 addresses Paul’s so-called “vice lists,” a catalog of behaviors the apostle says places any so-called Christian on the outside of the Kingdom:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)³

Also, in 1 Tim. 1:9-11, Paul lumps “homosexuals” together with other “ungodly sinners” whose behavior is “contrary to sound teaching according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.”

According to TRP, “These lists don’t address LGBT⁴ people, but cases of pederasty, abuse, and prostitution.”⁵ They admit that Paul’s combination of Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai (rendered “effeminate” and “homosexuals” here) does denote male homosexual sex, but probably only “role-differentiated” encounters between “older men and boys (what we would call pederasty), or between master and slaves.” Modern-day gay Christians who don’t engage in exploitive forms of sex are not the target of Paul’s reproach, they say. Further, rendering arsenokoitai as “homosexuals” is misleading since the English word didn’t even exist before the 1892.

Are they right?

First, don’t be distracted by the claim that the English word “homosexual” was only recently created. It’s irrelevant. Clearly, same-sex behavior was common in Paul’s day, as TRP readily acknowledges. The translators simply chose the contemporary term they thought described the specific ancient activity Paul had in mind. The important question is whether the English word “homosexual” captures the meaning of Paul’s Greek rendering. It does.

In these vice lists, Paul coins a new term—arsenokoitai (translated “homosexual”)—by combining two words, arsenos, for “male,” and koiten, meaning “to bed.” Arsenokoitai literally means “bedders of males” or “men who bed with males.”

Why this combination of words? Because these are the very words found in the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament regularly used by the Apostles—to describe the homosexual behavior explicitly forbidden in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13.⁶ In fact, ancient Jews used the Hebrew phrase, mishkav zakur—“lying with a male”—to denote male-to-male sexual contact. No one familiar with the Law would have missed Paul’s meaning.

Second, there is nothing in the words arsenos or koiten, nor in anything in the context of 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10, that even hints that Paul’s condemnation is limited to “exploitive” homosexual acts. This is pure fancy. The words paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanēs (“man mad for boys”), or paidophthoros (“corrupted of boys”) would have served Paul’s purpose perfectly if that were his intention. It wasn’t. Rather, these passages—given the context and arsenokoitai’s origin—communicate an absolute prohibition of any form of homosexual sex.

Ironically, while TRP dispenses assurances that Christians are allowed to be practicing homosexuals, Paul’s grave warning says just the opposite: “Do not be deceived. Neither effeminate…nor homosexuals…will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9).

Inspecting the Fruit

TRP’s Talking Point #1 says, “Experience shouldn’t cause us to dismiss Scripture, but it can cause us to reconsider our interpretation of Scripture.” In principle we agree with this point, and good examples can be offered to defend it. But what kind of “experience” does TRP have in mind here that might disqualify an interpretation? The feelings of hurt and the damaging consequences of a teaching or doctrine, they suggest.

“You will know them by their fruits,” Jesus taught. “Every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matt. 7:16-17).

The view that the Bible prohibits all homosexual behavior, TRP points out, has caused “serious harm in LGBT people’s lives”—family turmoil, rejection, guilt, shame, depression, illegal drug use, even suicide. This kind of “bad fruit” is a clear sign that we need to reassess our view of homosexuality, they argue.

There are at least two problems with TRP’s case. First, their reasoning suggests that any unpleasantness, difficulty, anguish, or even tragedy—like suicide—qualifies as “bad fruit” in the sense Jesus had in mind. If so, all sorts of immoral behavior could be justified when holiness leads to hardship. Virtually any command of God could be annulled.

Denying fleshly, sinful desires means dying to oneself, Jesus taught. That’s always difficult, unpleasant, and inconvenient—bare minimum. Sometimes it means significant sacrifice and suffering. Jesus promises an array of temporal woes for those who follow Him faithfully: persecution, tribulation, family division, even death. Is this bad fruit? By TRP’s criteria it would be, yet Jesus calls such burdens blessings (Matt. 5:10-12).

Second, and more serious, TRP has turned Jesus’ teaching upside down. This passage does not vindicate them; it condemns them.

The TRP material never actually quotes the teaching in question, so let’s look at it. The whole point of Jesus’ lesson is the warning He begins with: “Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (v. 15).

Be careful, Jesus cautions. Be on the alert. Dangerous people will infiltrate your ranks unrecognized because they’ll look just like true sheep in many ways. How do we distinguish fleece from fur? “You will know them [the wolves, the false teachers in your midst] by their fruits. Every good tree [good teacher] bears good fruit, but the bad tree [false teacher] bears bad fruit.”

Jesus’ teaching here is not ambiguous, veiled, or complex. He’s giving a sober warning, so His words are clear. The “bad tree” represents false teachers in the midst of the flock (v. 15). The good fruit is doing the will of the Father (v. 21). The bad fruit is practicing lawlessness (v. 23). Nothing complicated here.

There is no suggestion anywhere in this passage that “bad fruit” is the kind of harm or distress described by TRP. “Fruit” for Jesus is not the consequence of a teaching (turmoil, anguish, hardship, self-loathing), but the conduct promoted by the teacher. Any Christian advocating immorality is a wolf within the fold, denounced by Christ in the harshest terms: “I never knew you. Depart from Me!” (v. 23).

So here is our question. In this discussion about homosexuality and the Bible, who in our midst is teaching Christians to practice lawlessness, those encouraging sexual restraint or those championing homosexual indulgence?

The Bible says nothing good about homosexuality, as we’ve seen, but rather condemns it at every turn. Paul warns that no unrepentant homosexual will inherit the Kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9). It’s virtuous for TRP to be concerned about the anguish LGBT people experience. It’s vice, though, to justify the immoral behavior at the root of their problem. According to Jesus, that is bad fruit. According to Jesus, that is evidence of wolves in our midst.

Something New Under the Sun?

TRP’s talking point #2 says, “Sexual orientation is a new concept—one the Christian tradition has not addressed.” Since the concept of sexual orientation was unknown to the biblical authors, they suggest, and since those writers didn’t understand same-sex attraction as it’s understood today—committed, monogamous love between social equals—then their comments simply are not relevant for gay Christians in our churches.

In their defense, TRP cites two 1st century sources, the Roman philosopher, Musonius Rufus, and the Greco-Roman orator, Dio Chrysostom. These men describe sexual adventurers who, unsatisfied with conventional heterosexual carnality, indulge in same-sex encounters to satisfy their excessive sensual cravings. It was this excess the biblical authors condemned, TRP claims, not homosexuality itself.

This maneuver is typical of TRP’s method: find an ancient writer describing an extreme example of homosexual conduct, then assume this radical behavior alone was the subject of the Bible’s censure.

TRP’s approach is flawed and self-serving. Connecting Rufus’ and Chrysostom’s observations to Paul’s intentions in the epistles or the Mosaic Law is completely unjustified. All scriptural evidence points in the opposite direction. Every biblical text prohibiting homosexual behavior does so in absolute terms. All homosexual conduct is condemned, not just certain species of it (master-slave, man-boy, excessive lust, etc.).

The Bible categorically and unequivocally prohibits all sensual behavior outside of a married man/woman union. No exceptions. Consult any passage—Leviticus 18 or 20, the vice lists in 1 Cor. 6 or 1 Tim. 1, Romans 1. No text gives any hint of any exemptions. The authors have every opportunity to qualify their comments, but they never do.

Coerced Celibacy?

What, then, are Christians with same-sex attraction to do to remain godly? Is celibacy their only option—a lifetime of denying their pressing sexual desires? No, TRP says, this is not what God demands.

“Celibacy is a gift,” we read in Talking Point #3, not a mandate. “Jesus says celibacy can only be accepted by those to whom it is given (Matt. 19:11-12). Paul says that, while he would prefer everyone be celibate like him, ‘each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that’ (1 Cor. 7:7).” Since celibacy should not be forced on those who don’t have the gift, there must be a legitimate alternative for gay Christians.

This appeal neglects an important distinction: the difference between sexual purity and celibacy. Sexual purity is God’s command for every believer in every circumstance. Paul “solemnly warns” all Christians to “abstain from sexual immorality” (1 Thess. 4:3-6). This applies to the married and unmarried alike.

Unmarried Christians—both heterosexuals and those with same-sex attraction—are commanded to abstain from all forms of sex. That’s not celibacy. It’s simple sexual purity. Married couples are also to be sexually pure in a way appropriate to their situation (note Prov. 5:15-20).

Celibacy, on the other hand, is more than merely abstaining from sex. It’s a life wholly devoted to God. Singleness allows a believer to dedicate his time, talents, and resources completely to Kingdom concerns, unfettered by the demands of marriage and family (1 Cor. 7:32). Celibacy entails sexual abstinence since marriage is the only place sexual desires may be satisfied, ⁷ but it is more than mere abstinence.

The requirement of purity applies to all Christians, incidentally, regardless of their gifting. Some are gifted with celibacy and their unsatisfied sexual desires are not a distraction. Others are celibate by circumstance⁸ and must make the best of it, in spite of unsatisfied sexual desire.

The simple fact is, many are “forced” into singleness. It’s not always the result of the gift Jesus and Paul had in mind. The moral standard is still the same, regardless. Those permanently single, by accident or design, must still remain sexually pure. Not having the “gift” does not release any Christian from the requirement of holiness. Christians with same-sex attraction must shoulder a burden every other single Christian must also bear.

Complementarity, Not Kinship

TRP’s “Talking Point #4” says, “The Bible does not teach a normative doctrine of gender complementarity.” We’ll explain what that means, but first a warning: Fasten your seatbelts.

Scripture, TRP is claiming, is actually silent on the idea that males were made by God as the appropriate sexual complement to females (the “normative doctrine of gender complementarity”). Rather, “the focus in Genesis 2 is not on the complementarity of male and female, but rather on the similarity of male and female, over and against the created animals. The ‘one flesh’ union spoken of in Genesis 2:24 connotes not physical complementarity, but a kinship tie.”

The one-flesh union then, has nothing to do with men and women being designed to physically fit together (complementarity) since, “There are simply no texts in Scripture that address the most common way that anatomical complementarity is defined: the ‘fittedness’ of penis and vagina.”

Rather, it’s referring to their kinship as members of the same species. Since two men or two women are kin in that sense, they are allowed to enter into a “one flesh” union that fits God’s design. “Jesus’ discussion of Gen. 2,” TRP offers, “focuses the discussion on a particular sort of kinship” [emphasis added], i.e., husband/wife kinship. Same sex unions would be another legitimate type, in their view.

This, to put it bluntly, is nothing short of willful blindness.

