MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

Lesson 103: The Aim of the Gospel (John 20:24-31)

Related Media

Editor's Note: Due to a recording glitch the audio for this message is not available.

September 6, 2015

Years ago the British agnostic Thomas Huxley had to leave early one morning to go from one speaking assignment to another, so he got into a horse-drawn taxi to go from his hotel to the train station. He assumed that the hotel doorman had told the driver of the carriage that they were to go to the train station. So when he got in, he simply said to the driver, “Drive fast.”

Off they went. After a short while, Huxley, who was familiar with the area, realized that they were actually going in the opposite direction from the train station. He yelled to the driver, “Do you know where you’re going?” Without looking back, the driver replied, “No, sir, but I’m driving very fast.”

Obviously, it doesn’t do much good to go fast if you’re going in the wrong direction! Yet, many people, even Christians, are like that. They’re going full speed, but they haven’t stopped to evaluate where they ought to be going. Before you know it, life has whizzed by, but you haven’t spent it aimed in the right direction. As Christians, we all would agree that to live properly, we must live in line with God’s purpose.

Our text brings us to John’s purpose statement for writing his gospel. First, he illustrates his purpose with the story of Thomas having his doubts cleared up as he sees the risen Lord Jesus Christ and exclaims (John 20:28), “My Lord and my God!” Then John states his purpose plainly (John 20:30-31): “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” To sum up:

The aim of the gospel is that we would believe in and worship the risen Savior.

Thomas moved from doubting Jesus’ resurrection to believing in and worshiping Him as his risen Lord and God. John wants all his readers to come to that same point of belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. Or, to put it another way, John wants us to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, so that we may have life in His name. All who have life through believing in Jesus’ name worship Him as Lord and God. But to come to that place, we have to join Thomas in overcoming the enemy of faith called “doubt.”

1. To believe in and worship the risen Savior, analyze and overcome your doubts.

We all struggle at times with varying degrees of doubts, which cloud our faith in the risen Savior. Thomas, though, has the distinction of being “doubter-in-chief”—everyone knows him as, “Doubting Thomas.” That may not be entirely fair, in that Luke 24:11 tells us that when the women first brought reports of Jesus’ resurrection, none of the apostles believed them. But Thomas’ persistent doubts put him at the head of the pack.

There are different kinds of doubters. Some use their doubts as a cover so they can go on sinning. They smugly say that they’re being “intellectually honest” or they “can’t put their brains on the shelf.” But they aren’t interested in getting those doubts cleared up, because they don’t want to submit to Jesus as Lord. Doubting gives them an aura of intellectual honesty, but when you peel away the veneer, their doubts really serve only as a cover-up for their sins.

Others—and I would put Thomas in this category—hate their doubts. Their doubts make them miserable. They want to believe, but they’re plagued by honest questions. They can’t just close their minds, and take a leap of faith. They need credible answers to clear up their doubts.

In previous messages, I’ve gone into more detail than I can here about the reasons for Thomas’ doubts (see “Dealing With Doubt,” [04/04/1999]; “Overcoming Doubt,” [04/16/2006]; and, “Defeating Doubt,” [03/31/2013]). But to summarize, I think that Thomas’ doubts stemmed from at least four factors.

A. Personal failure coupled with Thomas’ personality triggered his doubts.

After promising their loyalty, all of the disciples had deserted Jesus on the night He was arrested (Mark 14:31). But Thomas had been outspoken in his loyalty. Shortly before, when Jesus wanted to go to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead, the disciples objected that it was too dangerous. But Thomas said (John 11:16), “Let us also go, that we may die with Him.” He was a pessimist, but at least he was loyal. But then he had joined the others in running away when Jesus was arrested. That failure, coupled with Thomas’ rather gloomy personality, plunged him into depression and doubt when he failed Jesus.

We’re all wired differently and so it’s important to know yourself so that you can be on guard against your weaknesses. Usually our areas of greatest strength are also our areas of greatest weakness. A man like Thomas, who is loyal and conscientious, who takes commitments seriously, is also more prone to depression and doubt when he fails. So if you’re struggling with doubts, think about whether your doubts may stem from a recent failure.

B. A lack of understanding fueled Thomas’ doubts.

None of the disciples understood Jesus’ repeated disclosures that He was going to be killed in Jerusalem and rise again the third day. They pictured a conquering and reigning Messiah, not a suffering and dying one. So when Jesus died, they didn’t understand what was going on. John (20:9) acknowledges that even after seeing the empty tomb, they still didn’t understand the Scripture that Jesus must rise again from the dead.

Some of my bouts with doubt have stemmed from not understanding the Scripture. Maybe it’s a difficult doctrinal matter. Sometimes it’s because I don’t understand the ways of God. In John 6:60, we saw that many of Jesus’ wider company of disciples turned away from Him when He taught some hard things about eating His flesh and drinking His blood and about the doctrine of election. On that occasion, Jesus asked the twelve if they would turn away also. Peter gave the great answer (John 6:68-69), “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. And we have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” I’ve come back to that answer many times when I’ve struggled with doubt due to a lack of understanding. Jesus is the truth. Where else can I go?

C. Deep disappointment and shock over Jesus’ suffering nurtured Thomas’ doubts.

Thomas especially seems to have been shocked about the grisly details of Jesus’ suffering and death. His fixation on Jesus’ wounds (John 20:25) shows how deeply it affected him. He couldn’t get those gory details out of his mind. He probably was thinking, “I knew that this would happen!” And yet at the same time, he was disappointed and shocked when it did happen.

When God doesn’t work in the way that you had thought He should or answer your prayers as you had hoped, you’re susceptible to doubt. That’s especially true when you or a loved one goes through a time of suffering or a shocking experience. Your confusion and shock can plunge you into a sea of doubts.

D. Isolation from other believers deepened Thomas’ doubts.

We don’t know why Thomas was absent that first Sunday night when Jesus appeared to the other disciples. But a likely reason was his depression over the crucifixion. The last thing he wanted at a time like that was to be around other people. So he wandered off by himself to brood over the horrible events of the previous few days.

Thomas’ doubts probably grew even deeper when he heard the other disciples tell him that they had seen the risen Lord (John 20:25). Think how you would feel if you missed church because you were depressed and doubting and we all told you, “Hey, you missed a blessing last Sunday! We all felt that Jesus was right there in our midst!” Great! That really encourages you, doesn’t it!

Thomas may have thought, “Why would the Lord appear to them when I wasn’t there? Doesn’t He know that I’m wrestling with doubts? Why didn’t He appear to me?” That line of thinking could have led to thoughts like, “It just isn’t fair! He must not love me!” Those thoughts would have led to deeper doubts.

But even though you’re depressed and other believers may bug you, you still need to hang out with the saints. While our faith must be personal, it should never be isolationist. Your hand only functions when it’s connected with the rest of your body. It’s the same spiritually: you won’t overcome your doubts brooding by yourself. You need to gather with the church for worship and teaching. In that context, the Lord often manifests Himself in a way that will alleviate your doubts. Jesus didn’t appear to Thomas while he was off brooding by himself. He only revealed Himself when Thomas was gathered again with fellow believers. So the first step toward believing in and worshiping the risen Savior is to analyze and overcome your doubts.

2. To believe in and worship the risen Savior, experience His abundant grace.

As we saw (John 20:19, 21), Jesus’ first words to the fearful disciples was, “Peace be with you,” which He repeated so that they would get it. He could have reamed them out for their fear and slowness to believe, but He spoke graciously to them.

If Jesus rightly could have chewed out the ten, Thomas really deserved a scolding! He had adamantly rejected the testimony of the other disciples. Then he put the Lord to the test by demanding to touch Jesus and feel His wounds. And yet when Jesus appeared again to the disciples on the following Sunday evening, Jesus graciously said the same thing (John 20:26): “Peace be with you.” As I said last week, it was the usual Jewish greeting, but in these circumstances, it was far more than just a greeting. The risen Lord was extending His grace to these men who had failed.

Then He piled on more grace when He invited Thomas to touch His hands and His side. True, Jesus both rebuked and exhorted him by saying (John 20:27), “Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” But the rebuke stemmed from love. It didn’t negate the abundant grace that Thomas experienced. We don’t know whether Thomas actually did it. At that point, he didn’t need to touch Jesus, because He knew that He really was alive. I’m inclined to think that Thomas didn’t touch Him, since Jesus replied (John 20:29), “Because you have seen Me [not touched Me], have you believed?” Although Jesus rightly could have disowned Thomas as a disciple, He lavished His grace on him.

