See Part 1 here.

In this issue of Solid Ground I continue with my collection of short vignettes I have collected over the years.

Sometimes useful reflections are the result of hard thinking and hours of wrestling with an idea. Most of the musings below, though, came in a flash of insight. When that happens, I jot the basic idea down on a notepad, napkin, or record it on my phone so I don’t lose it. Then I wait till later to hammer out the details.

It’s a basic rule that’s served me well over the years: Never let a productive thought or idea slip away. Since lightening rarely strikes twice in the same place, I may never think that thought again, so I better save it while I can. The palest ink is brighter than the best memory, the proverb goes.

You won’t always come up with the best answer or rejoinder in the middle of a conversation. You usually walk away, mull it over, replay the conversation in your mind, then think of what you should have said. Save that thought, and you’re ready the next time the topic comes up.

Respecting the Revelation

Some think getting a word from God is a substitute for careful Bible study. But it’s presumption to think the Holy Spirit will simply give you the right interpretation of a text.

Paul said “All scripture is god-breathed,” (2 Tim. 3:16)—the word is graphe in Greek. The writings are inspired and authoritative, not the interpretation we think the Holy Spirit is giving us. This is why the words should be our focus, not our feelings.

If you think God is telling you something through Scripture that is not connected to the meaning of the words in their context, it can’t be of God because God chose to communicate through language, not around it.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is our teacher, but that means He illuminates what’s already there. All teachers work from a body of information, clarifying it and passing it on. The Holy Spirit does not give new information not already in the inspired words. The curriculum, so to speak, is standardized for all Christians. Every person has equal access to the meaning. There are no private messages in Scripture.

God took pains to give us an objective revelation in the words of the Bible to protect us from subjectivism. When Christians opt for an anointed “reading between the lines” instead of sound exegesis, it actually shows disrespect for the revelation the Holy Spirit inspired.

Ever Hear of the Ten Commandments?

Have you read the Ten Commandments recently? Take a quick personal moral inventory by asking yourself these questions:

• Have you ever given allegiance to anything else over God in your life?
• Have you ever used anything as an object of worship or veneration?
• Have you ever used God’s name in a vain or vulgar fashion?
• Have you worshipped God on a consistent basis?
• Have you disobeyed or dishonored your parents even once?
• Have you murdered anyone, or even had harsh thoughts about someone (see Matt. 5:22)?
• Have you had sex with someone other than your spouse, or even thought about it (see Matt. 5:28)?
• Have you taken something that wasn’t yours?
• Have you lied?
• Have you hungered after something that didn’t belong to you?

Sound tough? It is. This is God’s Law. These are God’s requirements. Even in grammar school, 60% is a flunking grade, yet who among us has not violated each of these commandments many times, at least in spirit?

Reducing the Ten Commandments to only two doesn’t help, by the way. Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:37-40). Yet even the best of us violate these “minimal” requirements daily.

In your conversations, use both the Law and the Gospel. God’s Law is the mirror that shows us our need for the Savior. In Paul’s words, each of us is “shut up under sin” (Gal. 3:22). Our mouths have been closed, and we all have become accountable to God (Rom. 3:19). Saved by our own goodness? The Law gives us no hope other than Jesus’ righteousness.

Creating a Potential Life?

A common way to dehumanize the unborn to justify abortion is to call an unborn child a “potential life.” But this is just a rhetorical trick. There is no such thing as creating a “potential life.”

Think about it. First, you could create a potential for life. When a man and woman have sex there’s potential for life to be produced. Second, you could create a life with potential. The person could eventually do something wonderful. But that’s the end of your options. Either your actions have potential to create life, or you create a life with potential, but you never create a potential life.

What could it possibly mean to say, for example, “I just had a potential thought”? You either had a thought or you didn’t. And your thought has some potential for the future or it doesn’t. But you never have a potential thought.

In the same way, pregnancy doesn’t create a potential life. If so, then the problem of that potential life could be solved simply by having a potential abortion. Since a real abortion (not a potential abortion) is needed to end pregnancy, a real life must be involved, not a potential one.

No Tolerance in Relativism

Relativism’s chief virtue is tolerance, or so it seems. A closer look, though, shows just the opposite to be true: the obligation of tolerance is meaningless in relativism.