Eve was a suitable helper for Adam because she was human, not animal—true enough. But that is not the whole of it. God also said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Complying with this command requires more than a species kin relationship. It requires the “male and a female” genders mentioned in the verse right before it. Indeed, the reproductive system is the only human bodily function that requires uniting with a human being of the opposite sex to fulfill its purpose.

When a man leaves his parents, he cleaves to—becomes one flesh with—his wife (Gen. 2:24), not just to another human he is “kin” to. This is the kind of one-flesh union God had in mind, the only union capable of fulfilling the “be fruitful and multiply” creation mandate. That’s why there is not a single instance in Scripture where a pair of men or a pair of women are described in a “one-flesh” union.

And pardon us for asking the obvious, but do we really need a Bible verse to enlighten us that sexual organs are designed by God to fit together? Please.

Finally—and decisively, we think—the Gen. 2:24 “one flesh” reference appears in another vital passage about marriage that erases any possibility of ambiguity about God’s intended meaning. In Eph. 5:22-23, Paul cites heterosexual, man/woman, husband/wife marriage as a picture of the mystery of Christ and His bride, the church. The analogy only works if gender differences are inherent to marriage. Kevin DeYoung explains:

The meaning of marriage is more than mutual sacrifice and covenantal commitment. Marriage, by its very nature, requires complementarity. The mystical union of Christ and the church—each “part” belonging to the other but neither interchangeable—cannot be pictured in marital union without the differentiation of male and female.… Homosexuality simply does not fit with the created order in Genesis 1 and 2.⁹

Of Eunuchs and Men

Finally, TRP’s “Talking Point #5” says, “The New Testament points toward greater inclusion of gender and sexual minorities, including those who do not fit neatly within binary categories.”

As evidence for this claim, they note that eunuchs were sexually different and thus barred from entering God’s assembly under the Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, though, eunuchs seem to be fully accepted as members of the Christian community under the New Covenant (note Acts 8). Therefore, they say, we have a biblical precedent for inclusion of sexual “others” today, including homosexuals.

Yes, the Ethiopian eunuch’s physical abnormalities (not sexual differences, but anatomical differences) were no barriers to him entering the Kingdom. It’s a stretch beyond belief, though, to characterize this as a “greater inclusion of gender and sexual minorities.” It’s nothing of the kind.

The eunuch’s acceptance into the Kingdom tells us nothing of God’s attitude towards “sexual minorities,” TRP’s euphemism for those with unconventional sexual appetites and/or gender confusion.

Philip was sent by the Spirit to the Gaza Road to respond to a gentile genuinely seeking the true God based on the limited light he’d been given. Nothing can be inferred from this encounter about God’s interest in expanding the church’s sexual diversity.

God’s grace is given to all who put their trust in Him, regardless of sexual appetite. But grace does not leave sinners in sin. Even after condemning homosexuality and other sexual sin, Paul writes, “Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). That’s the lesson of the Ethiopian eunuch: forgiveness and transformation, not celebration of sexual diversity.

TRP has advanced a battery of biblical and cultural arguments meant to undermine confidence in two millennia of church teaching on homosexuality and marriage. At the end of the day, though, the straightforward truth of Scripture still shines through with clarity.

This revisionist attempt should not surprise us, however. In Paul’s final missive to the church he warned his own disciple, Timothy, that…

…the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myth. (2 Tim. 4:3-4)

TRP and those who follow its lead have succumbed to the same temptation the Church has faced for millennia: conforming to culture. God’s plan for sex and marriage is built into the structure of the world He made. Since the beginning of time this has been obvious to everyone, even those without Bibles.

Yes, times change, but reality does not. And God’s Word does not. It abides forever, telling us the truth, protecting us from error, shielding us from harm.

Editor's Note: For part one of this two part article Click Here.

¹ Available in enhanced digital form at str.org.

² We think this is a contradictory notion, but we’ll let it stand now for the sake of this discussion.

³ All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

⁴ LGBT stands for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender.”

⁵ This and other citations are taken from the Reformation Project D.C. Conference 2014 Program.

⁶ Respectively, “meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakeian,” and “hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikois.”

⁷ “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband,” 1 Cor. 7:2.  Note here that Paul identifies a single provision for avoiding sexual immorality—heterosexual marriage.

⁸ In Matt. 19:12, Jesus identifies three reasons for celibacy. Only one is voluntary.

⁹ Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), 32.

text of cdp pg1

Introduction

This week I happened to look at a series I did on “Highlights in the Life and Ministry of Jesus Christ” nearly 20 years ago, and there it was, a message on John chapter 21! I don’t “warm up” old messages, but I did find some helpful material from that old message. For one thing, I was in need of a good introduction for this lesson. Frankly, I had forgotten the story I used way back then, but it was so good I’m going to use it again, if you’ll pardon me for doing so.

I have a friend who devised a very clever plan for “getting away” from friends and guests after his wedding ceremony. He and his wife were married in a southern city, which had only one major highway going through town. He and his bride drove slowly from the church, making their way to the edge of town, with no attempt to evade or outrun all their friends who were following behind, honking their horns and just being a general nuisance. The road out of town passed through a tunnel on the outskirts of the city. He had prearranged for a friend to be waiting there. As they approached the tunnel, the friend fell in line, right behind the bride and groom. As soon as the groom’s car entered the tunnel, the friend blocked the tunnel with his car, preventing the others from following any longer.

The newlyweds congratulated themselves for being so shrewd and laughed all the way to their honeymoon hotel, an hour or more down the highway. After a leisurely dinner, they returned to their suite—only to discover that all of their friends were gathered there in their room, waiting for them. Their friends had found them, even though they were some 60 or 70 miles from their hometown! One of them had gone to the trouble of calling every hotel along that highway for many miles to see if my friend had made reservations for that night. These ‘friends’ blessed the newlywed couple with their presence long into the night.

If I were to sum up that situation in one word, it would have to be the word ‘frustrating.’ This newly-married couple never imagined spending their first night of marriage this way, with all their friends gathered in their hotel room. In many ways, “frustrating” also describes what it must have been like for the disciples during that 40-day interval between Jesus’ resurrection and His ascension. With few exceptions,¹⁹⁷ the disciples had spent three wonderful years with Jesus. They traveled together, ate together, camped out at night together, and shared a common purse. Their private, relaxing times together were exceedingly few and far between, but at least they were continually in close contact during the time of our Lord’s earthly ministry.

The last few hours our Lord spent with His disciples before His arrest were private and uninterrupted. After the horror of our Lord’s arrest, trials, and crucifixion, it would be tempting to think of this 40-day interval as a time of wonderful fellowship for our Lord and His disciples, but this was not really the case. For one thing, the disciples expected Jesus to immediately commence His kingdom, but it quickly became evident that this wasn’t happening. For another thing, the disciples were not really seeing a great deal of their Lord. After Jesus appeared to them, and they were convinced that He was alive, they were filled with joy. But if the disciples were thinking they would now be spending a lot of time with Jesus once again, they were wrong. Things had changed. This change was first indicated to Mary by our Lord, when He appeared to her after His resurrection:

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). 17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’” (John 20:16-17, NIV, emphasis mine).

Jesus informs Mary that things are no longer going to be as they once were. Jesus was not going to be with His disciples on earth much longer, but was returning to His Father, as He had indicated earlier. He promised that after His ascension, He would dwell among them, and in them, through the Holy Spirit, but at the time they had no idea what He meant.

And so the disciples found themselves relating to Jesus in an entirely different way during this 40-day period of time. They were formerly with Him day and night. Now, they only saw Him from time to time. Eight days passed from the time Jesus first appeared to His disciples (John 20:19-23) to the time of His second appearance (John 20:26). He appeared to them only a handful of times in those 40 days (see 1 Corinthians 15:5-7). He came and went in such a way that they never knew when to expect Him. And He did not always look exactly the way He once did—there was something different about Him, which sometimes caused them to wonder whether or not it was really Him (see Mark 16:12; Luke 24:16, 31; John 21:12). I’m sure the disciples wished for the “good old days,” when they enjoyed much more intimate fellowship with Him. Jesus, however, was “weaning” them from those days, because He would no longer dwell among them as He once had. He was soon to ascend into heaven to be with His Father.

There were other things that made this time difficult. These were perilous days. The tomb of Jesus had been sealed and was under Roman guard, by order of Pilate. When Jesus was raised from the dead, the Jews and the Roman soldiers agreed on a cover-up. They sought to explain the resurrection and the empty tomb by circulating the story that Jesus’ disciples had stolen His body. This would have been a serious crime. The disciples could have been the targets of a manhunt. No wonder they were hiding out in a locked room when Jesus came to them (John 20:19, 26).

In addition to this, there was really very little the disciples could do during these 40 frustrating days. They were told to wait until they were given power from on high. The Holy Spirit had not yet come, because Pentecost was still a few days away. These men were not yet transformed, nor were they supernaturally empowered to heal the sick, raise the dead, or proclaim the gospel. The kingdom was on hold, there was little for them to do, and Jesus was seldom seen or heard from.

It was not an easy time for the disciples at all. I can imagine that Peter could have gone home, only to find Mrs. Peter standing in the doorway, with her hands on her hips. “Peter,” she might have said sharply, “we’ve got bills to pay and mouths to feed. When are you going back to work? How long are you going to wait around, wondering what to do with yourself?” All of the disciples must have been thinking similar thoughts. They had families to support. They had to do something. They couldn’t just wait around …

Why would we be surprised that it was Peter who decided to do something? Why would we find it unusual for Peter to speak out? This is precisely where the final chapter of John’s Gospel takes up.

Jesus’ Third Appearance to the Disciples
( 21:1-14)

1 After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberius. Now this is how he did so. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael (who was from Cana in Galilee), the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples of his were together. 3 Simon Peter told them, “I am going fishing.” “We will go with you,” they replied. They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. 4 When it was already very early morning, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 So Jesus said to them, “Children, you don’t have any fish, do you?” They replied, “No.” 6 He told them, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they threw the net, and were not able to pull it in because of the large number of fish. 7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” So Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, tucked in his outer garment (for he had nothing on underneath it), and plunged into the sea. 8 Meanwhile the other disciples came with the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from land, only about a hundred yards. 9 When they got out on the beach, they saw a charcoal fire ready with a fish¹⁹⁸ placed on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said, “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled the net to shore. It was full of large fish, one hundred fifty-three, but although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 “Come, have breakfast,” Jesus said. But none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.