Thomas’ spontaneous confession, “My Lord and my God,” takes us back to John 1:1, 14, & 16: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth…. For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.” Thomas knew that Jesus was God and also that He was full of grace toward him in spite of his sinful doubts. And now he was awash in the riches of Christ’s grace.

Have you experienced God’s abundant grace in Jesus Christ? You taste it first when the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin and you realize that you rightly deserve God’s judgment. But then He opens your eyes to the good news that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, including you (1 Tim. 1:15). And you hear the great news that He doesn’t save sinners after they’ve worked hard to clean up their lives and earn it. Rather, He saves sinners by His grace through faith in Him (Eph. 2:8-9).

I recently had a lengthy email exchange with a man who was reading my sermons online. He took issue with my teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. He argued that we must add baptism and obedience to faith. He cited James 2:24, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Although I have a sermon on that text explaining how James and Paul are not at odds, he kept insisting that we are not saved by faith alone. I asked, but he never answered, “How many good works do you need to pile up before you’re saved?” Does one get you in? Two? Two thousand? When does the scale tip so that you will get into heaven? I also told him, “There is no good news in your ‘gospel,’ which is no gospel at all.” But there is wonderfully good news if any sinner can believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and be counted righteous in God’s sight (Rom 4:5)!

But then after believing in Jesus, we’ve all failed miserably, as Thomas did when he doubted the resurrection. We’ve all sinned repeatedly when we knew better. What should we do then? Do we need to do penance? Do we need to crawl on our knees on broken glass to demonstrate our contrition? Do we need to join a monastery or convent and deny ourselves common comforts to merit forgiveness? No, because then grace would not be grace (Rom. 11:6). We should mourn over our sins, because they grieve our Savior. We should confess our sins to the Lord (Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:4; 1 Cor. 5:2). But when we do, He promises to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). So as Paul told Timothy (2 Tim. 2:1), “Be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” Experiencing His grace leads you to believe in Him and to worship Him!

3. To believe in and worship the risen Savior, go back to the foundational truth of His resurrection and stand there.

As Paul emphasizes (1 Cor. 15:17), Jesus’ bodily resurrection is the foundation of our faith: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” As we’ve seen (my message on John 20:1-10), there is solid historical evidence that Jesus is risen. In fact, we can be thankful for Thomas’ doubting the resurrection, because his entrenched doubt never would have changed to solid belief unless he had been convinced by the strongest proof. Tradition tells us that he later went to India and was martyred there. He never would have given his life in service to Christ if he had been unsure about Jesus’ resurrection.

Here’s how this applies: After you trust in Christ as your Savior and Lord, you will still face doubts over difficult problems in the Bible and in the world. Sometimes I struggle with how a loving God can allow all of the evil that goes on in this world. How can He allow little kids to be abused or sold into the sex trade or murdered? I struggle with the fact that millions live and die and then face judgment without ever hearing about the Savior. I struggle with the doctrine of eternal punishment. The list could go on.

But if Jesus is truly risen from the dead, then His claims are true and all of those issues become of secondary importance. I can work on them over time. Some problems I may not resolve until I meet Jesus in glory. But I can trust in Him because He was raised bodily from the dead and that fact is attested to by many faithful witnesses whose lives were dramatically changed when they saw Him. So I rest my faith on the sure foundation of His resurrection.

Maybe you’re thinking, “If I could have been there with Thomas and seen Jesus risen from the dead, it would be easier to overcome my doubts. But I’ve never seen Him.” For you, Jesus speaks to Thomas the words of verse 29: “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” That’s us! Jesus pronounces a blessing on us who believe the apostolic witness. If you’re struggling with doubt, go back to the foundational truth, substantiated by many eyewitnesses, that Jesus is risen. It gives you the footing to work on the problems that cause your doubts.

So, to believe in and worship the risen Savior, analyze and overcome your doubts; experience His abundant grace; go back to the foundational truth of His resurrection and stand there. Finally:

4. To believe in and worship the risen Savior, see Him for who He is and see yourself for who you are.

Throughout the Bible, worship happens when people get a glimpse of who God is and at that same moment, inevitably they see who they are in His holy presence. When Isaiah saw God on His throne surrounded by angels proclaiming (Isa. 6:3), “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory,” Isaiah instantly cried out (Isa. 6:5), “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” That was a moment of profound worship.

When Peter had fished all night and caught nothing and Jesus, who was in the boat, provided the miraculous catch of fish, Peter’s spontaneous response was (Luke 5:8), “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!” Peter saw who Jesus was and who he was and the result was worship. Later, when Jesus instantly stilled the raging waves that threatened to sink their boat, the disciples were fearful and amazed. They said to one another (Luke 8:25), “Who then is this, that He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him?” They saw Jesus’ mighty power and their own weakness, and they worshiped Him.

Here Thomas has the same experience: He sees the risen Lord Jesus, who in His resurrection body could appear to them behind locked doors. He hears Jesus quote what Thomas had said to the other disciples when Jesus was absent. He instantly realized that not only was Jesus risen, He also was omniscient! At the same moment, Thomas recognized his own sinful unbelief in doubting the resurrection. He spontaneously cried out, “My Lord and My God!” He now was believing in and worshiping the risen Savior.

Some (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses) claim that Thomas was exclaiming in shock something like the common American expression, “O my God!” But that is to take the name of the Lord in vain and Jesus surely would have rebuked him. And, like Peter when Cornelius fell at his feet and worshiped him (Acts 10:25-26), Jesus would have said, “Stand up; I too am just a man.” But rather, Jesus commended Thomas’ worship as an example of the faith that all should have. We all should believe in and worship Jesus personally as “my Lord and my God.”

Conclusion

How can you get this understanding of who Jesus is and who you are, so that you worship Him? It doesn’t come from a mystical or miraculous vision, but rather from the Holy Spirit giving you understanding and insight into God’s Word. I once heard John MacArthur tell about a pastor friend of his who told John that he saw Jesus every morning while he was shaving. John incredulously asked, “And you keep shaving?” If the man really saw Jesus, like John (in Rev. 1:17) he would fall at His feet as a dead man!

God reveals Jesus to us through His Word. When the risen Savior spoke to the disciples on the Emmaus Road, we read (Luke 24:27), “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” Later, probably on this occasion when He revealed Himself to Thomas and the other disciples, we read (Luke 24:45), “Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” As you read the Scriptures, ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ to your soul. (I’m assuming that you do read the Scriptures frequently!)

Finally, note that faith is Christ is not vague: it has definite doctrinal content. John wants us to believe specifically that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He wants us to believe that the risen Jesus is “my Lord and my God.” If Jesus is anything less than the eternal Lord and God, it would be a horrible sin to worship Him. If He truly is Lord and God, it would be a horrible sin not to worship Him.

Application Questions

  1. What causes you most to struggle with doubt? How can you overcome these doubts?
  2. An unbeliever tells you, “I’d like to have your faith, but I have too many intellectual problems with Christianity.” Your reply?
  3. Some say that grace is the balance point between legalism and license. Why is this wrong? Will too much grace lead to sin?
  4. Discuss the implications of this profound statement: “It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.” (John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion [Westminster Press], 1:1:2)

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2015, All Rights Reserved.

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

Related Topics: Christian Life

Vickie Kraft - For the Next Generation: "What I've Learned in Life"

Related Media

April 6, 2015

Vickie Kraft is the quintessential "Titus 2" woman, living a godly, fruit-filled life and pouring into countless women. In her sunset days, at a still sharp-as-a-tack 87 years old, she spoke to an informal group of women on "What I've Learned in Life." It is pure gold.

Related Topics: Christian Life, Messages, Women

Seeking the Face of the Savior

Related Topics: Curriculum, Messages, Women

From Desperate Housewives to Dedicated Servants

Related Media

Editor's Note: a version of this message was shared in a Dallas Theological Seminary chapel and is available as a video here on their website.

Introduction

Have you wondered about the popularity of the series, “Desperate Housewives?” Surprised by the sometimes-bizarre behaviors of these affluent suburban women who seemingly have so much going for them? In their “desperation,” these women scorn purity, discipline, honesty, relationships, and are driven by emptiness. They live only for personal happiness, whatever it costs and whomever it hurts. The traditional values of home and family aren’t even on the horizon. (Is it any wonder the Muslim world is rejecting this view of a “Christian nation” and its values?)