“Morality is individual,” relativists say, “therefore we ought to tolerate others’ viewpoints and not pass judgment on their behavior and attitudes.” Do you see the contradiction built into the sentence? The word “ought” is a give-away. This attempt commits suicide.

If there are no objective moral rules, there can be no rule that requires tolerance. In fact, if there is no moral truth, that’s a good reason not to be tolerant at all. Why not force my personal morality on others if it’s in my own self-interest and my own ethics allow it?

Moral relativism does not lead to tolerance. It leads to a moral free-for-all.

Good and Bad Deeds in the Balance

God demands we live obedient lives. But what about when we don’t? The most vital issue Christianity answers is, “How can we be right with God when we are not thoroughly good?”

There is profound misunderstanding on this point. Many err in defining goodness according to human standards. God, on this view, is concerned with what kind of people we are “on average.” If the good outweighs the bad—if good is predominant—then God winks at the moral lapses.

But justice never works like that, does it? The law demands that each person obey every law always, not some of the laws most of the time. You can be an upstanding citizen all your life, but a single crime is still going to bring you before the judge.

Further—and this is critical—no amount of good behavior pays for bad behavior. Law requires consistent obedience, and that which is already owed cannot be used to pay off past debts.

God, like all lawgivers, requires nothing less than moral perfection. “But that’s impossible,” you say. You’re right. That’s why we need a Savior. It’s the only way we can be right with God when we’re not thoroughly good.

“Forcing” One’s Views

The charge that Christians are trying to force their views on others when they get involved politically is simply unfair. Christians are citizens, too. We want to make our case in the public square and then submit our views to popular vote—no force, no imposition, just advocacy for a point of view and then a ballot. Within the limitations of the Constitution, the majority rules. That’s the way the game is played.

There is no danger when people are allowed to freely speak their mind, argue for their point of view, make their case in the public square, and then call for a vote. There is a threat to liberty, though, when one group strong-arms another into silence and pushes them off the playing field.

Abortion and Homicide

Some observers denounce the use of the word “murder” to describe abortion. Yet this so-called “rhetoric” is completely consistent with the laws of two thirds of the states in the Union, including California.

California statutes under the category “Crimes against the Person,” defines murder this way: “The unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought” [emphasis mine], with the following exception: “This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if…the act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.”

The only difference, then, between legal abortion and punishable homicide in the great state of California is the consent of the mother.

So here’s my question: How does the mere collusion of a mother with a doctor transform her unborn offspring from a person of ultimate value to a worthless castoff destined for the dumpster? What metaphysical magic works this transformation?

However one answers this question, the fact is that abortion is legal in California. But this can’t hide a second fact: Apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is still homicide, even in the Golden State. Those who kill fetuses are prosecuted for murder.

On the fundamental issue, then—the innate value of unborn human beings—pro-lifers are not extreme, but in concert with the law’s general assessment of the sanctity of the life of the unborn.

Hitler and Mother Teresa

Would Hitler and Mother Teresa both suffer the same fate if they weren’t Christian? No and yes.

No, because they’d answer for different acts of disobedience before God and, as such, their judgment would be different. Just as there are degrees of sin (Jn. 19:11), there are also degrees of punishment. Jesus said Sodom would fare better than Capernaum in the day of judgment (Matt. 11:24), though each would be condemned.

Yes, because each person must ultimately answer for his own sins—Hitler for his, Mother Teresa for hers, you and I for ours. Unless, of course, Jesus is allowed to answer for them.

That is the good news: Jesus, though rich, for our sake became poor, that we through His poverty might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9).

Does the Trinity Make Sense?

Some people say the Trinity—the idea that there is one God Who subsists in three fully distinct, but fully divine persons—doesn’t make sense. This depends entirely on what one means by making “sense.”

If one means that the Trinity is irrational, that it violates some law of reason, then the challenge is simply false. There is no violation of the laws of reason in the Trinity. Anyone who thinks so must identify the specific breach of reason in the orthodox teaching on the Trinity (as opposed to misrepresentation, like tri-theism).