For the third time in John’s Gospel, our Lord appears to His disciples. This time He reveals Himself to seven of His disciples as they are fishing on the Sea of Tiberias—the Sea of Galilee (John 6:1). Most of these men were fishermen by trade. When Peter informed them that he was going fishing, they knew he was not planning to go out and do a little fly fishing on the Sea of Galilee, hoping to catch a fish or two. They understood that Peter was going back to work as a fisherman. They all must have had financial obligations they needed to meet. In addition, they needed to eat. And so those who were with Peter agreed to go fishing with him. There seemed to be nothing better to do. I do not find this decision to go fishing something unbefitting for a disciple. It was better for them to be doing something productive than nothing at all.

I do not think it is possible to understand the meaning of the miracle which occurred here on the Sea of Tiberias without recalling the miracle that took place some time earlier, perhaps at this same spot. This earlier miracle is recorded in the Gospel of Luke:

1 Now Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, and the crowd was pressing around him to hear the word of God. 2 He saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets. 3 He got into one of the boats, the one which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little from the land. Then Jesus sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. 4 When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and lower your nets for a catch.” 5 Simon answered, “Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing! But at your word I will lower the nets.” 6 When they had done this, they caught a great many fish; and their nets began to break. 7 So they gestured to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both boats, so that they were about to sink. 8 But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Go away from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord!” 9 For Peter and all who were with him were astonished at the catch of fish that they had taken, 10 and so were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were Simon’s business partners. Then Jesus said to Simon, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.” 11 So when they had brought their boats to shore, they left everything and followed him (Luke 5:1-11).

The first miraculous catch of fish came fairly early in the ministry of our Lord. Jesus was teaching beside the Sea of Galilee, and the crowds were pressing in on Him. There were at least two boats pulled up on shore nearby. One belonged to Peter and his brother Andrew, the other to James and John (and apparently their father—see Matthew 4:18-22). These men had been out fishing all night, unsuccessfully, and were now washing their nets. Jesus got into Simon Peter’s boat and asked him push out from shore, so that He could use the boat as His speaker’s platform. When Jesus finished teaching, He told Peter to launch out into deeper waters and to lower the nets for a catch. Peter gently protested, informing Jesus that they had just spent the entire night fishing, without success. Nevertheless, Peter did as his Master instructed. As the nets were drawn in, it was evident that they had a huge catch of fish, so large that the nets were beginning to tear. Peter and his brother gestured to their partners, James and John, who came alongside with their boat. They filled both boats so full with the fish that they began to sink. Peter fell at Jesus’ knees (they were still in the boat) and said, “Go away from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord!” (Luke 6:8). Jesus comforted the men with these words, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people” (6:9). It would seem that from this point in time, they ceased fishing for their livelihood and followed Jesus wherever He went.¹⁹⁹

In John 21, we read of a very similar miraculous catch of fish. It is my opinion that it took place at virtually the same place, with the same boats, and most of the same fishermen. You will recall that before His crucifixion, Jesus told His disciples that He would go ahead of them to Galilee (Matthew 28:7; Mark 14:28). Then, after His resurrection, Jesus instructed His disciples to meet Him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10; Mark 16:7). The disciples who have gone fishing with Peter may very well be in Galilee because they have done what Jesus instructed them to do—go to Galilee, where He will meet them. This took them out of Jerusalem and Judea, the source of the strongest Jewish opposition. Like most of the disciples, Peter was a Galilean. These were his old “stomping grounds.” If they had been waiting for some time, Peter might well have concluded that they may as well occupy themselves by doing something profitable. And so he announced to his colleagues that he was going fishing.

In my mind’s eye, I can almost see Peter and the others fishing in the same waters where the miracle in Luke 5 took place.²⁰⁰ Peter’s boat and net were apparently available nearby. Why not make use of them and go fishing? It is what these men had done most all of their lives. And so they set out to fish through the night.²⁰¹ On a typical night of fishing, I would suppose they might have caught a few larger fish.²⁰² They would do this by repeatedly spreading their nets out in the water and then drawing the ends of the nets together, entrapping their catch. Each time their nets were drawn in, a handful of fish might be obtained. Over and over again the nets would be played out and then drawn in; sometimes there were fish within, and sometimes not. When the night was over, the fishermen would hope for enough fish to feed themselves and their families, and perhaps enough fish left over to sell.

On this night (John 21), like that night a couple of years before (Luke 5), these fishermen had cast out their nets and drawn them in repeatedly through the night, with absolutely no success. As morning light was approaching, they decided to give it up. (I wonder what the others thought of Peter’s idea now.) I believe they were approaching the place where Jesus had taught the crowds earlier, the place where their boats were pulled up on shore, and where they washed their nets. Someone was standing on the beach, hardly distinguishable from 100 yards away. He called out to these weary, unsuccessful, fishermen, “Children, you don’t have any fish, do you?” (21:5).

I can still remember the way my little brother, Danny Boy (as we then called him—probably no more than 4 or 5 years old at the time), would approach the fishermen as they made their way back to their car after they had finished fishing for the day. He would stand there in his coveralls, with his hands tucked into his pockets and ask the men, “Did ya’ catch anything?” (I wish I could reproduce the exact way he pronounced his words at that age.) His question was hopeful. Very often, the answer was, “Yes,” and the fishermen would gladly take out their catch and show it to Danny. That did not happen here. Jesus’ question was asked in such a way that we could translate it, “You didn’t catch any fish, did you?” I love their terse response: “No.” They really didn’t want to talk about it. Can you blame them? These professional fishermen came back, skunked.

I know this form of question and answer all too well, from painful experience. When I started teaching school, Jeannette and I lived close to a part of Puget Sound, and I was “hooked” on fishing, particularly salmon fishing. A friend had a 16 foot long plywood boat, constructed largely of one-inch thick plywood. It was a heavy boat! Every time I borrowed it, I had to drag it from the boathouse on the beach, over the driftwood, and down to the water’s edge. (I don’t know why, but it seemed as though the tide was always out when I went fishing.) I would fish for a couple of hours before dark, and then I had to winch the boat back into the boathouse. Time after time I came back empty-handed. It got to the point where I knew what Jeannette was going to say when I arrived home: “You didn’t catch anything, did you?” The second question was equally certain: “Why don’t you quit?”

Jesus knew that these men had worked all night and had caught nothing. I am tempted to think that Jesus actually orchestrated things so that these men would not catch anything. Anyway, Jesus let the fishermen know that He knew they had caught nothing. He then instructs them to cast out their nets on the right side of the boat, assuring them that when they do so, they will find some fish. I don’t know why these weary fishermen did it, but for some reason they were willing to make one last effort. When they drew in their nets, they did not contain just a few fish, or even a lot of fish. Their nets were virtually filled with fish.

It was at this point that John seems to have realized what was happening. Instinctively, he knew that the man on the beach was Jesus. And now that he knew, he told Peter as well. That was all it took for Peter. He tucked in his outer garment and plunged into the sea, swimming to shore to see Jesus. Someone has remarked that what we find here is typical of both Peter and John. John was the first to understand; Peter was the first to act.²⁰³ We cannot be sure that Peter actually arrived on shore first. One thing does seem certain: Jesus must have personally forgiven and restored Peter on His previous, private meeting with him (see Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5). Peter certainly shows no reluctance to see Jesus face to face here!

If I were one of the other disciples, I would have been perturbed with Peter for leaving me behind with a full net and an unsecured boat, still several hundred feet from shore. They seem to have learned from the miracle in Luke chapter 5 that it was unwise to try to empty the net full of fish into the boat—since their two boats nearly sank on that occasion. And so they simply drug their bulging nets behind the boat and made their way to shore, with their nets still in the water, teaming with fish.

When the disciples landed on the beach, they observed that Jesus had already prepared a charcoal fire, with fish placed on it, and there was bread as well. Jesus told them to bring some of the fish they had caught, and so Simon went and drew the nets up on shore. John tells us that the nets did not tear as they had begun to do on their first miraculous catch. I think this was especially unusual with the quantity of fish, and given the fact that the fish, still in the nets, were drug up on shore. Nets were not made for this kind of abuse.

Jesus then invites the disciples to join Him for breakfast. We are not actually told that they ate some of their fish for breakfast, and I am inclined to believe that Jesus supplied their entire meal. This was true of the bread, it would seem, and I think it was true as well for the fish. If Jesus had not already prepared a sufficient quantity for all these men (something a little hard to believe), then He could simply have fed them the same way He fed the 5,000, on the other side of the sea. These men had worked hard to provide for themselves, and they had nothing to show for it. Then they come to Jesus, who has more than enough to meet their needs. And in the process, He provides this great catch, enough to supply for their future needs.²⁰⁴ I suspect that Jesus had them bring some of their fish so they could actually see how great the catch was. John tells us it was 153 large fish. Much has been made of the number 153,²⁰⁵ but it may be enough to note that the author knew the exact number of fish caught, and that it was a great quantity. Such details give credibility to one’s testimony, and John certainly provides us with details.

Once again, it would seem as though Jesus did not look exactly as He did before His death and resurrection. Even after the disciples had gotten close enough to get a good look at Jesus, they were still wondering to themselves, “Is this really Him?” They wanted to ask, but no one dared. They knew it was Jesus, but He probably did not look exactly as He had before, and so they just found it hard to believe.

So what does this miraculous catch of fish accomplish? What message was it supposed to send to the disciples, and to us? Let me begin by pointing out that it sets the scene for what follows in verses 15-25. In verses 1-14, Jesus feeds His disciples. In verses 15 and following, Jesus speaks to Peter about feeding His sheep.

I believe there are lessons to be learned from this miracle in the light of its similarity to the great fish harvest of Luke 5. Because of the fishing miracle in Luke 5, Peter and the other disciples came to see Jesus (and themselves) in a whole new light. There, Peter realizes he is not worthy to be in the same boat with Jesus. In John 21, Peter and the others are once again awed by our Lord and His works. In both texts, these professional fishermen were not able to catch anything on their own, even though they were laboring in the area of their expertise. Jesus taught them that He is the source of their success, He is the One Who, when obeyed, makes men fruitful fishermen. In Luke 5, the disciples were called to leave their fishing boats and to become “fishers of men” (5:10). I believe that John 21:1-14 is a reaffirmation of that original call. The disciples are all waiting around, wondering what to do with their lives. I believe that by means of this miracle Jesus reiterates and reinforces their original call, which came in Luke 5.