Though not necessarily in their actions, in their emptiness I can truly relate to those “Desperate Housewives.” For them as well as for some of us from non-faith backgrounds, the question of God doesn’t seem relevant to the happiness equation. At the very least I certainly shared their underlying emptiness.

As a young married woman, with a loving and supportive husband, a darling little girl, and the freedom to stay at home to care for her; I was still restless, unsatisfied, and a frequent patron of the malls; certainly immature and greatly undisciplined. As a first generation believer, without a family role model, even with great teaching in DTS-led churches, I struggled with a lack of personal confidence; uncertain about how to balance life, uncertain what God desired for me, unsure of my role as a mother.

I remember lounging in our family room in the avocado-green easy chair, feet up, while Julie, our daughter, as pre-schooler toddled around with a wet diaper, supper dishes stacked up in the sink, clothes falling out of the hamper, reading Hudson Taylor’s Spiritual Secret and wondering why it didn’t work. I had all the right information--so I thought.

I’d read a lot about “let go and let God.” It sounded like a good idea to me, but He wasn’t doing such a great job with the housekeeping! Somehow I hadn’t connected practical living and spiritual thinking. I’d never seen it lived out in the life of an older woman. I was truly so heavenly minded that I was not much earthly good!

Then one day I called a new friend–raised in a strong believing home--and asked her to go to the mall; and she replied, “I’d love to. Let me see what God has for the day and I’ll get right back to you.” I never considered that God cared if I went to the mall or not--or that He might have something more productive for me to do. That relationship and others opened a new door--a new way to look at life: one that began to show me another way to live.

So you see why I have such a passion that our younger generation receives that kind of role model? Why I think women ministering to women is the alternative to the empty solutions proposed by the desperate housewives? Why I am so delighted that DTS is now training women to resource ministry to women in many local churches?

I. Entrust Mission’s Course: Women Serving Women

In one of the first exercises of our mission, Entrust’s, course, Women Serving Women, we ask the question, “What words come to your mind when you hear …”

“Women’s Ministries.” Or “Women in Ministry”?

Hopefully NOT “Desperate Housewives”!

Take a moment and reflect on that question in your own mind ….
We get all kinds of responses! If we had time, you’d give us quite a sample too!

From trouble to terrific

From questionable to quotable

From gossips to good

The tagline of our mission Entrust reads:

“Multiplying leaders for multiplying churches.”

Does this apply to women? That’s the question we often hear debated! And I believe the debate about “who is a leader” often holds us back from stepping through a door God has clearly opened--stealing the energy from the task He has given us!

  • We expend so much energy debating about “who” should be leading, what or who is a leader, and how that relates to women.
  • So much time is spent discussing the proper place of service for women
  • That often we neglect to commit to fully equipping women for a clearly commanded place of service God designed for them.
  • As a result, the church is denied the most effective ministry to and for her women.

Remember the scene where Jesus affirms that Mary’s choice to learn at His feet as the “better part?” He was counter cultural in His value and honor of women and their significant place in the plan of God. He saw their strategic role in the purposes of God.

You know where I’m going, right? Think with me for a moment with about this familiar passage:

II. Read Titus 2:1-4

Turn with me to that familiar passage in Titus 2:3-5. See if you would agree with me how strategic and biblical it is that women be effectively equipped to minister to, to lead at the least other women.

3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. (NIV)

Women do make a difference! How they live and relate does make a difference! They matter to a watching world, to the church and to God.

First, consider the last phrase: “So that no one will malign the word of God.”

· In another version, “so that the word of God will not be discredited.”

Is there any doubt that “the word of God is being maligned?”

· Just last week, Yahoo claimed to debunk the miracle of Jesus’ walking on the water: someone has hypothesized that the Sea of Galilee froze over!

· Last week, I watched a man interviewed on 60 Minutes who says Jesus didn’t die on the cross…and, of course, no resurrection…and, of course, he has written a book on the “Jesus Papers,” which, of course, he cannot locate.

· Daily a cursory observation of mainstream media and popular books validates the skepticism of a watching world.

So, it does make a difference what women do!

Second, note the contrast as Paul described the character of women called to train other women--two positives, and two negatives:

  • Reverent in the way they live, considering all of life sacred
  • Teaching what is good; not only the Scripture, but practical living, as well
  • “not to be gossips or drunks (Doesn’t that echo of the Desperate Housewives?)

Contrast

  • Satisfied versus superficial women
  • Admirable or addicted
  • Dedicated servants or Desperate Housewives?

I’m convinced that when women, not unlike men, are not challenged to discover and exercise their spiritual gifts and enter into God’s purposes for them, they often gravitate to other sources of superficial satisfaction (from the mall to men)--other addictions that distract them from the emptiness of life lived without reference to God.

On the other hand, when a woman is encouraged to become all that God intended, she becomes a role model for younger women of satisfied womanhood and fulfillment. She is personally satisfied and makes a significant difference in her every part of her world.

Such a woman impacted my life with her passion for Christ and her example of godly womanhood.

III. Miss J and Her Chinese Bible Women

In 1952, a single English woman arrived in Southern California as a result of the communist takeover in China, where she had been serving with the China Inland Mission as a missionary, training women in the Bible at a seminary for women. With her heart heavy for her beloved Chinese, A. Wetherell Johnson reluctantly responded to a request by several American women to teach them the Bible. From that small beginning with one satisfied woman developed what is now an international bible-teaching and training ministry reaching over 200,000 people worldwide--Bible Study Fellowship, BSF International.

And what led Miss J (as we affectionately termed her) to believe that women could be equipped to teach and train others (besides our passage of Titus 2)?

A. Miss J’s experience. She labored to speak and write Mandarin Chinese. She would prepare a brief message and deliver it. Her “simply Bible woman” who translated it for her would speak for 30 to 45 minutes, and women would respond in numbers to the message. She was persuaded that if ordinary Chinese Bible women dependent upon the Spirit of God could teach other women; so could ordinary American women be trained to teach the Bible.

B. I became one of her “ordinary American bible women” for almost 25 years of my life. Her example, her confidence in me, and her training enabled me to discover the joy of leading and training other women. I began that journey from Desperate Housewife to the joy of discovering servanthood.

C. Miss J, herself seminary trained, was committed, as you are here at DTS, to serious training of women to be effective in leading other women. She resisted “spoon feeding” as she called it. Each week our discussion leaders prepared “homiletics” on the passage being studied. When women complained about “why” they needed to do this extra work to simply facilitate their groups, she would respond that God was always preparing them for future ministry.

D. Seeing lives touched by yours is deeply, richly satisfying. There is no substitute for seeing God work in the lives of others as you make yourself available. And, as you know from your studies, discovering God in the Scriptures changes your life.

E. When you think of it, about the time a woman completes child rearing days, God would have you begin to invest in the next generation more completely.

IV. Russia Project and Twenty-One Amazing Russian Women

In the past six years I witnessed this same transformation repeated in our recent project with the Baptist Union of Russia, where we had the privilege over the past six years to train twenty-one amazing Russian Women from cities across that vast land of eleven time zones to train other women in ministry.

God providentially and previously equipped our faculty for the project; many of whom you know; Jeanne Hendricks, Joye Baker, Mary Dean, Lynn Etta Manning, Gail Seidel, Dianne Miller, and others. As we traveled together several times a year we watched God transform shy and hesitant Russian women into teachers and trainers themselves.

They came to us with their heads bowed, uncertain, lacking confidence. We watched as they grew confident in God’s power in them, as their shoulders lifted, and their heads raised, and God transformed their character. We saw them get excited to discover they could study the Bible for themselves, using a course designed around Prof. Hendricks’ Living by the Book.

Today, these twenty-one women, in teams of three, are training an additional one hundred five women in seven regional centers, replicating their training. And their one hundred five women in teams of three have scattered to twenty-four new locations to train an additional three hundred sixty women touching over one hundred towns and villages in Russia!

V. Peter’s Question and My Challenge

During our training, Peter Mischevich, a DTS graduate and now Vice President of the Baptist Union in Russia, asked me at breakfast in Moscow a provocative question:

“What would you like for me to communicate to our Union pastors regarding women?”

My answer to Peter and to all men who have asked me that question over the years, and especially to you men here at DTS who are preparing for the pastorate is this,

“I’m looking for Titus pastors--men who take seriously Paul’s exhortation to Titus regarding the equipping of older women to train and equip the younger women.”