One might say that the Trinity doesn’t make sense in that it doesn’t appeal to any sense perception—because the Trinity can’t be pictured in the mind—and they would have a point, but it’s hardly relevant. Lots of real things—God, humor, love, faithfulness—cannot themselves be pictured, yet are clearly intelligible. So it’s no liability that the Trinity is not “sensible” in that way.

This tells you nothing about the truth of the doctrine, of course. That question is answered by a different means: Does God’s own self-revelation give us reason to believe that the doctrine of the Trinity, classically understood, is an accurate and true description, as far as it goes, of God’s nature? The answer to that is clearly yes.

Religion and Science?

The view that “religious” theories should not intrude in science is guilty of at least three logical errors.

First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models, though, have evidential support. We see the blending, for example, when we infer a Creator from Big Bang cosmology. A Big Bang needs a big Banger, it seems to me.

Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that those who believe in creation make no use of scientific methods. This is not the case since they are happy to present scientific evidence for their view, if they’re allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have religious significance. If evolutionary naturalism is true, the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

A bright line between religion and science just isn’t possible. Instead, they should work compatibly, drawing on the strength of each based on the available evidence to give us a total picture of reality.

The Soul Hole

In July 1995, Time magazine made a stunning announcement.¹ In an extensive article on the mind they wrote, “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not: some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the ‘self,’ some kernel of awareness that runs the show.” There is no soul, in other words.

How do they know this? “After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist.”

This is one of the silliest statements I have ever read. Your soul isn’t in your body like a pea is in a pod. You cannot open yourself up and find the spot where your soul resides. Physical things reside in physical places. But immaterial things don’t need any space to fit into. If the soul is not physical, then it doesn’t need a physical location.

Further, just because science can’t find souls doesn’t mean souls are not real. It’s like saying, “You told me there was an invisible man in your house. But I went inside and I didn’t see him anywhere.”

This doesn’t prove souls exist, of course. It does show, though, that the failure of science to find the soul tells you nothing about the question one way or another.

Life as We Know It

A frequent response to the evidence against the origin of life by Darwinian evolution is, “All the difficulties with the evolution of life from non-life only apply to life as we know it. But what about other kinds of life?”

This is easy to respond to. “Life as we know it,” is the only life we know of. It’s unscientific, unreasonable, and unfair to postulate some separate form of life that’s unheard of simply because the evidence against the evolution of life “as we know it” from non-life leads to conclusions someone doesn’t like. It’s an example of what I call “phantom argument,” invoking unknown facts to refute known ones. Just as Christians have been faulted for invoking a “God of the gaps,” this alternative becomes “science of the gaps,” or more accurately “science fiction of the gaps.”

Bumper Sticker Slogans

I saw a bumper sticker that said, “If You Can’t Trust Me with a Choice, How Can You Trust Me with a Child?” Sounds clever at first, until you think about it.

There are some choices no one should be “trusted” with in the sense that the decision is up to them. One of them is the choice to kill innocent human beings. Further, no one is “trusting” a mother with her child when she’s carrying her baby. She doesn’t need permission to get pregnant. Because of the nature of motherhood, this is properly out of the state’s control. If it were in the control of the state, many probably should be denied that trust, considering their intention to destroy their own offspring before the baby sees the light of day.

Christian “Faith” vs. Knowledge

For many Christians, faith and knowledge are opposites: The more evidence you have, the less faith involved. The more bizarre and unbelievable the claim, the greater the faith, they say. The greatest faith on that view, then, would be the one farthest removed from reason or evidence.

Two odd conclusions follow from this kind of thinking.

First, apologetics—giving evidence in defense of faith—would actually be detrimental to faith. Yet Peter tells us to always be ready to give an apologia, a defense, for the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15).

Second, if faith and knowledge are inversely proportional (an increase in knowledge means a decrease in faith), then the more evidence against Christianity the better for the faithful Christian. Indeed, believing something you knew to be false because of overwhelming evidence against it would then be a great virtue. God would be most pleased, on this view, with those who, for example, knew the resurrection never happened, yet still believed it did.

The apostle Paul calls such a person pitiful, however:

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain….and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:13-14, 17-19)

According to Paul, if our belief is contrary to knowledge, we are fools. If we have an unshakable faith in something that is false, then we have an unshakable delusion.