There are some interesting differences in these accounts as well—and lessons to be learned from them. The most obvious (and probably the most important) difference is that in Luke 5, Jesus was in the boat. In John 21, Jesus is on the shore. You may think I am pressing the limits of this story, but there is a lesson here: “Jesus is able to guide, to provide for, and to watch over His disciples just as well (better?) from a distance, as He is able to care for them “up close and personal.” From 100 yards away, Jesus knew they had caught no fish. From 100 yards away, Jesus could guide them to an abundance of fish. Even before they saw Him, Jesus was prepared to provide for their needs. He had breakfast “on the table,” so to speak, when they arrived on shore. Were the disciples uneasy about Jesus going away, about Jesus leaving them to return to His Father? Such fears are unfounded. He is just as able to care for them when He is in heaven as He was to care for them while He was on earth. I think this was a significant part of the lesson He wanted them to learn.

Having fed His disciples fish and bread, Jesus will now speak to Peter about “feeding His sheep.” Having spoken more about evangelism in verses 1-14, Jesus is now about to speak to His disciples about discipleship. Let us notice how our Lord builds upon this miracle of the great harvest of fish.

From Fish to Sheep, From Catching to Caring For
(21:15-23)

15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted,²⁰⁶ but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” 19 (Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.) After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.” 20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. (This was the disciple who had leaned back against Jesus’ chest at the meal and asked, “Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?”) 21 So when Peter saw him, he asked Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours? You follow me!” 23 So the saying circulated among the brothers and sisters that this disciple was not going to die. But Jesus did not say to him that he was not going to die, but rather, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?”

I am inclined to understand verses 1-14 in terms of evangelism—being fishers of men. But it is not enough to simply bring a lost sinner to faith in Jesus Christ; that person should also be discipled, and thus brought to maturity in Christ. This seems to be implicit in the Great Commission:

18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

As we approach these very familiar verses in John’s Gospel, it seems necessary to make a few introductory comments about this text:

First, in my opinion, Jesus is not seeking to correct (or even rebuke) Peter here for his three-fold denial. Jesus personally revealed Himself to Peter, probably before He appeared to the disciples as a group (1 Corinthians 15:5; Luke 24:34; Mark 16:7). I believe it is there that our Lord dealt with Peter’s three-fold denial, and forgave him. In our text, Peter is eager to be with our Lord. I believe this is because Peter’s sins have already been confronted and forgiven, and thus he has already been restored to fellowship with the Master.

Second, I certainly do not agree with Roman Catholicism’s interpretation and application of this text, which seeks to establish the primacy of Peter as the first pope. D. A. Carson writes: “Matthew 16:13-20 certainly establishes a unique role for Peter in the founding of the church. … It does not establish him in a position of ruling authority over other apostles. As for John 21:15-17, neither founding pre-eminence nor comparative authority is in view.”²⁰⁷

Third, I am not even inclined to see this text as Peter’s restoration to leadership. There are some scholars who hold that Peter was restored to fellowship in his private interview with Jesus, and that this incident is his public restoration to leadership. I see the emphasis of this passage falling on humble service, not on leadership, per se.

Fourth, this passage is more about love than about leadership. Love for Jesus is demonstrated by faithfully caring for His sheep. Let me attempt to illustrate this. The nation is at war, and a son receives notification that he has been drafted into the armed forces. The son ships out, leaving his loving parents behind. He also leaves behind his most prized possession, a 1930 Ford Model A coupe. Do you think that the father of this son will simply allow that car to sit out in the weather, unattended? Do you think he will now use it to haul his trash to the dump? No; the father will wash and wax and tenderly care for that car, because it is the expression of his love for his son, in the son’s absence. So, too, when we care for the sheep whom our Lord loves, and for whom He gave His life, we show our love for the Shepherd.

Fifth, caution should be exercised in making too much of the two different words for “love” which are employed in this text. The two verbs are agapao and phileo. The first two times Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him, the word for love is agapao. The third time Jesus asks, He employs the term phileo. Every time Peter responds to Jesus’ question, indicating his love, he employs the word phileo. The distinctions that some make between these two terms may hold true in some cases, and for some authors. They do not seem to hold true for John, who often uses different terms for the same concept. When commentators do seek to emphasize the distinctions between the two Greek words John uses, they do not agree as to what the meaning and emphasis of these terms are. We should keep in mind that when Jesus spoke to Peter and asked him these three questions, He spoke not in Greek (the language in which the Gospel of John is written), but in Aramaic, the language spoken by the Jews of that day. The change in words may have some significance, but I hardly think it is the key to understanding the passage.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus turned to Simon Peter and asked, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these do?”²⁰⁸ Our Lord’s addition of the words, “more than these do,” really got to the heart of the matter. Our Lord’s prediction of Peter’s denials came in the midst of Peter’s confident boasting that even if all the others denied Jesus, he certainly would not. In other words, Peter was claiming a higher level of devotion than the rest. Jesus is simply asking him to re-evaluate his boastful claim. And this Peter did. Peter could truthfully affirm that he did love Jesus, but he would not go so far as to claim that his love was greater than that of his fellow-disciples. He also speaks of his love in terms of the Savior’s assessment of it: “Yes, Lord, You know I love You.” To this our Lord replied, “Feed My lambs.”

How Peter wished that Jesus would leave it at that. But Jesus will ask the question two more times, so that this conversation is understood in relation to that occasion when Peter denied his Master three times.²⁰⁹ And so Jesus asks Peter a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter replies with the identical words he spoke in answer to the first question, “Yes, Lord, You know I love You.” Jesus responded, “Shepherd My sheep.”

It was when Jesus asked the same question the third time that Peter was deeply grieved, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” It was not that Jesus changed from agapao to phileo that troubled Peter. Peter was grieved because Jesus found it necessary to ask virtually the same question three times. I do not like to be asked the same question repeatedly. I conclude that either the person asking the question wasn’t paying attention (this could not be the case with Jesus), or that my answer was not acceptable or credible. The three-fold repetition must have registered with Peter as being related to his three-fold denial. Peter was grieved because he realized that the bold and even arrogant claims he had made proved to be empty. Peter is not distressed with Jesus; he is grieved over his own sin. Jesus is not attempting to shame Peter; he is seeking to reaffirm his call to service. Did Jesus question Peter about his love for Him three times? Then note that three times Jesus instructed Peter to care for His sheep. Does Peter fear he has been cast aside as useless? Jesus tells him to return to His²¹⁰ work, three times!

Peter really did love Jesus. But Peter needed to understand that his love for the Savior was not as great as he thought, just as his ability to catch fish was not as great as he seemed to think. In loving, and in landing fish, Jesus was supreme. Even in the thing Peter did best (fishing), he could not hold a candle to Jesus, who proved to be far better at fishing than he. Peter sought to prove his love for Jesus by boasting about it, by arguing with his fellow-disciples about it (see Luke 22:24), and by being the first to draw his sword and lop off an ear, or perhaps even by being the first man into the water and onto the shore. These were not the benchmarks our Lord had established for testing one’s love for Him. The proof of one’s love for God is sacrificial service²¹¹—feeding our Lord’s sheep.

The way I understand verses 15-19 is something like this: “Peter, do you really love Me as much as you say? Then prove your love for Me by taking care of My sheep.” Jesus is the “Good Shepherd,” Who cares for His sheep (see John 10). If Peter really loves his Lord, then his passion will be the Lord’s passion. Jesus came to be the “Good Shepherd.” If Peter really loves the Lord, he will be a good shepherd, and shepherds shepherd by feeding the lambs, by caring for the weakest and most vulnerable of the flock. Jesus is the “Good Shepherd”; He is the Shepherd who came to lay down His life for His sheep. If Peter really loves Jesus, he will care for the Master’s sheep, and he, like the Master, will lay down his life for the sheep. Love manifests itself in service—humble, sacrificial, service.

You become like the people you love. The things they love, you love. If Peter really loves his Lord, Who is the Good Shepherd, then Peter will surely seek to shepherd in the same way. He will seek the lost sheep (evangelism). He will feed and tend the young and vulnerable lambs (discipleship). And, like the Good Shepherd, he will lay down his life for the sheep. That is why the Lord moves so quickly and easily from verses 15-17 to verses 18 and 19. Peter had assured his Lord that he was willing to die for Him (Matthew 26:35), and so he will. But he will not die in the manner that he once supposed—seeking to keep His Master from being arrested and crucified. Peter will die, as the Savior did, as a good shepherd, and for the sake of the gospel.

Notice that Jesus does much more than predict Peter’s death. John wishes us to understand that Jesus went so far as to predict the way in which Peter would die: “(Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.)” (verse 19). Peter’s previous effort to resist the arrest of Jesus was contrary to the gospel, and this is why Jesus rebuked him and abruptly ordered him to stop resisting His arrest. The death which Peter will experience is a death that will glorify God. Jesus also indicates that Peter will die in his old age, and thus he is informed that his death is not imminent. But his death for the Savior’s sake is certain: “I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go” (verse 18). Some see in these words only a vague and general reference to the manner of Peter’s death, but this does not square with John’s explanation in verse 19, which seems to be a more specific prophecy. I agree with those who see here a prophecy that Peter truly will follow Jesus, by dying on a Roman cross:

More important is the way stretch out your hands was understood in the ancient world: it widely referred to crucifixion (Haenchen, 2. 226-227). … Bauer (p. 232) proposed long ago that this ‘stretching’ took place when a condemned prisoner was tied to his cross-member … and forced to carry his ‘cross’ to the place of execution. The cross-member would be placed on the prisoner’s neck and shoulders, his arms tied to it, and then he would be led away to death.²¹²

The words, “Follow Me,” constitute the first calling of the disciples (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17; John 1:43). As time passed, these words took on a much deeper meaning. Following Jesus meant putting Jesus above family (Matthew 8:22). It meant a whole new way of life, where former practices would be unacceptable (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14). Before long, Jesus let His disciples know that following Him meant taking up one’s cross (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34). (At this point in time, our Lord’s reference to “taking up one’s cross” was, at best, understood metaphorically.) For the rich young ruler, it meant giving up his possessions (Matthew 19:21; Mark 20:21). And now, for Peter, it means not only carrying on the Master’s work, but taking up a very literal cross. It would seem that at every point where following Jesus is more precisely defined, another challenge to follow Him is given. So it is in our text.

I fear that Christians today understand these two words, “Follow me,” in a most shallow and superficial way. When Paul writes, “For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21), we interpret his words in a somewhat hedonistic fashion. We suppose that Paul means living as a Christian is glorious, trouble-free, and fulfilling. It is, to put it plainly, “the good life.” In other words, we get to live it up here, and then when we die, it gets even better. There is a certain sense in which this is true. But we must understand Paul’s words in the light of what Jesus is telling Peter here, in our text, about following Him. To follow Christ is to walk in His steps, to live as He lived, to serve others as He did, and to lay down your life for the sheep, like Him. In Philippians chapter 1, Paul is therefore saying, “For me, to live is to live just as Christ did, taking up my cross daily, laying down my life for His sheep.”