My passion--my concern—is that you would step into this clearly commanded and immense job God entrusted to us. Consider that at least 50% of most churches are women. In Russia, 70% to 80% of churches are women. To fail to fully train and utilize them makes women one of the most underutilized resources available to the kingdom.

So, where does that take you and me today, with this open door?

Women, you WILL make a difference in the way the world views the Word of God. When you model satisfied and significant lives, demonstrating love and commitment in your key relationships, purity in your character, and discipline in your responsibilities, people will sit up and take notice! They will ask how you have come to be satisfied. Your lives will validate the truth of biblical living. Our lives will impact the watching world.

Men, as Pastors, many of you soon to graduate, you will have the privilege of opening the door for spiritual transformation of your women as you intentionally provide them an opportunity to be trained. You can be the Titus pastor, creating opportunities for your women.

As husbands, present or future, you can, as mine certainly did, encourage and enable your wife to identify and develop her gifts and free her to take her place in the purposes of God. This will sometimes be a sacrifice, but your affirmation, your support, and your confidence will make all the difference.

As DTS and other seminaries graduate more women to serve in these staff roles, the resources available to local churches are growing as well. I believe that while strategic ministry to and by women may have begun in the parachurch movement, the vision has now been caught by the local church. In that environment, even more effective ministry can be developed. Providing a place on your staff for this enhances the process.

Conclusion

I’ve shared a lot of my story, because I’ve discovered I’m not unique, here in America or around the world. Women are eager to see their lives make a difference--to live out God’s call to become all that God designed them to be. It is my prayer that each of you will commit to do your part in providing an environment for the transformation of Desperate Housewives into Dedicated Servants.

Related Topics: Christian Home, Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Women's Articles, Worldview

A Reformation the Church Doesn’t Need: Answering Revisionist Pro-Gay Theology—Part II

Article contributed by Stand To Reason
Visit Stand To Reason website

Related Media

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.

Related Topics: Cultural Issues, False Teachers, Homosexuality, Lesbianism, Scripture Twisting

Our God Reigns: A Study of the Gospel of Mark

47. What Is This Thing Called Love? (John 21:1-25)

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).

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

50. La Fin d’Une Epoque (Genèse 49:29 - 50:26)

Introduction

Dans un temps où peut-être 80 pourcent des Américains meurent dans des institutions plutôt qu’à la maison, il est difficile d’imaginer la scène qui eut lieu autour du lit de mort de Jacob il y a des siècles. Peut-être ces brefs paragraphes de Joe Bayly nous aideront à mieux apprécier la différence avec laquelle la mort est traitée (ou n’est pas traitée) dans notre culture.

Un des mes plus anciens souvenirs est d’être emmené dans la chambre de ma grand-mère à Gettysburg, Pennsylvanie, pour lui donner un dernier baiser. Elle se mourrait, on m’avait dit, « alors, soit silencieux et tiens-toi bien. »

Cette scène m’impressionne encore aujourd’hui avec sa qualité de Vieux Testament. Grand-mère, une personne imposante, était consciente, légèrement surélevée par un traversin, ses cheveux blancs tressés et bien arrangés sur la couette qu’elle avait faite quand elle était jeune femme. Le lit, un lit à baldaquin, était le lit dans lequel elle avait dormi pendant cinquante ans, dans lequel ses quatre enfants avaient été conçus et étaient nés.

Le parquet craquait son craquement familier, la lampe à kérosène vacillait sur un bureau massif, un bouquet de pois de senteur parfumait légèrement la chambre.

La vieille dame était entourée par ses enfants et ses petits-enfants. Quelques heures plus tard, elle mourut.

Quarante ans plus tard mes enfants étaient avec leur grand-père quand il eut son attaque cardiaque. On lui donna de l’oxygène, appela le docteur, puis une ambulance arriva. Les hommes mirent Grand-père sur le brancard, le sortirent de la maison, et ce fut la dernière fois que ses petits-enfants le virent. Les enfants sont exclus de la plupart des hôpitaux.

Dans le service de soins intensifs de l’hôpital, ma femme et moi restèrent avec lui jusqu'à ce que les heures de visites soient terminées. La mécanique de survie – tubes, aiguilles, bouteille d’oxygène, le stimulateur cardiaque électronique – étaient dans lui, sur lui et autour de lui.

Grand-père mourut dans la nuit, seul, après les heures de visites. Ses petits-fils n’eurent pas la chance de l’embrasser une dernière fois, de sentir la pression de sa main sur leurs têtes.113

Les hommes et les femmes ne sont pas accordés beaucoup de dignité dans la mort dans notre âge culturel et technologique. Il y a des chambres d’hôpital avec du personnel qui va et vient, des tubes, des examens, des moniteurs et des machines soutenant la vie (ou prolongeant la mort) qui rendent difficile de dire si une personne est vraiment partie.

Jacob est mort dans son lit, à la maison, entouré par ceux qu’il aimait le plus, et par ceux qui l’aimaient le plus. Pendant que la plupart d’entre nous préfèreraient mourir comme Jacob, la plupart n’auront pas le choix. Le besoin de traitement spécialisé nous force à mourir à l’hôpital. Et une mort inattendue peut nous enlever à ceux que nous aimons sans aucun avertissement ou opportunité de dire au revoir.

Bien que les circonstances dans lesquelles la mort arrive ne sont pas sous notre contrôle, notre attitude envers la mort est quelque chose que nous pouvons déterminer, même de nos jours. J’aimerai dire que peu de décisions sont aussi importantes que notre réponse à la mort. Et aucun chapitre dans le Vieux Testament n’a plus à dire sur le sujet de la mort que le chapitre final du Livre de Genèse.

Un des changements les plus dramatiques dans l’esprit de Jacob était son attitude envers la mort. Dans les années automnales de sa vie, il était préoccupé avec la mort. Ça avait probablement commencé avec la mort prématurée de sa bien-aimée Rachel (Genèse 35:16). La seule femme qu’il n’ait jamais aimée n’était plus. Et plus tard, il sembla que son fils aîné Joseph était aussi mort. Jacob n’avait plus de raisons de vivre. La tombe n’était pas l’évasion la plus attractive, mais c’était la seule que Jacob voyait :

« Tous ses fils et toutes ses filles vinrent pour le consoler; mais il refusa toute consolation et dit:
   ---Non! C'est dans le deuil que je rejoindrai mon fils au séjour des morts!
   Et il continua à pleurer Joseph. » (Genèse 37:35)

Quand Siméon fut détenu en Egypte et Benjamin fut demandé comme part de l’intégrité des fils de Jacob, une fois encore Jacob devint préoccupé avec la mort :

«  ---Non, mon fils ne partira pas avec vous, car son frère est mort et c'est le seul qui me reste. S'il lui arrivait malheur au cours de votre voyage, vous me feriez mourir de douleur à mon grand âge. » (Genèse 42:38)

Juda, au moins, croyait son père (44:22). Quand Jacob apprit que Joseph était vivant et fut réuni avec lui, il était alors prêt à mourir :

« Puis Israël dit à Joseph:
   ---Maintenant je peux mourir, puisque je t'ai revu et que tu vis encore! » (Genèse 46:30)

Bien que Jacob ait été prêt à mourir, Dieu n’était pas à le laisser s’éteindre. Ce ne fut qu’après 17 ans de communion avec Dieu et avec Joseph en Egypte que Jacob fut prêt. Quand nous voyons le détail avec lequel Moïse enregistre la mort de Jacob, nous commençons à apprécier l’importance de sa mort. Et quand nous reconnaissons que le chapitre final de Genèse contient le récit de deux morts, nous ne pouvons pas ignorer le fait que la mort est le thème central du passage. Alors, tournons notre attention vers ce chapitre final de Genèse pour apprendre comment l’attitude de Jacob envers la mort avait changé. Et cherchons à gagner une vue vertueuse de la mort.

Jacob choisit la Location du Cimetière (49:29-33)

Pour autant que je puisse dire, les dernières paroles de Jacob ne furent pas la bénédiction qu’il donna à ses fils (49:1-28), mais les instructions très précises pour ses funérailles.

« Ensuite Jacob leur donna ses instructions en disant:
   ---Je vais aller rejoindre mes ancêtres décédés, enterrez-moi auprès de mes pères dans la caverne qui se trouve dans le champ d'Ephrôn le Hittite,

  dans la caverne du champ de Makpéla, vis-à-vis de Mamré, au pays de Canaan, la caverne qu'Abraham a achetée, avec le champ, à Ephrôn le Hittite en propriété funéraire.