The Fate of the Unevangelized

One question frequently stops Christians in their tracks: “If the Gospel alone saves, then what about those who never heard?” Can God justly convict a man who hasn’t heard about Jesus? Some people hear the Gospel and reject it, but most never hear it. How can God condemn them?

Christians who can’t answer this challenge don’t really understand something vital about sin and mercy. Sin brings guilt. Mercy is a gift. Anyone who is a sinner receives punishment he deserves. Anyone who is saved receives mercy that is not owed him.

Think of this question: Can a judge send someone to jail without first offering him a pardon? Sure. If the criminal is guilty, the judge is justified in throwing him in prison. There is no obligation to offer a pardon to a guilty man.

The same is true of God. He can justly convict a person who has broken His law even though the sinner has heard nothing about God’s pardon in Jesus. God owes no one salvation. He can offer it to whomever He wishes. That’s why it’s called grace.

Christianity Based on Threats?

Some people say that Christianity is based on threats. But what is the threat?

“The threat is,” they say, “that if you don’t believe in Jesus you’re going to Hell. Eternal damnation is the punishment for not believing.”

First, no one is punished for not believing. They are punished, rather, for sinning. There’s a difference.

Second, one might as well say that medicine is based on threats, too. Would it be a “threat” if a doctor told you that if you don’t have an operation to remove a tumor you’re going to die? Hardly. The doctor isn’t threatening you. He’s trying to save you by telling you the truth about a fatal condition. He’s doing you a favor.

People do bad things. God offers forgiveness. Some turn down God’s mercy and face God’s justice. Where is the fault with God? Why is it that when man offers a rescue it’s noble, but when God offers a rescue it’s a threat?

As a thoughtful Christian, always have a pen and paper handy. You never know when your own brainstorms will produce a strike of lightening that’s worthy of being saved and developed. If you keep track of those insights and develop them a bit, soon you’ll have your own collection of pensées to put to use in conversations as Christ’s ambassador.

¹ Time, July 17, 1995, 52.

Introduction

It has been several years since I read the excellent book by Langdon Gilkey entitled Shantung Compound. One chapter is entitled, “A Place of One's Own.” Gilkey was interned in a Japanese detention camp, along with a diverse group of people, who all had one thing in common -- they were all Westerners. The Japenese did not know what to do with all the Westerners present in the country when the Japanese overran China during the Second World War, so they detained them in various encampments. Shantung Compound was an old Presbyterian encampment which was converted for use in confining these Westerners. Gilkey was given the task of assigning rooms for each of the people interned in the camp, which led to some very interesting situations, as he so well describes.

In the chapter, “A Place of One's Own,” Gilkey tells of the people’s strong feelings for having a place they could call their own. In one instance, a very gentle, gracious lady manifested this strong craving for her own “space.” A woman whose bed was right next to this lady began to sense her bed was moving. Each day as she looked out her window, the view was slightly different. She realized her bed was being moved. The lovely lady beside her was moving her own bed, and the bed of her roommate, tiny fractions of an inch each day to give her more space, at the expense of her roommate. We all want “a place of our own” don't we?

We come in 2 Samuel 5 to the point where David becomes king of all Israel and, at the same time, he finally obtains a place of his own. The place has been known as Jebus up to this point in time, and its inhabitants, were called the Jebusites. But from our text onward, Jebus becomes Jerusalem, Zion, the “city of David.” In the next chapter, Jerusalem will become the dwelling place of God, as the ark of the covenant is brought to the city, where Solomon will later build the temple. This text is climactic for David and very instructive for us. Let us look to the Spirit of God to learn what He has to teach us as David finds “a place of his own.”

The Structure of our Text

As a result of my study of 2 Samuel 5, I now understand there are four major sections which I have outlined below:

• 5:1-5 -- Israel submits to David as “God's king.”
• 5:6-10 -- David takes Jebus and makes it Jerusalem, the “city of David.”
• 5:11-16 -- The building of David's house (his physical house, and his household).
• 5:17-25 -- David defeats the Philistines.