Peter got the message. He was willing to lay down his life for the Savior. But why was Jesus singling him out? What about the rest? What about John? At some point, it appears that Jesus and Peter have gone off by themselves, apart from the others. Verse 20 seems to indicate that Jesus and Peter are walking by themselves, with John following behind, at a distance. Peter turns around and sees John, some distance away. He and John had been closely associated in the fishing business, and even as disciples. Later, they will work very closely together as apostles, as we see in the Book of Acts. Peter could not resist asking Jesus about John’s fate. If Peter had to die to follow Jesus, was this also true of John?

When I was growing up, I had two sisters and one brother. I was especially competitive with my older sister. Whenever we had pie, you had better believe that she and I were eyeing each piece, to make sure that the other didn’t get a bigger piece than we did. We had such a keenly developed sense of weight and size that we could have worked for the Federal Bureau of Standards. We did not wish for our rival sibling to get more than what we got. We expected complete equality. Peter seems to have the same attitude toward suffering. If he had to suffer, then surely John should be expected to suffer in just the same way, for the same period of time.

How easy it is for us to stand back, far removed in space and time, and criticize Peter for his foolish words. Let us remember that Peter does not have the depth of field that we have. He has not yet come to grasp the full impact of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. He has not yet experienced the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, Who will come shortly, at Pentecost. Peter cannot yet look upon dying for Christ as a high calling, as a privilege. He views it only as a sacrifice, and thus he wishes to be sure that every other disciple pays the same price.

It occurred to me (later than I would wish to admit) that by the time John was writing this Gospel, Peter was probably already dead. If this is the case, then what is John’s purpose in writing about this incident? It is clearly not for Peter’s benefit. John tells us his reason for writing about this. It was to clear up the misconception some had that John would not die before the coming of our Lord. Jesus did not say that John would be alive at His return. He simply told Peter that if it was His will that he (Peter) die, and that John remain alive until His return, that was of no concern to Peter—it was none of his business. Death, like everything else, falls within the boundaries of our Lord’s sovereign control of all things. If death is God’s business, His sovereign business, then it is not Peter’s business to raise questions about John’s death.²¹³

Peter was guilty of giving too much attention to John, when our Lord had narrowed the focus of the discussion to Peter’s love, and Peter’s service. Jesus further indicated to Peter that he would glorify his Master by his death, a death that was similar to His death, a death by crucifixion. Peter had fixed his attention on John. From John’s words here, we know that others erred in the same way Peter had. It was a popular misconception that Jesus promised John that he would not die until His return. It was only that—a popular misconception—and John corrects it here.

As I have been studying this final chapter in John’s Gospel, I re-read 1 Peter and was impressed with the way John 21 and 1 Peter were so similar in their themes. Peter certainly “got the message” Jesus was giving him here. But I also had to remind myself that John 21 was not written by Peter; it was written by John! Then it struck me—if I didn’t constantly remind myself of the fact, I would tend to forget that John wrote the Gospel of John. John is writing this chapter, and he is even a character in this closing scene, but he is completely in the background. I believe this is just the way John wanted it.

In fact, this is the way it is throughout the Gospel of John. John does not refer to himself by name, but rather as “the one Jesus loved.” Notice that John never refers to himself as “the one who loved Jesus.” Of course he loved Jesus, but then he had heard Peter boast the same thing. Better to focus on the great, unfailing love our Lord has for us, than our feeble, fickle love for Him. Good decision, John! And keep in mind that of all the Gospel authors, only Matthew and John were one of the twelve. Only John was one of the inner three—Peter, James, and John—who witnessed some things to which the other nine were not privy. You would think, would you not, that John would be more than eager to write about some of those events in our Lord’s life, where he was one of the privileged few to be present, and to witness such great things? There was the transfiguration of our Lord, for example (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:29), the raising of the synagogue ruler’s dead daughter (Mark 5:37), and the prayer of our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:33). In each case, only the inner three were present, as stated in the Synoptic Gospels. And yet none of these incidents is even mentioned by John. John refuses to place himself in the spotlight. What an amazing man he is! Peter may be overly concerned about John (as he is), and so may those others who wrongly supposed that he would not die, but John himself is not so taken with himself. John keeps the focus on our Lord, and on the truths He spoke. Our eyes should not be on ourselves, but on Christ. Our focus should not be on what others are doing for Christ, or what God is doing for them. Our focus should be on Him, and on our love for Him, as shown by our loving service to His flock.

This is the “Great Commission” of John’s Gospel. It is certainly different from the Great Commission of Matthew’s Gospel. But when you stop to think about it, the point of both Gospels is the same. Matthew emphasizes the authority of our Lord, and the Lord’s command to make disciples. John focuses on our love for the Lord, and the privilege we have to show our love for Him by caring for those He loves, in a way that is consistent with His sacrificial death at Calvary.

One more thing should be said about the “love” which our Lord (and John) emphasizes in this closing chapter of John. We would do well to consider where John was when he penned this Gospel. The place of writing is not certain, but it is likely that it was Ephesus, which was apparently John’s home in his later years. Is it not interesting to think that when John writes his epistles, he places such emphasis on love? Is it not noteworthy that in the Book of Revelation, our Lord’s words to the church at Ephesus indicate that their great deficiency was that of love? And is it not noteworthy that when Paul wrote to Timothy, who was staying in Ephesus, he stated that the goal of his instruction was love (1 Timothy 1:5)? What a fitting way to end the Gospel of John, not by stressing the believer’s duty (which is very real, and very important), but by stressing the believer’s love and sacrificial service, the visible demonstration of that love.

John’s Closing Words
(21:24-25)

24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

This past few months, there has been a great deal of inquiry into the life and leadership of our President. The body of evidence against him is known as the “Starr Report.” Literally truckloads of documents and exhibits went into this report. Thousands of pages were written about this narrow window of time in the President’s life. How much more—and how much bigger and better—the “report” would be of all that our Lord did in His earthly ministry! When John tells his readers that “the whole world would not have room for the books that could be written,” he is hardly exaggerating. John has been very selective in what he has chosen to present as evidence in favor of his conclusion that Jesus is, indeed, the Son of God and the Savior of the world. And in his final words, John testifies that the words of this book are “the gospel truth.” It is not for lack of evidence that men are eternally lost. John has now set the evidence before his readers, and he urges each of us to draw the conclusions this evidence merits.

The verdict is clear. You should believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah—the Christ—and that by His sinless life and sacrificial death, your sins may be forgiven. And having believed the verdict, you should not only be overcome with His love for you, but you should be compelled by your love for Him, to serve Him as you shepherd His lambs. The evidence abounds; the verdict is clear. The question that remains is this: Given this evidence, how will you respond to Jesus Christ?

197 Such as the times when Jesus sent them out in pairs (e.g., Mark 6:7ff.; Luke 10:1ff.).

198 The word for “fish” here has no article, so it could be read, “a fish” as the NET Bible has rendered it. This need not be the case, however, and thus most translations do not render it “a fish,” as though there were only one fish—just enough for Jesus—but “fish”—enough for all the men to eat.

199 It is my understanding that Matthew 4:18ff. describes an earlier incident, when these disciples left their boats for a short time. It would seem that in Luke 5 these men left their boats for good, or so it appeared, until the events of John 21.

200 I would not be so bold as to claim that I am a fisherman, but as I was growing up, my parents purchased an old fishing resort, which we ran for several years. I can tell you one thing: If you tell a fisherman where someone else made a big catch, he will almost certainly go try his luck in that same place.

201 I should say here that just after teaching this lesson, my wife and I were able to travel to Israel, where we spent one night in a cottage at the edge of the Sea of Galilee. There, from the shore, we watched the lights of the fishing boats as they worked in the darkness. And in the morning we watched them transferring their catch to shore. Some of the fish were as small as herring, while there were a few “large” fish in the range of ten pounds. When we crossed from the eastern shore to the west, we may well have been near the spot that Jesus was waiting for His disciples on shore.

202 The boat we saw unloading its small fish had only two large fish set aside on the seat.

203 William Hendriksen remarks, “Peter is the man of action. He generally acts before John does. John generally understands before Peter does.” William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-1954), II, p. 479.

204 What could one do with 153 large fish? I can guess. First, you cook some up for eating for the next day or two. Then, you take what you know you won’t eat and sell it. This was how Peter and his partners made their living for a number of years.

205 Hendriksen, in an interesting footnote, summarizes some of the fanciful interpretations of the number 153, the exact count of the fish caught that morning: “Among the strange and, for the most part, allegorical interpretations of this item of information I have found the following: a. The fish were not counted until the shore had been reached, in order to teach us that the exact number of the elect remains unknown until they have reached the shore of heaven. b. The ancients counted one hundred fifty-three varieties of fish! c. There is here a veiled reference to Matt. 13:47, 48, and an indication that all kinds of people are going to be saved. d. The reference is to an important date in Church History, namely, 153 A.D. e. The total represents the sum of all the numbers from 1 to 17. Well, what of it? f. In Hebrew characters the numerical equivalent of Simon Iona is one hundred fifty-three. g. The number one hundred fifty-three represents 100 for the Gentiles, 50 for the Jews, and 3 for the Trinity.” Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, II, pp. 483-484, fn. 300.

206 Could our Lord be picking up on what Peter had just done, as recorded in verse 7? “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’ So Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, tucked in his outer garment (for he had nothing on underneath it), and plunged into the sea.” The proximity of these two statements in verses 7 and 18 could be coincidental, but I see fewer and fewer coincidences in the Bible.

207 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 678.

208 There is some discussion over what Jesus means here. The verse could be translated (and understood) in several ways. (1) “Peter, do you love me more than these fish, more than this boat and the nets, and the things which represent your life of a fisherman?” (2) “Peter, do you love Me more than you love these men?” (3) “Peter, do you love me more than these men do?” The NET Bible has opted for the third rendering, and I would agree.

209 “The circumstances must have reminded Peter of the scene of his denial. And if the circumstances as such did not remind him of this, what was about to happen was bound to do so. Note the following resemblances: 1. It was at a charcoal fire that Peter denied his Master (18:18). It is here at another charcoal fire (21:9) that he is asked to confess (his love for) his Master. 2. Three times Peter had denied his Master (18:17, 25, 27). Three times he must now own him as his Lord, whom he loves (21:15-17). 3. The prediction with reference to the denial had been introduced with the solemn double Amen (13:38; see on 1:51). The prediction which immediately followed Peter’s confession was introduced similarly (21:18). But it has been shown that the resemblance is even more pointed. In reverse order the same three ideas—1. following, 2. a cross, 3. denying—occur here in 21:15-19 as in 13:36-38.” William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John, II , p. 486.