  C'est là qu'on a enterré Abraham et sa femme Sara; c'est là qu'on a enterré Isaac et sa femme Rébecca. C'est là aussi que j'ai enterré Léa.

  Le champ et la caverne qui s'y trouve ont été achetés aux Hittites.

  Lorsque Jacob eut achevé d'énoncer ses instructions à ses fils, il ramena ses pieds sur son lit, expira et fut réuni à ses ancêtres décédés. » (Genèse 49:29-33)

Il n’y a pas de déception à propos de la mort de Jacob (verset 29), mais son imminence souligne l’importance de ces paroles. Des ordres clairs sont donnés, mais pas pour la première fois (47:39-31), concernant ses funérailles à Canaan. Il devait être emmené à Canaan dans le champs de Makpéla, et enterré dans le tombeau avec son grand-père Abraham, et son père Isaac, ainsi que leurs femmes. Léa fut aussi enterrée là, et il semblerait qu’à ce moment là, il ait fait creuser une place dans le tombeau pour lui-même (50:5). Une description très précise du tombeau, du champs, et de sa location furent donnés pour qu’aucune erreur ne soit faite. Dans ces jours, les contrats étaient (sinon toujours) verbaux (23:3-20), et donc cet « acte » dut être passé d’une génération à l’autre.

Sachant qu’il avait rempli toutes ses obligations, Jacob remit ses pieds dans son lit et peut de temps après, sinon immédiatement, mourut (verset 33). On dirait que la mort ne pouvait l’emmener avant que toutes ses responsabilités finales ne furent complétées.

Le Chagrin de Joseph et des Egyptiens (50:1-3)

Moïse choisit, à ce point, d’attirer notre attention sur le chagrin de Joseph et des Egyptiens, mais sans un mot sur ses frères. Leur réponse serait décrite dans des versets plus tard (15-21).

« Joseph se jeta sur le visage de son père, pleura sur lui et l'embrassa.

   Puis il ordonna aux médecins qui étaient à son service de l'embaumer. Ceux-ci embaumèrent donc Israël.

   Ils y passèrent quarante jours pleins, le temps nécessaire à un embaumement, et les Egyptiens le pleurèrent pendant soixante-dix jours. » (Genèse 50:1-3)

Joseph était probablement plus prêt de Jacob qu’aucun de ses frères. Il pleura pour son père et l’embrassa. Puis ceux dont le devoir était de s’occuper des besoins médicaux de Joseph114 furent commissionnés d’embaumer Jacob (verset 2). Ce fut un long mécanisme d’une durée de 40 jours (verset 3) ;

Le mécanisme de l’embaumement des anciens Egyptiens est décrit par Hérodote, b. ii., c. 86-8, « le corps fut donné aux embaumeurs, qui sortirent en premier le cerveau et les entrailles et les lavèrent dans un vin de cocotier imprégné de médicaments astringents forts ; Après lesquels il commencèrent à oindre le corps avec de l’huile de cèdre, de la myrrhe, de la cannelle et du cassia ; Et cela dura trente jours. Ensuite, ils le mirent dans une solution de salpêtre pour quarante jours de plus, ils mirent donc soixante-dix jours pour compléter l’embaumement ; Après lequel ils le lièrent avec de la toile couverte de glue. Etant alors capable de résister la putréfaction, il fut livré à la famille, enfermé dans une boite de bois ou papier ressemblant un peu à un cercueil, et placé, debout contre le mur, dans une catacombe ou une tombe appartenant à la famille. »115

En geste de respect, d’amour et de sympathie, les Egyptiens joignirent Joseph dans le deuil de Jacob pendant un total de 70 jours avant que ses funérailles ne commencent.116

Les funérailles de Jacob (50:4-14)

L’embaumement était une préparation coutumière égyptienne pour l’enterrement de dignitaires. Pour les funérailles de Jacob, ce fut spécialement utile car c’était un long voyage pour retourner à Canaan au tombeau où Jacob devait être reposé. Ce furent peut-être les mêmes problèmes logistiques (ne pas avoir les embaumeurs) qui forcèrent Jacob à enterrer Rachel sur la route de Bethléhem au lieu de transporter son corps au tombeau de Makpéla (35:16-20).

La tâche suivante de Joseph fut d’obtenir la permission de Pharaon de quitter l’Egypte, avec tous les membres adultes de la nation israélite.

« Quand les jours de deuil furent écoulés, Joseph dit aux hauts fonctionnaires de la cour du pharaon:
   ---Si vous êtes d'accord de m'accorder cette faveur, veuillez dire de ma part au pharaon

   que mon père m'a fait prêter serment en disant: «Me voici sur le point de mourir; j'ai fait creuser un tombeau au pays de Canaan, c'est là que tu m'enterreras.» Maintenant donc, permets-moi d'y monter pour ensevelir mon père; après quoi, je reviendrai.

   Le pharaon répondit à Joseph:
   ---Va et enterre ton père, comme il te l'a fait jurer, et selon le serment qu'il t'a fait prêter.» (Genèse 50:4-6)

Il est dit que Joseph demanda à d’autres dignitaires égyptiens de requérir de Pharaon la permission de quitter temporairement le pays. C’était peut-être dû à une sorte de profanation cérémonielle qui aurait offensée Pharaon si Joseph s’était présenté en personne devant lui. Un rapport des instructions de Jacob, qui avaient été jurées comme un serment, avaient été inclus dans la pétition. Joseph rappelait Pharaon que c’était le désir de Jacob et qu’il avait juré de les suivre. C’était pour assurer que Pharaon ne serait pas offensé pas des funérailles de Jacob à Canaan plutôt qu’en Egypte. Sans réservations, la requête de Joseph fut accordée.

Peu de processions funéraires furent aussi longues ou aussi importantes :

« Joseph partit donc pour ensevelir son père, accompagné de tous les hauts fonctionnaires du pharaon, des dignitaires de sa cour et de tous les hauts responsables d'Egypte,

   ainsi que de toute sa famille, de ses frères et de la famille de son père. Ils ne laissèrent dans le pays de Gochên que leurs enfants, leurs moutons, leurs chèvres et leurs bœufs.

   Joseph fit le voyage, escorté de chars et de leur équipage; le convoi ainsi formé était très impressionnant. » (Genèse 50:7-9)

Joseph fut accompagné d’une grande délégation de gens importants, beaucoup, sinon tous ceux qui étaient ses subordonnés (40:40-44). Le verset sept semble indiquer que beaucoup de gens de rangs et de positions différentes seraient allés avec Joseph pour enterrer Jacob. En plus, tous les membres adultes de la famille de Jacob les accompagnaient (verset 8). Faisant parti de la procession, un grand nombre de cavaliers et de chariots suivaient. Leur mission semblait être de fournir un moyen de transport ainsi que la sécurité (verset 9).

Quand ils furent arrivés à Canaan, la cérémonie fut si grandiose qu’elle eut une impression profonde sur les habitants du pays.

« Lorsqu'ils furent arrivés à l'Aire d'Atad, située de l'autre côté du *Jourdain, ils y célébrèrent de grandes funérailles très imposantes. Joseph mena deuil pour son père pendant sept jours.

   En voyant ces funérailles dans l'Aire d'Atad, les Cananéens qui habitaient le pays dirent:
   ---Ce doit être un deuil important pour les Egyptiens.
   C'est pourquoi on a nommé cet endroit de l'autre côté du Jourdain: Abel-Mitsraïm (Deuil de l'Egypte). » (Genèse 50:10-11)

Pour une raison inconnue, la procession voyagea d’Egypte à Canaan par une route inhabituelle. Plutôt que d’aller vers le nord et approcher Canaan par l’ouest, ils allèrent vers le Nord-est et entrèrent Canaan par l’est, par l’autre coté du Jourdain (verset 10).117 Peut-être que n’est-ce pas une coïncidence que cette route serait plus proche de l’entrée d’Israël dans Canaan après l’Exode.

Peu de temps après avoir franchi le Jourdain dans le pays de Canaan, la procession s’arrêta à un endroit identifié comme « l’Aire d’Atad » (verset 10). Là, une période de deuil de sept jours fut observée, qui attira l’attention des Cananéens qui habitaient aux alentours (verset 11).

La période de sept jours de deuil a pu être surtout pour les Egyptiens, pour leur donner une dernière opportunité de se lamenter avec Joseph et sa famille. De là, il semblerait que la famille de Jacob continua avec le corps jusqu'à Makpéla où Jacob fut enterré. Cela aurait alors été une affaire de famille plus privée, sans la participation des Egyptiens, ni observée avec curiosité par les Cananéens.