Israel Submits to David as God's King
(5:1-5)

1 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh. 2 “Previously, when Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and in. And the LORD said to you, 'You will shepherd My people Israel, and you will be a ruler over Israel.”' 3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them before the LORD at Hebron; then they anointed David king over Israel. 4 David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years. 5 At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah (2 Samuel 5:1-5).

The Israelites are in the spotlight in verses 1-3. They are the ones who come to David in Hebron and are also the ones who recognize and anoint him as their king. Once we recognize that the people are the initiators, we should also recall the people were the initiators when Saul became their king. We really cannot grasp the significance of the submission of the Israelites to David as God's king without seeing this event in comparison and contrast to 1 Samuel 8:1-22, where the people demanded a king, and Saul was given to them as their first king.

You may remember that in 1 Samuel 8, Samuel is getting up in years, and his sons are certainly not ideal replacements for their father (8:1-3). His sons are dishonest, misusing their authority as judges in Beersheba. And so, in verse 4 of chapter 8, the elders of Israel come to Samuel, demanding that he give them a king, “to judge them, like all the nations” (8:5). Samuel is greatly distressed by the people's demand, and God is displeased as well. They are not just rejecting Samuel as their judge, they are rejecting God as their King (8:7-8). Nevertheless, God instructs Samuel to warn them of the high price tag for having a king, and then to tell them they will indeed have their king. In chapters 9 and 10, Saul is designated and anointed as Israel's first king. In chapter 11, Saul leads Israel in war against Nahash and the Ammonites, who have besieged Jabesh-gilead and threatened to humiliate all of its inhabitants by gouging out the right eye of each citizen (11:1-2). God gives Saul and Israel a great victory over the Ammonites, and the people are jubilant. They want to get their hands on those who looked down upon Saul and put them to death (11:12-13).

Samuel puts this whole matter into perspective in chapter 12. Israel's demand for a king is a sin against God, for which a storm is sent to destroy their wheat crop (12:12-18). In one sense, this generation of Israelites is just like their forefathers. Opposition from foreign powers is a divine chastisement for Israel's disregard of God's laws. But in another sense, their sin of asking for a king is even greater than that of their forefathers. In the past, God sends Israel a deliverer in response to the nation's repentance and cry for deliverance. In this case, there has been no repentance at all. They do not plead for deliverance; they demand a king. I believe Israel wants a deliverer without repentance, and they want a king so that future deliverances is assured as well. They want a king so that they will not have to trust in or obey God. When Samuel points this out and underscores it with a storm, the people repent.

Samuel then gives the people a promise:

13 “Now therefore, here is the king whom you have chosen, whom you have asked for, and behold, the LORD has set a king over you. 14 “If you will fear the LORD and serve Him, and listen to His voice and not rebel against the command of the LORD, then both you and also the king who reigns over you will follow the LORD your God. 15 “If you will not listen to the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the command of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you, as it was against your fathers” (1 Samuel 12:13-15).

24 “Only fear the LORD and serve Him in truth with all your heart; for consider what great things He has done for you. 25 “But if you still do wickedly, both you and your king will be swept away” (1 Samuel 12:24-25).

I wish to note here is the connection Samuel makes between the people and their king. Both the people and their king must trust and obey God. If they do not, then God will chasten them. If they do, then God will bless them. I believe Samuel is indicating to us that the people will get the kind of king they want, and that they deserve. God gives the people a king like Saul because he is just like them. He rebels against God's Word, just as the people do. He falls short of fully obeying God, just as they do. In the case of 1 Samuel 8-12, the people demand a king, for all the wrong reasons. I believe now that the sins of Samuel's sons was merely a pretext, and that their real reasons for demanding a king were far less noble than “justice.” In 1 Samuel 12:12, Samuel informs the people that their real reason for demanding a king is fear of Nahash, who is advancing against Israel. They want a king to lead them in war and give them victory over their enemies. They want a deliverer like Samson, not a deliverer like Samuel. Samuel strips aside the sham and hypocrisy to expose the sin of Israel, which makes them worthy of a king like Saul.