210 My capitalization of this word is not a mistake. Peter’s work (like that of all the disciples) is to carry on the Master’s work.

211 John has much more to say on this point in his first epistle. A search in my concordance program shows that “love” appears in John’s Gospel 57 times, far more often than in all the Synoptic Gospels combined (Matthew, 13; Mark, 6; Luke, 16 = 35 times). Love appears 46 times in the Epistle of First John.

212 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 679.

213 I’m sure I need to clarify. God’s sovereignty does not exclude our involvement. Salvation is God’s sovereign work, but we should surely be involved (Romans 10:14-15). But one who is sovereign is not obliged to explain His actions, nor is it appropriate for the subject to challenge the sovereign by demanding an explanation (see Romans 9:19-21).

Introduction

Le chapitre 12 commence une nouvelle division dans le Live de Genèse. Les 11 premiers chapitres ont souvent été appelés « l’histoire primordiale ». Les derniers chapitres sont connus sous le nom de « l’histoire patriarcale ». Pendant que l’effet des péchés de l’homme était devenu de plus en plus répandu, l’accomplissement de la promesse de Dieu dans Genèse 3:15 est devenu plus sélectif. Le Rédempteur devait venir de la semence de la femme (Genèse 3:15), puis des descendants de Seth, puis de Noé, et maintenant d’Abraham (Genèse 12:2-3).

Théologiquement, le chapitre 12 de Genèse est un des passages clefs du Vieux Testament, car il contient ce qui a été appelé l’Alliance avec Abraham. Cette alliance est le fil qui tient ensemble le reste du Vieux Testament. Il est très important pour une compréhension correcte de la prophétie de la Bible.

Dans le chapitre 12 de Genèse, nous ne venons pas seulement à une nouvelle division et à une nouvelle Alliance théologique, mais en plus, nous rencontrons un grand homme vertueux – Abraham. Presque un quart du Livre de Genèse est dévoué à la vie de cet homme. Plus de 40 références dans le Vieux Testament sont faites d’Abraham. Il est intéressant de remarquer que l’Islam ne tient Abraham que second en importance juste après Mohammed, avec le Koran référant 188 fois à Abraham.¹²⁸

Le Nouveau Testament ne diminue pas du tout l’importance de la vie et du caractère d’Abraham. Il y a presque 75 références à lui dans le Nouveau Testament. Paul a choisi Abraham comme le meilleur exemple d’un homme qui est justifié devant Dieu par sa foi séparément de ses actions (Romains 4). Jacques fait allusion à Abraham comme un homme qui démontre sa foi aux hommes par ses actions (Jacques 2:21-23). L’auteur d’Hébreux indique qu’il était l’illustration d’un homme qui vivait par sa foi, lui dévouant plus de place qu’à n’importe quel autre individu dans le chapitre 11 (Hébreux 11:8-19). Dans le chapitre 3 de Galates, Abraham écrivit que les chrétiens sont les « fils d’Abraham » par la foi, et donc, héritiers légitimes des bénédictions qui lui ont été promises (Galates 3 :7,9).

Les Circonstances Environnant l’Appel d’Abram (Josué 24:2-3 ; Actes 7:2-5)

Moïse ne nous a pas donné tout l’arrière plan nécessaire pour comprendre correctement la signification de l’appel d’Abraham, mais cela a été enregistré pour nous dans la Bible. Etienne nous dit clairement quand Abram a été appelé pour la première fois. Ce n’était pas à Harân, comme une lecture désinvolte de Genèse 12 pourrait nous le faire croire, mais à Ur. Quand Etienne se tenait devant ces frères juifs incrédules, il raconta l’histoire du peuple choisi de Dieu, commençant avec l’appel d’Abraham :

« Etienne dit alors:
   ---Chers frères et pères de cette nation, écoutez-moi: le Dieu glorieux apparut jadis à notre ancêtre Abraham, quand il vivait encore en Mésopotamie, avant de s'établir à Harân,

    et il lui dit: Quitte ton pays et ta parenté, et va dans le pays que je te montrerai. » (Actes 7:2-3)

Pendant que pas tous les étudiants de la Bible sont d’accord sur la location d’Ur¹²⁹, la plupart agrée que c’est l’Ur du Sud de la Mésopotamie, sur ce qui était la côte du Golfe Persique. Le site de la grande ville a été découvert pour la première fois en 1854, et a été excavée depuis ce temps là, révélant beaucoup de choses à propos de la vie du temps d’Abram.¹³⁰ Bien que la période à laquelle Abram vécut à Ur puisse être un sujet de discussion, nous pouvons dire avec certitude qu’Ur pouvait se vanter d’être une civilisation hautement développée. Il y a plein d’évidence de richesse élaborée, d’ouvriers qualifiés et de science et technologie avancée.¹³¹ Tout cela nous dit quelque chose de la ville qu’Abram avait reçu l’ordre de quitter. Dans les mots de Vos,

« Sans se soucier de quand Abraham a quitté Ur, il a tourné son dos à une grande ville, partant par la foi pour un pays dont il savait peu ou rien et qui ne pourrait lui offrir que peu de choses en ce qui concerne le point de vue matériel.¹³² »

Si la ville dont Abram a été ordonné de quitter était magnifique, la maison qu’il a laissée semble avoir été moins que pieuse. J’aurai supposé que Térah était un homme respectant Dieu, qui a élevé son fils, Abram, à croire en un seul Dieu, contrairement aux gens de son temps, mais cela n’était pas le cas. Josué nous donne des détails utiles sur le caractère de Térah dans sa déclaration d’adieu à la fin de sa vie:

« Alors Josué dit à tout le peuple:
   ---Voici ce que déclare l'Eternel, le Dieu d'Israël: Il y a bien longtemps, vos ancêtres, en particulier Térah, le père d'Abraham et de Nahor, ont habité de l'autre côté de l'Euphrate et ils rendaient un culte à d'autres dieux. » (Josué 24:2)

Alors, nous pouvons dire que Térah était un idolâtre, comme le reste des gens de ce temps. Ce n’est pas surprenant que Dieu ait commandé à Abram de quitter la maison de son père. (Genèse 12:1)

L’âge d’Abram n’est pas non plus un facteur en faveur de quitter Ur pour un pays quelconque. Moïse nous dit qu’Abram avait 75 ans quand il est entré dans le pays de Canaan. Pensez ! Abram aurait du être à la retraite depuis plus de 10 ans. Le moment de la « crise de la cinquantaine » était déjà passé pour lui. Plutôt que de penser à un nouveau pays et une vie nouvelle, la plupart d’entre nous auraient pensés en termes de rocking chair et d’une maison de retraite.

Nous ne sommes pas enclins à être impressionnés par l’âge d’Abram à cause de la longévité de la vie des hommes de l’ancien temps, mais le chapitre 11 de Genèse nous informe que la longévité de l’homme était bien plus longue dans les temps d’avant, que celle des jours d’Abram. Abram est mort à l’âge de 175 ans (25:7-8), bien plus court que Sem (11:10-11) ou Arpakchad (11:12-13). Un des buts de la généalogie du chapitre 11 est de nous informer que les hommes vivaient des vies plus courtes, et étaient plus jeunes quand ils avaient des enfants. Abram, dans notre dialecte, « n’était pas un poulet de l’année » quand il est parti d’Harân pour Canaan.

Tout cela devrait nous rappeler les objections et les obstacles qui ont du être dans l’esprit d’Abram quand l’appel de Dieu est venu. Il a quitté Harân, pas parce que c’était la chose la plus facile à faire, mais parce que Dieu avait l’intention de lui faire faire ça. Cela étant dit, je ne tiens pas non plus à glorifier la foi d’Abram, car comme nous verrons, elle était initialement très faible. Les obstacles étaient largement surmonter par l’initiative de Dieu au début de la vie d’Abram. Cela reste à être prouvé.

L’ordre de Dieu

L’appel d’Abram est enregistré pour nous dans Genèse 12:1 :

« L'Eternel dit à Abram:
   ---Va, quitte ton pays, ta famille et la maison de ton père pour te rendre dans le pays que je t'indiquerai. »

Une meilleure interprétation de la première phrase de cet appel est trouvée dans la version King James et dans la Nouvelle Version Internationale, dans lesquelles on peut lire, « le Seigneur eût dit à Abram, … »

La différence est importante. Sans elle, nous sommes enclins à penser que l’appel d’Abram est venu à Harân, plutôt qu’à Ur. Mais nous savons par les paroles d’Etienne que l’appel est venu à Abram à Ur (Actes 7:2). Le temps plus-que-parfait (eût dit) est à la fois grammaticalement légitime et exégétiquement nécessaire. Il nous dit que les versets 27-32 du chapitre 11 sont entre parenthèses¹³³ et pas forcément dans l’ordre chronologique.

L’ordre de Dieu à Abram était en conjonction avec une apparition de Dieu.¹³⁴ Bien que Moïse n’ait mentionné qu’une seule apparition de Dieu après qu’Abram fut dans le pays (12:7), Etienne nous informe que Dieu est apparu à Abram pendant qu’il était à Ur (Actes 7:2). Malgré toutes les objections qui pourraient être soulevées par Abram, une telle apparition n’était pas insolite. Dieu est aussi apparut à Moïse quand il a reçu l’appel (Exode 3:2).

Dans un sens, l’ordre de Dieu à Abram était très spécifique. Dieu a dit précisément à Abram ce qu’il devait laisser derrière lui. Il doit laisser son pays, sa famille et la maison de son père. Dieu allait construire une nation nouvelle, pas simplement modifier une qui existait déjà. Peu de la culture, religion ou philosophie du peuple d’Ur devrait faire partie du plan que Dieu avait pour Son peuple, Israël.

D’un autre coté, l’ordre de Dieu était délibérement vague. Pendant que ce qui devait être laisse derrière était clair comme du cristal, ce qui était devant lui était douloureusement dépourvu de détails : « … pour te rendre dans le pays que je t'indiquerai. »

Abram ne savait même pas où il devait s’installer. Comme l’auteur d’Hébreux nous dit,

« Il est parti sans savoir où il allait. » (Hébreux 11:8)

La foi à laquelle nous sommes appelés n’est pas une foi en un plan, mais une foi en une personne. Bien plus important qu’où il était, Dieu était intéressé par à qui IL faisait confiance. Dieu n’est pas autant intéressé par la géographie que par la dévotion.