Moïse nous rappelle qu’en faisant cela, les instructions de Jacob à ses fils furent exactement suivies.

« Les fils de Jacob firent donc ce que leur père leur avait demandé.

   Ils le transportèrent au pays de Canaan et l'enterrèrent dans la caverne du champ de Makpéla qu'Abraham avait achetée avec le champ à Ephrôn le Hittite, comme propriété funéraire vis-à-vis de Mamré.

   Après avoir enterré son père, Joseph revint en Egypte avec ses frères et tous ceux qui l'avaient accompagné aux funérailles. » (Genèse 50:12-14)

Ayant fini leur mission, ce grand entourage, les Israélites, repartirent alors à l’Aire d’Atad, rejoint par leur cortège d’Egyptiens, et retournèrent en masse en Egypte.

Pas de Chagrin, Mais de la Culpabilité (50:15-21)

C’est au verset 15 que nous voyons pourquoi Moïse a seulement décrit le chagrin de Joseph et des Egyptiens (50:1,3). Bien que la mort de Jacob leur ait indubitablement causé du chagrin, une autre émotion semble avoir dominée les frères de Joseph – la culpabilité.

« Maintenant que leur père était mort, les frères de Joseph se dirent:
   ---Qui sait, peut-être Joseph se mettra à nous haïr et à nous rendre tout le mal que nous lui avons fait. » (Genèse 50:15)

Nous ne pouvons pas complètement apprécier les sentiments des frères de Joseph sans nous rappeler le passé. Pendant longtemps, des sentiments de jalousie et de haine avaient grandi comme un cancer dans les âmes des « autres » fils de Jacob (37:2-4). Plus d’une fois, ils ont du considérer un plan pour éliminer Joseph, mais une seule chose les en a empêchés – Jacob. Un jour, d’une manière ou d’une autre, une occasion se présenterait où Jacob ne serait pas présent, et alors là, ils pourraient se débarrasser de Joseph. L’occasion en or survint quand Jacob envoya Joseph après eux, loin de la maison, loin de la protection que Jacob procurait à son fils favori (37:12).

Maintenant, des années plus tard, ils étaient encore harcelés par la culpabilité de leur traitement de Joseph (42:21-22). Ils n’avaient pas encore compris son pardon, alors que 17 années n’avaient montré rien d’autre hormis la grâce. Mais, ils avaient raisonné, c’était arrivé quand Jacob vivait encore. Joseph n’hésiterait-il pas à se venger avec son père présent alors qu’ils avaient dû attendre pour le bon moment, loin de leur père, pour éliminer Joseph ? Maintenant Jacob était mort. Joseph était libre de faire ce qu’il voulait avec eux. Cette pensée les consommait, encore plus que la perte de leur père. Cette peur les incita à formuler un plan, qu’ils espéraient, atténuerait la furie de Joseph.

« Alors ils lui envoyèrent un messager pour lui dire:
   ---Avant de mourir, ton père nous a donné cet ordre:

   «Vous demanderez à Joseph: Veuille, je te prie, pardonner le crime de tes frères et leur péché; car ils t'ont fait beaucoup de mal. Oui, je te prie, pardonne maintenant la faute des serviteurs du Dieu de ton père.»
   En recevant ce message, Joseph se mit à pleurer.

   Ses frères vinrent en personne se jeter à ses pieds en disant:
   ---Nous sommes tes esclaves. » (Genèse 50:16-18)

Un message fut transmit à Joseph, peut-être par Benjamin. Il fut dit à Joseph que Jacob avait d’autres instructions qui n’étaient pas encore connues, auxquelles Joseph devrait se soumettre. Avant sa mort, Jacob avait demandé que Joseph pardonne les péchés de ses autres fils. Ayant envoyé le message au-devant, peut-être par Benjamin, les frères sont apparus devant Joseph. Humblement, ils se prosternèrent à ses pieds promettant leur obéissance et leur soumission (verset 18). Maintenant, ils se portaient volontaires pour faire la chose que Joseph avait prédite (37:5-9) et qu’ils avaient cherché à éviter (37:19-20).

La réponse de Joseph est un modèle pour tous ceux qui répondraient d’une façon vertueuse à une persécution irréligieuse :

« Mais Joseph leur dit:
   ---N'ayez aucune crainte! Suis-je à la place de Dieu?

   Vous aviez projeté de me faire du mal, mais par ce que vous avez fait, Dieu a projeté de faire du bien en vue d'accomplir ce qui se réalise aujourd'hui, pour sauver la vie à un peuple nombreux.

   Maintenant donc, n'ayez aucune crainte, je pourvoirai à vos besoins ainsi qu'à ceux de vos enfants.
   Ainsi il les rassura et leur parla affectueusement. » (Genèse 50:19-21)

La vengeance appartient à Dieu, pas à l’homme. Joseph ne considérait pas usurper une prérogative qui appartenait à Dieu seul (Romains 12:19 ; 1 Thessaloniciens 5:15 ; 1 Pierre 4:19). De plus, bien que leurs attitudes et leurs actions furent sataniques, le résultat fut décidé par Dieu pour le bien de tous (verset 20 ; 45: 5-8 ; Actes 2:23). Comment Joseph pourrait-il être en colère quand du bien avait résulté de leurs péchés grâce à la providence de Dieu ? Au lieu de ça, Joseph rendit grâce pour cruauté (Proverbes 25:21-22 ; Romains 12:20,21). La gentillesse que Joseph avait montrée pendant que son père était vivant continuerait, il leur assura.

La Mort et Les Funérailles de Joseph (50:22-26)

Plus de 50 ans s’écoulent entre les versets 21 et 22.118 Moïse avait l’intention de mettre les mort de Jacob et de Joseph cote à cote. Des details sans importances sont alors mis de coté pour nous amener directement au lit de mort de Joseph, et ainsi au même niveau que la mort de Jacob.

« Joseph demeura en Egypte, ainsi que la famille de son père. Il vécut cent dix ans.

   Il vit les descendants d'Ephraïm jusqu'à la troisième génération; de plus, les enfants de Makir, fils de Manassé, furent placés sur ses genoux à leur naissance.

   A la fin de sa vie, il dit aux siens:
   ---Je vais mourir, mais Dieu ne manquera pas d'intervenir en votre faveur et vous fera remonter de ce pays vers celui qu'il a promis par serment à Abraham, à Isaac et à Jacob.

   Puis Joseph fit prêter serment aux Israélites en leur disant:
   ---Lorsque Dieu interviendra pour vous, vous emporterez d'ici mes ossements.

   Joseph mourut à l'âge de cent dix ans; on l'embauma, et on le déposa dans un sarcophage en Egypte. » (Genèse 50:22-26)

La vie de Joseph se termina à l’âge de 110 ans (verset 22). Il vécut assez longtemps pour faire sauter ses arrières-arrières-petits-fils sur ses genoux (verset 23). Sachant que le jour de sa mort approchait, Joseph, comme Jacob, donna des instructions à ses frères concernant ses funérailles. Il ne désirait pas que son corps soit retourné à Canaan, comme Jacob avait insisté.

Bien que les funérailles de Jacob et Joseph furent assez différentes, elles reflètent toutes les deux la même foi et le même espoir.119 Tous les deux avaient confiance que les bénédictions d’Israël pour l’avenir seraient réalisées sur la terre promise. Tous les deux furent embaumés – Jacob pour que son corps puisse être emmené à Canaan par ses fils, Joseph pour que son corps puisse attendre l’exode quand ses ossements seraient retournés à Canaan, portés par les Israélites :

« Moïse emporta les ossements de Joseph, puisque celui-ci en avait solennellement adjuré les Israélites en leur disant: «Dieu ne manquera pas d'intervenir en votre faveur, alors vous emporterez mes ossements avec vous.» » (Exode 13:19).

La mort de Jacob occasionna un voyage à Canaan où les Israélites, une fois encore, virent la terre promise où ils (leurs descendants) retourneraient au moment de l’Exode. Les funérailles de Jacob rappelèrent à ses descendants de leur maison finale, et que l’Egypte n’était qu’un endroit de séjour temporaire.

Joseph, d’un autre coté, était un rappel continue qu’un jour l’Exode arriverait. Jour après jour en Egypte, ce cercueil parlait de l’avenir d’Israël et de la foi de Joseph. Et jour après jour épuisant, les Israélites se traineraient dans le désert portant le cercueil de Joseph. Les deux hommes, Jacob et Joseph, avaient décidé que leur mort et leurs funérailles seraient un témoignage et une exhortation de leur foi pour leurs descendants.