But when we come to 2 Samuel 5, we see a distinct change. The change is not just that from a pathetic king like Saul to a patriot and leader like David; the change is also evident in the people. I have a confession to make at this point. Up until now, I have felt unkindly toward the Israelites. I have been standing on the sidelines of this story with my hands on my hips, impatiently tapping my foot. As I read verses 1-5 of chapter 5, I find myself thinking, “Well, its about time!” I have changed my mind, however. I now look differently upon the Israelites delay. Let me try to explain why this is so.

You will notice that there is no crisis here, no pressing danger, which forces the Israelite leaders to act. Saul is dead, along with his sons, including Ish-bosheth. But there is no Philistine attack, no Ammonite threat. The Philistines attack in response to hearing David is anointed king over all Israel (2 Samuel 5:17). The Israelite elders come to David while he is in Hebron, submitting themselves to him as God's king. In 1 Samuel 8, they are rebelling against God as their King, but not here. Here, the Israelite leaders are acting out of obedience to God, not in rebellion against Him. The king they gain in David is, in some measure, the king they deserve. When they approach David, they acknowledge several vitally important truths, which are the basis for David's kingship and thus their submission to him as their king.

(1) The Israelite leaders acknowledge their physical ties to David: “We are your bone and flesh . . . .” This is a very significant profession on the part of the Israelite elders. They acknowledge their essential unity, rooted in their common father, Jacob (whom God renamed Israel). They do not say to David, “You are one with us,” but rather, “We are one with you.” From the very beginning, there is a problem of unity among the sons of Jacob, as seen in their hatred of Joseph. Saul is of the tribe of Benjamin and David of the tribe of Judah. Abner certainly aggravates the friction between these two tribes and polarizes the rest. Now the Israelites are willing to see themselves as one nation, not two. This is key to David's leadership of the whole nation. We only need to recall the words of the Israelites when this division recurs to see how important this unity is:

16 When all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people answered the king, saying, “What portion do we have in David?

We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse; To your tents, O Israel! Now look after your own house, David!” So Israel departed to their tents (1 Kings 12:16).

(2) The Israelites recognize David's leadership over them in the past, even while Saul was their king. When the people demand a king, they want a king who will “go out before them to fight their battles” (see 1 Samuel 8:19-20). Fundamentally, Saul defaults on his responsibility to lead Israel in battle, and it is David who does what they have sought in a king. It was not Saul who went up against Goliath, but David. It was not Saul who led Israel in battle, but David (at least a one of their commanders). The Israelite elders recognize David's leadership in doing what a king is supposed to do. In effect, the elders of Israel are acknowledging that even when Saul was their king, David acted more like a king than he did. They are not choosing to follow an unknown commodity (as they do with Saul), but a man who has proven himself to be “a mighty man of valor, a warrior” (see 1 Samuel 16:18).

(3) The elders of Israel submit themselves to the Word of God as they recognize David as God's choice for the next king of Israel. David has been publicly anointed as Israel's next king (1 Samuel 16:1-13). Saul knows that David is to be Israel's next king (1 Samuel 24:20), as do Abigail (1 Samuel 25:30), as do the Philistines (1 Samuel 21:11). All Israel has to know that David is the one God has designed to be king in Saul's place (2 Samuel 3:9-10, 18). The Israelites are not surprised to learn that David is Israel's next king; although they are a little slow to act on this revelation. When the elders of Israel come to David, it is in obedience to the revealed will of God. This is far better than their previous rebellion against God by demanding a king in 1 Samuel 8.

It is no surprise that when David is anointed (for the third time) as Israel's king by these elders, it is done in the context of a covenant which is made with David before the Lord (2 Samuel 5:3). This is an act of obedience and faith. This is a far cry from the confrontation that we see between Samuel and Israel's elders in 1 Samuel chapter 8. The reign of David is a reign of righteousness, due in part to the repentance and obedience of Israel and its leaders.

David Captures Jebus,
Which Becomes Jerusalem, the “City of David.”
(5:6-10)

My wife and I have some “young friends,” who come to visit us, as we go to visit them. One night, Jeannette and I were reading a children's story to two young friends at bed-time, written by a well-known theologian. As the story (and time) went on, the youngest child lost interest. She fooled around and got in and out of bed several times. I could hardly blame her. The older child endured through the whole story. But when the story was finally over, Katie turned to us and said, “That was a long story.” It most certainly was.