La relation entre l’ordre de Dieu à Abram dans le verset 1 et l’incident à Babel dans le chapitre 11 ne devrait pas être négligé. A Babel les hommes ont choisi d’ignorer l’ordre de Dieu de se disperser et de peupler la terre. Ils se sont efforcés à trouver la sécurité et le renom en se liguant ensemble et en construisant une grande ville (11:3-4). Ils ont recherché les bienfaits dans le produit de leurs travaux, plutôt que dans la promesse de Dieu.

Le commandement de Dieu à Abram est, en fait, le contraire de ce que l’homme a essayé de faire à Babel. Abram était tranquille et confortable à Ur, une grande ville. Dieu l’a appelé à quitter cette ville et à échanger son pavillon pour une tente. Dieu lui a promis un nom fameux (ce que le peuple de Babel recherchait, 11:4) comme résultat pour quitter Ur, laissant la sécurité de sa famille et en Lui faisant confiance. Les chemins de l’homme sont si différents de ceux de Dieu !

L’Alliance Avec Abram

Techniquement l’alliance avec Abram n’est pas trouvée dans le chapitre 12, mais dans le chapitre 15 (verset 18) et 17 (versets 2,4,7,9,10,11,13,14,19,21) où le mot « alliance » apparaît. C’est là que les détails particuliers sont épelés. Ici, dans le chapitre 12, les grandes lignes sont introduites.

3 promesses majeures sont comprises dans les versets 2 et 3 : un pays ; une semence ; et une bénédiction. Le pays, comme nous l’avons déjà dit, est impliqué dans le verset 1. A l’époque de l’appel, Abram ne savait pas où ce pays était. A Sichem, Dieu a promit de donner « ce pays » à Abram (12:7). Cela n’a pas été avant le chapitre 15 qu’une complète description du pays a été donnée :

« Ce jour-là, l'Eternel fit alliance avec Abram et lui dit:
   ---Je promets de donner à ta descendance tout ce pays, depuis le fleuve d'Egypte jusqu'au grand fleuve, l'Euphrate, » (Genèse 15:18)

Le pays n’a jamais appartenu à Abram durant sa vie, même si Dieu a dit (15:13-16). Quand Sara mourut, Abram a du acheter une portion de terre pour ses funérailles (23:3). Ceux qui ont lu en premier le Livre de Genèse allaient prendre possession du pays qui avait été promit à Abram. Quel frisson cela a dû être pour le peuple du temps de Moïse de lire la promesse et de réaliser que le temps de la possession était arrivé !

La deuxième promesse de l’Alliance avec Abraham était celle d’une grande nation provenant d’Abram. Nous avons déjà mentionné la signification de Psaume 127 en relation des efforts de l’homme à Babel. Les bienfaits véritables ne proviennent pas de la peine et des heures angoissantes de travail, mais du fruit de l’intimité, à savoir des enfants. La bénédiction d’Abraham était largement vue dans ses descendants. Ici était la fondation pour le « grand nom » que Dieu donnerait à Abram.

La promesse demandait de la foi de la part d’Abram, car il était évident qu’il était déjà agé, et que Sarai, sa femme, était incapable d’avoir des enfants (11:30). Beaucoup d’années passeraient avant qu’Abram comprenne totalement que son héritier, que Dieu lui avait promit, viendrait de son union avec Sarai.

La promesse finale était celle d’une bénédiction – bénédiction pour lui, et bénédiction par lui. Une grande partie de la bénédiction d’Abram devait venir sous la forme de ses descendants, mais il y avait aussi la bénédiction qui viendrait sous la forme du Messie, qui apporterait le salût au peuple de Dieu. C’est de cet espoir que notre Seigneur a parlé,

« Abraham votre père a exulté de joie, rien qu'à la pensée de voir mon jour. Il l'a vu et en a été transporté de joie. » (Jean 8:56)

Au-delà de ceci, Abram était destiné à devenir une bénédiction à tous les hommes de tous les pays. Le bienfait viendrait par Abraham de façons différentes. Ceux qui reconnaissent la main de Dieu en Abram et ses descendants seraient bénis par contact avec eux. Le Pharaon par exemple, a été bénit en élevant Joseph. Les hommes de tous les pays seront bénis par les Ecritures Saintes qui, dans une large mesure, sont venues par le moyen du peuple du peuple juif. Et finalement, le monde entier a été bénit par la venue du Messie, qui est venu pour sauver les hommes de toutes les nations, pas seulement les Juifs :

« Comprenez-le donc: seuls ceux qui placent leur confiance en Dieu sont les fils d'Abraham.

   De plus, l'Ecriture prévoyait que Dieu déclarerait les non-Juifs justes s'ils avaient la foi. C'est pourquoi elle a annoncé par avance cette bonne nouvelle à Abraham: Tu seras une source de bénédictions pour toutes les nations.

  Ainsi, tous ceux qui font confiance à Dieu, comme Abraham lui a fait confiance, ont part à la bénédiction avec lui.  » (Galates 3:7-9)

La Soumission d’Abraham (11:31-32, 12:4-9)

Je suis beaucoup disturbé par l’embellissement des héros, spécialement par les Chrétiens. Les géants de la foi semblent être des caractères de bon aloi, parfaits, avec une discipline de robot, et une foi à toute épreuve. Je ne trouve aucune personne comme ça dans la Bible. Les héros de la Bible sont des hommes « tous semblables à nous », (Jacques 5:17) avec des pieds d’argile. C’est le genre de héros que j’aime. Je peux m’identifier avec des hommes et femmes comme ceux là. Et, encore plus important, je peux trouver de l’espoir pour une personne comme moi. C’est avec peu de surprises que les hommes comme Pierre et Paul soient nos héros, car nous pouvons nous voir en eux.

Abram était un homme comme vous et moi. Le récit de Moïse des premiers pas de foi d’Abram rend évident que beaucoup laissait à désirer, et à être développé en lui. Dieu l’a appelé à Ur, mais Abram n’a pas quitté la maison de son père ou sa famille. Maintenant Abram a quitté Ur et est allé à Harân, mais il me semble que ce n’est arrivé que parce ce que son païen de père a décidé de quitter Ur. Il y aurait très bien pu y avoir des facteurs politiques ou économiques qui auraient précipité ce déménagement, à part des considerations spirituelles.

Beaucoup des premiers mouvements d’Abram n’étaient ni résolus, ni pieux, mais plutôt étaient une réponse plus passive à des évènements extérieurs. Dieu, providentiellement, a guidé Térah à boucler ses valises à Ur et à aller vers Canaan (11:31). Pour quelques raisons que se soient, Térah et sa famille se sont arrêtés avant Canaan, et sont restés à Harân. Puisque Abram n’avait pas la volonté de quitter la maison de son père, Dieu a prit le père d’Abram par la mort (11:32). Maintenant Abram a obéit Dieu par la foi et est entré dans le pays de Canaan, mais seulement qu’après que Dieu ait prit des pas de préparation considérable.

Je dis qu’Abram a obéit Dieu par la foi, mais c’était un très petite foi, très tardive. Mais cela étant dit, cela contredit-il les paroles de l’Ecriture Sainte ? Est-ce inconsistent avec les paroles de l’auteur d’Hébreux ?

« Par la foi, *Abraham a obéi à l'appel de Dieu qui lui ordonnait de partir pour un pays qu'il devait recevoir plus tard en héritage. Il est parti sans savoir où il allait.  » (Hebreux 11:8)

Au moins deux choses doivent être dites en réponse à cette question. Premièrement, Hébreux 11 souligne la foi. L’auteur veut amplifier ici l’aspect positif de la christianité, pas ses échecs. Donc, les échecs ne sont pas mentionnés. Deuxièmement, consistant avec cette approche, l’auteur ne souligne pas le moment et la durée de son obéissance. Il écrit simplement, « …Abraham, quand il fut appelé, obéit en partant. » Rappelons-nous qu’Abram n’est pas allé à Canaan, comme Moïse est allé en Egypte, sans des pressions considérables de Dieu.

Nous ne devrions pas trouver ça décourageant, mais consistant avec notre propre répugnance à mettre notre futur en première ligne avec une foi active, agressive, et incontestable. Abraham était un homme de foi immense – après des années de mise à l’épreuve par Dieu. Mais quand Abram a été appelé, il était un homme de foi maigre ; Vraie mais maigre. Et si nous étions honnêtes avec nous-mêmes, c’est exactement là où la plupart d’entre nous sommes. Dans nos meilleurs moments, notre foi est vibrante et vitale, mais dans les moments d’épreuves, elle est faible et nous manque.

Une fois dans le pays de Canaan, le chemin prit par Abram est remarquable. Il devrait être tout d’abord dit que c’était la route qu’il aurait du prendre s’il allait dans cette direction. Un coup d’œil sur la carte de l’ancien monde des patriarches indiquerait qu’Abram a voyagé sur des routes battues de ces jours.¹³⁵ Cette route était communément utilisée par ceux qui faisaient du commerce à cette époque.

Cela est, je crois, une observation pertinente, car beaucoup de Chrétiens semblent penser que le chemin de Dieu est un chemin bizarre et insolite. Ils n’attendent pas que Dieu les guide d’une façon normale. La leçon que nous avons peut-être besoin d’apprendre ici est cela : très souvent le chemin, que Dieu voudrait que l’on prenne, est celui que nous aurions choisi de toute façon. C’est seulement quand Dieu veut que nous quittions le chemin normal que nous devrions chercher des panneaux indicateurs spectaculaires et insolites.

Cassuto a suggéré que les endroits mentionnés (Sichem, Béthel  et le Néguev) sont importants. Il croit que le pays est divisé en trois régions : Une qui s’étend de la frontière Nord à Sichem, la deuxième de Sichem jusqu'à Béthel, et la troisième de Béthel à la frontière sud.¹³⁶

Jacob, après son retour de Paddân-Aram, est arrivé en premier à Sichem (33:18). Plus tard, il a été ordonné d’aller à Béthel (35:1 ; verset 6). Aux deux endroits, Sichem et Béthel, il construisit des autels, comme Abram, son grand-père (33:20 ; 35:7).