Conclusion

Et maintenant, nous arrivons à la fin d’une époque et à la fin d’un livre magnifique. Mais deux funérailles ne semblent pas être une fin très brillante pour un livre. L’origine de l’homme commença dans le jardin de perfection et de beauté au paradis. Elle finit dans deux cercueils, un à Canaan, l’autre en Egypte. Quelle conclusion lugubre ! Moïse ne réussirait jamais comme écrivain de nos jours.

Mais, attendez un peu ; c’est exactement le point. Le chapitre 50 de Genèse n’est pas la fin de l’histoire ; c’est seulement la fin du Livre de Genèse. Moïse a encore quatre Livres à écrire, et Dieu en a commandé 61 de plus avant que le chapitre final ne soit écrit. Et dans les derniers chapitres du Livre d’Apocalypse nous retournons une fois de plus au paradis.

« Puis je vis un ciel nouveau et une terre nouvelle, car le premier ciel et la première terre avaient disparu, et la mer n'existait plus.

  Je vis la ville sainte, la nouvelle Jérusalem, descendre du ciel, d'auprès de Dieu, belle comme une mariée qui s'est parée pour son époux.

  Et j'entendis une forte voix, venant du trône, qui disait:
      Voici la Tente de Dieu avec les hommes. Il habitera avec eux; ils seront ses peuples et lui, Dieu avec eux, sera leur Dieu.

  Il essuiera toute larme de leurs yeux. La mort ne sera plus et il n'y aura plus ni deuil, ni plainte, ni souffrance. Car ce qui était autrefois a définitivement disparu. » (Apocalypse 21:1-4)

« Finalement, l'ange me montra le fleuve de la vie, limpide comme du cristal, qui jaillissait du trône de Dieu et de l'Agneau.

    Au milieu de l'avenue de la ville, entre deux bras du fleuve, se trouve l'arbre de vie. Il produit douze récoltes, chaque mois il porte son fruit. Ses feuilles servent à guérir les nations.

    Il n'y aura plus aucune malédiction. Le trône de Dieu et de l'Agneau sera dans la ville. Ses serviteurs lui rendront un culte:

    ils verront sa face et porteront son nom sur leurs fronts.

    Il n'y aura plus jamais de nuit. On n'aura donc plus besoin ni de la lumière d'une lampe, ni de celle du soleil, car le Seigneur Dieu répandra sur eux sa lumière. Et ils régneront éternellement. » (Apocalypse 22:1-5)

La mort, Moïse veut qu’on réalise, n’est pas la fin. C’était ce que Jacob avait bêtement cru pendant des années. C’était pourquoi il l’attendait avec tant d’impatience. Il voyait la mort comme la fin de ses misères terrestres. Ceux qui choisissent le chemin du suicide pour arrêter la souffrance pensent de même. Mais la tragédie d’une telle mort est que ce n’est pas la fin du tout. Ce n’est en fait que le début d’une éternité irréversible.

Il y a quelques années, on n’avait confié la tâche d’emmener un jeune homme à l’hôpital qui avait essayé, sans réussir, de prendre sa vie. En chemin, je lui ais demandé ce qu’il croyait arrivait après la mort. Il me dit qu’il croyait en la réincarnation. Je lui ai récité le verset qui dit,

« Et comme le sort de tout homme est de mourir une seule fois --- après quoi il est jugé par Dieu » (Hébreux 9:27)

Il a dû admettre que si ce verset était vrai, le suicide jetait sa victime dans un jugement irréversible. Il ne considéra plus la mort comme étant la fin de tout. Même si un homme devait perdre son fils, comme Dieu avait commandé Abraham de sacrifier son fils Isaac, Dieu pourrait le ressusciter. Il y avait vie après la mort :

« Par la foi, Abraham a offert Isaac en sacrifice lorsque Dieu l'a mis à l'épreuve. Oui, il était en train d'offrir son fils unique, lui qui eu la promesse,

   et à qui Dieu avait dit: C'est par Isaac que tu auras une descendance.

   Dieu, estimait-il, est assez puissant pour ressusciter un mort. Et son fils lui a été rendu: c'est une préfiguration. » (Hébreux 11:17-19)

Jacob était arrivé à voir que même si Dieu ne ressuscitait pas les morts (dans le sens qu’Abraham espérait qu’IL ressusciterait Isaac), il y avait quand même vie après la mort.

« puis il rendit son dernier soupir. Il mourut au terme d'une heureuse vieillesse, âgé et comblé, et rejoignit ses ancêtres. » (Genèse 25:8)

« puis Isaac rendit son dernier soupir et mourut. Il rejoignit ses ancêtres, âgé et comblé de jours. Ses fils Esaü et Jacob l'ensevelirent. » (Genèse 35:29)

« Lorsque Jacob eut achevé d'énoncer ses instructions à ses fils, il ramena ses pieds sur son lit, expira et fut réuni à ses ancêtres décédés. » (Genèse 49:33)

L’expression, « réuni à ses ancêtres » n’est pas un simple euphémisme pour « mort » ; c’était une expression ancienne de l’espoir de vie après la mort des patriarches. Ces hommes trouvaient peu de confort à avoir leurs ossements près de ceux d’autres membres de la famille déjà décédés. Ils regardaient leur mort comme l’occasion d’être réunis avec ceux que la mort avaient séparés des vivants.

Quand notre Seigneur citait la déclaration de Dieu le Père, « Je suis le Dieu d'Abraham, le Dieu d'Isaac, le Dieu de Jacob » (Matthieu 22:32), IL le dit pour prouver qu’il y a vie après la mort. Car, autrement, IL aurait dit « J’étais le Dieu d’Abraham Isaac, et Jacob » !

Puis-je vous suggérer que la façon dont vous regardez la mort fait toute la différence du monde. Si c’est la fin de tout, il n’y a pas de raisons de chercher à aller au ciel ou d’éviter l’enfer. Le suicide est une option tentante quand la vie ne semble pas aller du bon coté. S’il n’y a pas de vie après la mort, le monde est correct quand il dit que nous devrions, « … manger, boire, et être gai, car demain nous mourons. »

Mais si nous regardons la mort comme le début plutôt que la fin, alors ce qui va arriver après la mort doit surement nous obliger à faire face à l’éternité honnêtement, avant de mourir. Et, une fois que nous serons justement joint à Dieu par la foi en SON Fils, nous n’avons plus aucune raison d’avoir peur de la mort. Nous n’avons pas besoin d’éviter d’en parler. Et, dans un sens, nous l’attendons avec impatience, car elle nous promet un temps quand nous serons intimement et éternellement avec Dieu et avec ceux dans la foi qui ont été séparés de nous par la mort.

« Jésus dit:
   ---Que votre cœur ne se trouble pas. Ayez foi en Dieu: ayez aussi foi en moi.

   Dans la maison de mon Père, il y a beaucoup de demeures; si ce n'était pas vrai, je vous l'aurais dit: en effet je vais vous préparer une place.

   Lorsque je vous aurai préparé une place, je reviendrai et je vous prendrai avec moi, afin que vous soyez, vous aussi, là où je suis. » (Jean 14:1-3)

« Nous sommes donc, en tout temps, pleins de courage, et nous savons que, tant que nous séjournons dans ce corps, nous demeurons loin du Seigneur ---

   car nous vivons guidés par la foi, non par la vue.

   Nous sommes pleins de courage, mais nous préférerions quitter ce corps pour aller demeurer auprès du Seigneur.» (2 Corinthiens 5:6-8)

« Je suis tiraillé de deux côtés: j'ai le désir de quitter cette vie pour être avec le Christ, car c'est, de loin, le meilleur.» (Pilippiens 1:23)

« Nous ne voulons pas, frères, vous laisser dans l'ignorance au sujet de ceux qui sont décédés, afin que vous ne soyez pas tristes de la même manière que le reste des hommes, qui n'ont pas d'espérance.

  En effet, puisque nous croyons que Jésus est mort et ressuscité, nous croyons aussi que Dieu ramènera par Jésus et avec lui ceux qui sont morts[d].

  Car voici ce que nous vous déclarons d'après une parole du Seigneur[e]: nous qui serons restés en vie au moment où le Seigneur viendra, nous ne précéderons pas ceux qui sont morts.