There are a lot of long stories. When I ask someone how they became a Christian, they usually smile and say, “Well, that's kind of a long story.” The story of the city of Jerusalem is a long one as well. Jerusalem was, until the time that David captured it, known as Jebus. Its inhabitants were known as the Jebusites. The Jebusites are first named in Genesis 10;15-16, where we are told that they are truly Canaanites, the descendants of Canaan, the third son of Ham (Genesis 10:6). It was this Canaan who saw the nakedness of Noah (Genesis 9:22), and who brought a curse upon himself and his descendants (Genesis 9:25). It was on Mt. Moriah that Abraham offered up his son, Isaac (Genesis). This Mt. Moriah is the same mountain on which Solomon built the Temple (2 Chronicles 3:1).

Repeatedly, God promised the Israelites that He would bring them into the promised land. This land was possessed by the Canaanites (including the Jebusites), and God promised to drive them out (Genesis 15:18-21; Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11). When the spies were sent into the promised land to check it out, among those inhabitants of the land the spies named the Jebusites (Numbers 13:29). God not only promised to drive out the Canaanites (Joshua 3:10), He commanded the Israelites to do so (Deuteronomy 7:1ff.; 20:17). When the Israelites crossed the Jordan, the Jebusites were among those Canaanite peoples who joined forces to oppose Israel's entrance into the land (Joshua 9 & 11; 24:11).

In the Book of Joshua, Jebus was first described as one of the cities belonging to the sons of Judah, who were not able to drive them out (Joshua 15:63). In Joshua 18:28, Jebus seems to be a Benjamite city, and the Benjamites are not able to drive out the Jebusites, either (Judges 1:21). This leads to a kind of coexistence, which results in the Israelites embracing the sins of the Jebusites (Judges 3:1-7). The result of this was oppression from their neighbors as a divine chastening (3:8ff.). In Judges 19:10-12, the city of Jebus is still portrayed as non-Israelite. There may have been times when Jebus was under Israelite control (cf. 1 Samuel 17:54), but the victory was far from complete. It is not until David's day (and our text-- see also 1 Chronicles 21:15) that Jebus falls to the Israelites once and for all. There is even more to say about this city of Jebus, now to become Jerusalem, but we shall wait until our next lesson on chapter 6 to do this.

I believe that the taking of Jebus in verses 6-10 is to be understood in comparison to verses 17-25, where David twice defeats the Philistines. It is not difficult to understand why David fought against the Philistines in this chapter, because it was a matter of self-defense. The Philistines attacked the Israelites, and specifically David. I can imagine how they felt, knowing that they (or at least Achish, the King of Gath) had given David sanctuary in their land. They had even allowed him to be a part of their army. There was little David did not know about them, their methods, their routes, their resources. David would be a formidable foe. Better to deal with him quickly, before he was too entrenched. When the Philistines came up against David, there was little choice but to fight them. But the Jebusites were not at war with the Israelites. They had come to some form of coexistence. There was no apparent “need” for this fight. Why, then, Did David lead all of Israel up against this city, a city which the Israelites had never been able to thoroughly defeat before?

I believe that that there are several reasons. First and foremost, it was a city that God had promised to give to the Israelites, and a people that He had ordered the Israelites to destroy. Their presence among the Israelites was corrupting God's people (Judges 3:5-6). Saul was reluctant to deal decisively with attacks from Israel's enemies from without. He was even willing to live with the enemy dwelling within Israel. The Jebusites were left alone, so far as we can tell. Even the garrison of Philistines was not resisted, until Jonathan could bear their presence no longer, virtually forcing both the Philistines and his father to act (1 Samuel 13:3). David recognized that no kingdom could be viewed with fear (or even respect) if it were not able to expel its enemies from its midst. The Jebusites had to be dealt with, and David knew it. It was time for these enemies of God to be defeated. The defeat of the Jebusites and the taking of Jebus would be the first step in Israel's conquest of their enemies, a conquest that was partial in the times of Joshua and the judges. This victory would overshadow the victory of Saul and the Israelites over the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11). What a way to start a reign as king!