Quand Israël est entré dans le pays de Canaan, pour s’en emparer sous Josué, ces même villes ont été capturées :

« Là-dessus, Josué les fit partir et ils allèrent se poster en embuscade entre Béthel et Aï, à l'ouest d'Aï... » (Josué 8:9)

« Alors Josué bâtit un autel à l'Eternel, le Dieu d'Israël, sur le mont Ebal. » (Josué 8:30)

Cassuto conclut que le voyage d’Abram sans le savoir esquissait le territoire qui un jour appartiendra à Israël, et dont les places où il s’arrêta, symboliquement, prévoit la future conquête du pays.¹³⁷ Dans un autre commentaire, Cassuto ajoute le fait que ces endroits sont aussi des centres religieux de célébrations cananéennes.¹³⁸ En effet les actions d’Abram de construire des autels et de proclamer le nom du Seigneur ont annoncé que le temps arriverait quand un vrai service religieux d’adoration remplacera la religion païenne des Cananéens. Bien que le sens exact de l’expression, « a fait appel au nom du Seigneur » n’est pas été connu, le service d’adoration est précisément décrit. Il est difficile de croire que l’action publique d’adoration d’Abram n’est pas été remarquée et étudiée avec un intérêt particulier par les Cananéens. Personnellement, je crois qu’il y a une sorte de fonction missionnaire qui doit être exécutée par Abram. Comme tel, cela aurait été une action résultant de la foi.

Conclusion : Caractéristiques de la Vie de Foi

De ces évènements arrivant à des périodes différentes du grandissement de la grâce d’Abram, plusieurs principes émergent qui décrit le chemin de la foi tout au long de nos vies personnelles.

(1) La foi d’Abram a commence à l’instigation de Dieu.

La souveraineté de Dieu dans le salût est illustrée magnifiquement dans l’appel d’Abram. Abram venait d’une famille païenne. A notre connaissance, il n’avait aucunes qualités spirituelles particulières qui auraient attiré Dieu à lui. Dieu, dans son élection gracieuse, a choisi Abram pour qu’il le suive, bien qu’il vivait sa propre vie. Abram, tout comme Paul et les vrais croyants de tous les âges, reconnaîtrait que c’était Dieu Qui l’a cherché et l’a sauvé, par la grâce divine.

(2) La vie spirituelle d’Abram continue à travers le travail souverain de Dieu.

Dieu n’est pas souverain que seulement dans le salût, mais souverain dans le processus de sanctification. Si la vie spirituelle d’Abram ne s’était reposée seulement que sur sa fidélité, l’histoire d’Abram aurait été très vite terminée. Ayant appelé Abram, ce fut Dieu Qui providentiellement l’a amené à quitter sa famille et son pays et à aller au pays de Dieu. Dieu merci, nos vies spirituelles ne dépendent finalement que de Sa fidélité, pas la nôtre.

(3) Le parcours du Chrétien est un pèlerinage.

Abraham a vecut comme un pelerin, cherchant la ville de Dieu :

« Par la foi, il a séjourné en étranger dans le pays qui lui avait été promis, vivant sous des tentes, de même que *Isaac et *Jacob qui sont héritiers avec lui de la même promesse.

   Car il attendait la cité aux fondements inébranlables dont Dieu lui-même est l'architecte et le constructeur. » (Hebreux 11:9-10)

Notre demeure permanente n’est pas trouvée dans ce monde, mais dans celui qui doit venir, dans la présence de notre Seigneur (Jean 14:1-3). C’est le message du Nouveau Testament (Ephésiens 2:19 ; 1 Pierre 1:17, 2:11).

La tente est donc le symbole du pelerin. Il n’investit pas beaucoup dans ce qui ne durera pas longtemps. Il n’ose pas devenir trop attache à ce qu’il ne pourra pas emmener avec lui. Dans cette vie, nous ne pouvons pas esperer de posseder ce qui repose dans le futur, mais seulement de le contempler.

La vie chretienne n’est pas savoir exactement ce que le futur apportera, mais savoir Celui a Qui le futur appartient.

(4) Le parcours du Chrétien est encré dans la crédibilité de la Parole de Dieu.

Quand vous réfléchissez à ça, Abram n’avait aucune preuves concrètes, tangibles qu’une vie remplie de bénédictions l’attendait, après Ur, loin de sa famille. Tout ce qu’il pouvait compter dessus était Dieu, Qui s’était révélé à lui.

A la fin, c’est tout ce que tout le monde peut avoir. Il y a, bien sur, des évidences pour la raison de la foi, mais le point est que nous devons simplement croire ce que Dieu nous a dit dans Sa Parole. Si Sa « Parole n’est pas vraie et sûre, alors nous, parmi tous les hommes, sommes les plus misérables. »

Mais n’est-ce pas assez ? Quoi de plus pouvons nous demander que la Parole de Dieu ? L’autre jour, j’ai entendu un prêtre le tourner sèchement. Il cita l’expression, « Dieu l’a dit. Je le crois. C’est comme ça. » Le prêtre dit que ça pouvait être dit d’une façon encore plus courte. « Dieu l’a dit, et c’est comme ça, que vous le croyez ou pas. » J’aime ça. La Parole de Dieu est assez pour la foi de l’homme.

Dieu a dit que tous les hommes sont des pécheurs, méritant de, et destinés à la punition éternelle. Dieu a envoyé Son Fils, Jésus Christ, Celui qu’Abram cherchait dans le futur, pour qu’Il meure sur la croix souffrant la pénalité du péché de l’homme. Lui seul, offrit la vertu nécessaire pour que l’homme accède à la vie éternelle. Dieu l’a dit. Le croyez-vous ?

(5) Le parcours du Chretien est simplement faire ce que Dieu nous a dit de faire et croire qu’IL nous guide quand nous le faisons.

Dieu a dit à Abram de partir sans savoir où le chemin de l’obéissance l’emmènerait, mais croyant que Dieu le guidait constamment. Ne croyez pas que Dieu vous montrera chaque tournant de la route avec un panneau. Faites ce que Dieu vous dit de faire de la façon la plus raisonnable. La foi n’est pas développée en vivant la vie comme en suivant une carte routière, mais en utilisant la Parole de Dieu, comme un compas, qui nous dirige dans la bonne direction, mais aussi qui nous défie d’avancer par foi et non pas vue.

Comme Abram est allé d’endroit à endroit, la volonté de Dieu a du sembler être une charade. Mais comme nous jetons un regard rétrospectif à ce voyage, nous pouvons voir que Dieu le guidait à chaque pas. Aucun arrêt le long de la route n’était sans importance ou sans raison. Tel sera le cas quand nous pourrons regarder en arrière sur nos vies avec l’avantage du temps.

(6) Le parcours du Chrétien est un procédé de grandir dans la grâce.

Nous lisons souvent l’histoire d’Abraham, l’homme de foi, supposant qu’il a toujours été ce genre d’homme. J’espère que notre étude de cette première période de sa vie indique autrement. Cela fait combien de temps que vous être Chrétiens, mes amis ? Un an ? Cinq ans ? Vingt ans ? Réalisez-vous que des années ont passé entre le temps où Abram a été appelé à Ur, jusqu'à ce qu’il soit entré dans le pays de Canaan ? Savez –vous qu’après qu’Abram entra dans le pays de Canaan, il s’est passé encore 25 ans avant qu’il ait eu son fils, Isaac ? Pouvez-vous réaliser le fait qu’après avoir quitté Harân pour Canaan, Dieu a influencé la vie d’Abram pendant cent ans ? La foi chrétienne grandit. Elle grandit avec le temps et avec les épreuves. Telle a été la vérité avec la vie d’Abram.¹³⁹ Et tel est le cas de chaque croyant.

Que Dieu nous permette de grandir dans la grâce en parcourant le chemin qu’IL nous a ordonné, et comme nous continuons d’étudier la croissance de la foi d’Abram au cours des années.

¹²⁸ S. Schultz, “Abraham,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), I, p. 26.

¹²⁹ Cyrus Gordon has suggested that the true Ur of Genesis 11:31 is to be found in northern Mesopotamia, probably northeast of Haran. Gordon’s view is discussed, but rejected by Howard F. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), pp. 63-64. Gordon’s view is held by Harold G. Stiflers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 133-134.

¹³⁰ Cf. Vos, Genesis and Archaeology, pp. 58-64.

¹³¹ “The city of Ur on the lower Euphrates River was a large population center, and has yielded extensive information in the royal tombs which were excavated under the direction of Sir Leonard Wooley and the sponsorship of the British Museum and the museum of Pennsylvania University. Although no direct evidence of Abraham’s residence is available, it is significant that the city of Ur reflects a long history preceding Abraham’s time, possessing an elaborate system of writing, educational facilities, mathematical calculations, business and religious records, and art. This points to the fact that Ur may have been one of the largest and wealthiest cities in the Tigris-Euphrates area when Abraham emigrated northward to Haran.” Schultz, “Abraham,” ZPEB, I, p. 22.

¹³² Vos, p. 63.

¹³³ “Although it may appear from a superficial reading of the account in Genesis (11:31-12:1) that God called Abraham while in Haran, thereby contradicting Stephen’s account that God called Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, the two accounts can be harmonized by noting that Genesis 11:27-32 is a parenthetical account of Terah introduced by a waw disjunctive, and that Genesis 12:1, introduced by a waw consecutive, carries on the main narrative which was discontinued in Gen. 11:26.” Bruce Waltke, Unpublished Class Notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, pp. 14-15.

¹³⁴ Cassuto, the great Jewish scholar disagrees. He said in his comments on Genesis 12:7,

¹³⁵ Haran, for example, in Assyrian (harranu) meant ‘main road.’ Waltke, class notes, p. 14.

¹³⁶ Cassuto, Genesis, II, p. 304.

¹³⁷ “Now we can understand why the Torah stressed, in all their detail, Abram’s journeys on entering the land of Canaan, at first as far as Schechem, and subsequently up to Ai-Bethel. Scripture intended to present us here, through the symbolic conquest of Abram, with a kind of forecast of what would happen to his descendants later.” Cassuto, Genesis, II, pp. 305-306.

¹³⁸ Ibid, p. 306.

¹³⁹ “. . . Abram’s early history is partly that of his gradual disentanglement from country, kindred and father’s house, a process not completed until the end of chapter 13.” Derek Kidner, Genesis (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p. 113.

“Abram’s life is a growth in faith developed under delayed fulfillment of divine promises. He is promised a seed and when that seed is delayed, he must somehow see meaning in that delay and learn faith in God. When he is promised a land, and when that land is not given, he must look beyond the promise to its Maker so that he may understand. When he is commanded to sacrifice Isaac, he must obey with a willing heart of love, yet somehow see through to balance the command with the promise of the seed of a nation and leave the outcome to God and to find in God all sufficiency. Through all of his experiences he must come to see God as the origin of all that will endure.” Stagers, Genesis, p . 135.