  En effet, au signal donné, sitôt que la voix de l'archange et le son de la trompette divine retentiront, le Seigneur lui-même descendra du ciel, et ceux qui sont morts unis au Christ ressusciteront les premiers.

  Ensuite, nous qui serons restés en vie à ce moment-là, nous serons enlevés ensemble avec eux, dans les nuées, pour rencontrer le Seigneur dans les airs. Ainsi nous serons pour toujours avec le Seigneur.

  Encouragez-vous donc mutuellement par ces paroles. » (1 Thessaloniens 4:13-18)

Avez-vous remarqué combien candidement Jacob et Joseph ont parlé de leur mort ? Ce n’est pas comme ça avec les non croyants. Ils évitent le sujet avec passion. Toutes sortes d’euphémismes sont employées pour ne pas faire face aux réalités de la mort. Nous ne parlons pas des morts, mais de ceux qui sont « partis » ; ils ne sont pas enterrés, mais « inhumés ». Les gens ne meurent pas ; ils « s’en vont ». Nous n’enterrons pas les morts au cimetière, mais dans des « parcs commémoratifs ».

Jacob et Joseph, tous les deux, ont appelé les membres de leur famille près d’eux, où ils ont parlé sans hésitation de leur mort et ont donné des instructions très claires concernant leurs funérailles. Aujourd’hui nous faisons tout ce qui est possible pour cacher la vérité aux mourants. Quand le père d’un de mes meilleurs amis se mourait du cancer, il demandait constamment à son fils, « Me disent-ils tout ? »

Il y a quelques années, je reçus une requête d’aller visiter une dame à l’hôpital. Personne ne m’avait dit qu’elle était mourante. Je le sentais pourtant. Elle et moi n’évitions jamais le sujet de la mort, et il était évident pour moi qu’elle voulait en parler. Quand elle mourut, j’ai fait ses funérailles. Je n’oublierai jamais ma surprise quand j’entendis son mari disant à sa famille et à ses amis, « elle n’avait aucune idée qu’elle se mourait ». Je ne savais pas qu’elle ne savait pas. Son mari était conforté par le fait qu’il lui avait caché la vérité.

La tragédie avec cet effort de dénier la mort est que ces derniers jours ou dernières heures sont vecus dans la déception. Plutôt que de faire nos adieux et utiliser notre dernier souffle pour dire des paroles importantes, nous parlons de bagatelles, qui semblent sécurisantes et loin du sujet déplaisant de la mort. Et plutôt que de faire face à l’éternité qui est imminente, nous prenons bien soin de l’éviter.

Maintenant, je veux dire que Dieu peut guérir et le fait, et j’en suis bien reconnaissant. Mais il n’y a pas du tout de promesses de guérison ou de délivrance de souffrances. Je suis tenté de croire que de tels cas sont clairement les exceptions plutôt que la règle.

Mais il y a ceux qui entreraient dans une chambre d’hôpital et assureraient le mourant que, s’il a foi, une forte foi, en Dieu, IL l’élèvera et le rétablira, libre de souffrances, maladies, et de la mort. Souvent, les malades s’accrochent à tous espoirs de délivrance, pas à cause de leur foi, mais à cause de la peur. Souvent, il y a un prononcèrent hardi de foi et l’assurance de guérison. Il pourrait y avoir une période de rémission. Mais souvent, la maladie continue à consommer la vie du malade. Maintenant, à l’approche d’une mort presque certaine, il ne peut y avoir qu’une conclusion. Si quelqu’un peut être guéri quand il ou elle a suffisamment de foi et ils ne sont pas guéris, cette personne ne doit pas avoir assez de foi.

Plutôt que de faire face à la mort avec honnêteté et acceptation, le malade ne peut que questionner sa foi. Et si sa foi est inadéquate pour guérir, peut-elle être suffisante pour sauver ? Les derniers jours se passent dans le doute et le désespoir. Pas de témoignage, pas de joie, pas de vénération – seulement le désespoir.

Examinons la mort comme Jacob et Joseph. Regardons-la comme le début pas la fin. Attendons impatiemment, par la foi, d’être réunis avec ceux que nous aimons (1 Thessaloniciens 4:13-18) et demeurons avec notre Sauveur (Jean 14:1-3), pour toujours en SA présence et profitons de toutes les choses qu’IL a préparées pour nous.

Enfin, les frères de Joseph, comme Jacob (jusqu'à la fin de ses jours), croyaient que la mort était la fin. Ils croyaient que Dieu ne prendrait soin d’eux que pendant que Jacob vivrait. Ils apprirent que l’amour de Dieu pour eux était assuré même quand ni Jacob ni Joseph ne seraient là. Le programme de Dieu ne dépendra jamais de la présence d’un homme, d’une église ou d’une organisation. Le programme de Dieu est aussi certain qu’IL est souverain, aussi persistant qu’IL est éternel.

Est-il possible que vous soyez inconfortable avec le sujet de cette Ecriture ? Est-ce que la mort est un sujet que vous préfèreriez ne pas aborder ? Je ressentais la même chose avant de LE connaître, CELUI Qui est non seulement le Chemin et la Vérité, mais la Vie (Jean 14:6). Je me rappelle, quand j’étais enfant, passant par un cimetière en allant chez mes grands-parents. J’essayais toujours de concentrer mon attention sur quelque chose de l’autre coté de la route, espérant ne pas être rappelé de la mort. La peur de la mort est une évidence de notre incertitude de ce qui se trouve de l’autre coté de la tombe. La peur peut être reniée, supprimée ou camouflée. Mais elle ne peut pas être évitée indéfiniment. La peur de la mort ne peut être surmontée que par la foi d’hommes comme Abraham, Isaac, et Jacob, qui avaient confiance en CELUI Qui éventuellement la surmonterait.

« ---Je suis la résurrection et la vie, lui dit Jésus. Celui qui place toute sa *confiance en moi vivra, même s'il meurt.

   Et tout homme qui vit et croit en moi ne mourra jamais. Crois-tu cela? » (Jean 11:25-26)

« Il faut, en effet, qu'il règne jusqu'à ce que Dieu ait mis tous ses ennemis sous ses pieds[b].

   Et le dernier ennemi qui sera anéanti, c'est la mort. » (1 Corinthiens 15:25-26)

« O mort, qu'est devenue ta victoire?
      O mort, où est ton dard[j]?

   Le dard de la mort, c'est le péché, et le péché tire sa force de la *Loi.

   Mais loué soit Dieu qui nous donne la victoire par notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ.

   C'est pourquoi, mes chers frères, soyez fermes, ne vous laissez pas ébranler, travaillez sans relâche pour le Seigneur, sachant que la peine que vous vous donnez au service du Seigneur n'est jamais inutile. » (1 Corinthiens 15:55-58)

« Puis la mort et le séjour des morts furent précipités dans l'étang de feu. Cet étang de feu, c'est la seconde mort.

   On y jeta aussi tous ceux dont le nom n'était pas inscrit dans le livre de vie.» (Apocalypse 20:14-15)


113 Joe Bayly, The Last Thing We Talk About (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 29-30. This book, formerly titled, The View From A Hearse, is one of the finest books on death and dying on a non-technical level.

114 “Since embalmers and physicians were members of distinct professions, Joseph’s use of the latter has seemed anomalous to some writers. J. Vergote, however, points out that physicians were more than competent to perform the task, and that Joseph might well have wished to avoid the magico-religious rites of the professional embalmers.” Derek Kidner, Genesis An Introduction and Commentary (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967).

115 George Bush, Notes on Genesis (Minneapolis: James Family Christian Publishers, 1979 (Reprint), II, p. 419.

116 “The mourning period for Jacob, as Von Rad observes, was, significantly, very little short of the seventy-two days observed for a Pharaoh.” Kidner, Genesis, p. 223.

117 “This site is unknown, but its position implies a detour round the Dead Sea to approach Hebron from the north-east instead of the south-west. Presumably there was political unrest at some point, which the cavalcade’s arrival would have been in danger of aggravating. At the Exodus the direct route would again be impracticable (Ex. 13:17). Ibid.

118 “This last paragraph of Genesis refers to events fifty-four years after the preceding verse.” W, H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946), p. 486.

119 The similarity between Jacob and Joseph is that both gave specific instructions concerning their burial arrangements. There is an interesting difference too. Jacob commanded his sons concerning his death (49:29,33), but Joseph charged his brothers (50:24). Thus we see that Joseph was outlived by his older brothers. God wanted to teach these men that He would care for them without Jacob or Joseph.

Pages