Second, David needed a new capital city. When David had been king of Judah alone, Hebron served well as his capital city. But now David was the king of all Israel. He needed a capital that was farther north. He needed a capital which would be more centrally located, and one which would unify the nation. Jebus was the perfect city. Israel's victory over the Jebusites would unite the nation. The possession of Jebus as David's new capital would do likewise. The city was virtually on the border of Judah and Benjamin. It was a city that neither the sons of Judah nor the sons of Benjamin had been able to capture. Thus, taking this city as his capital would not seem to favor either of these two tribes. In addition to all of this, its natural setting made it difficult to defeat (which is why the Israelites had not taken and held it before). It was in the hill country, on the top of more than one mountain, and with valleys around it. With a little work, it was a virtual fortress (5:9).

There is a three fold reference to the “blind and the lame” in verses 6-10. Nearly everyone would agree that this must be significant, but there is little agreement as to what the significance is. I am inclined to take these words at face value, and to interpret them in the light of the context. I do not believe that the people of Jebus have anyone particular in mind when they say, “You shall not come in here, but the blind and the lame shall turn you away” (verse 6). We know that they said this because they believed there was no way that David could ever enter the city and overtake it.

Have you ever been charged by a mean dog, only to learn that he was chained, and the angry dog was stopped just inches short of you? If the dog were loose, you would either run or talk very kindly to it, trying to talk it out of mauling you. You would certainly not aggravate or tease the dog, if you thought it was loose. But once you see that it is confined by a large chain or a fence, you suddenly find the courage to speak harshly to the dog, and perhaps even to tease it. When we feel smugly secure, we speak with much more boldness.

Now, when the people of Jebus saw David and the Israelite soldiers coming against their city, it was not something new or frightening to them. In their history, such attacks had occurred with some frequency, but never successfully. And so, safely behind the walls of the city, the Jebusites mocked David and his men. It was something like an arrogant bully threatening, “I can whip you with one arm tied behind my back.” Were they intimidated by David's army? Not at all! And so they mocked them by bragging that they were so secure they could turn their defense over to those who were blind and lame.

David's anger is aroused, much as it was by Goliath's arrogant boasting. He took up the words of their boast in his orders to his men. “Let his men go and do battle with the 'lame and the blind,' and let them reach them by entering the city through the water tunnel. This they did, and when they did they defeated the Jebusites. And from that time on there was a saying amongst David's followers,²² “The blind or the lame shall not come into the house.” This seems to be an excuse, a pretext, for those who have no compassion on the handicapped, and who have seized upon an incident to justify their lack of mercy. I believe that these words much have been recorded in the light of 2 Samuel 4:4 and 9:1-13. Would Ish-bosheth's own servants kill their master in his bed? Would the Israelites actually forbid the handicapped to be in their house? David would seek out the handicapped Mephibosheth, to show him love for Jonathan's sake by having him eat at his own table.

Is this attitude and action on David's part not a foreshadowing of the ultimate King of Israel, when He came to this earth? Would the self-righteous not look the other way, and walk on the other side of the street, lest they come into contact with a wounded man (see Luke 10:25-37). They wondered why Jesus would associate with sinners and be touched by the impure. The very people that they shunned, Jesus sought. David was a prototype of the One who would come after him, who would seek out those who were infirmed, and minister to them (see Luke 4:16-21; 5:29-32; 7:18-23). And just as David represents the Messiah, the arrogant and boastful Jebusites represent the self-righteous, who scorn Jesus, and will eventually suffer defeat at His hand. David's enemies were defeated, as he became greater and greater. He could not be stopped for God was with him.

David's house is built, in Jerusalem
(5:11-16)

11 Then Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David with cedar trees and carpenters and stonemasons; and they built a house for David. 12 And David realized that the LORD had established him as king over Israel, and that He had exalted his kingdom for the sake of His people Israel. 13 Meanwhile David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David. 14 Now these are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 15 Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, 16 Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet.

Essentially, there were but two responses to David's rise to the position of King of Israel: (1) embrace him as a friend and ally, or (2) resist and attack him as an enemy. Hiram, the king of Tyre, chose the former, while the Philistines opted for the latter. Even though most translations suggest that verses 11-16 are two paragraphs, I have chosen to view these verses as one unit of thought, namely the building of David's house. Hiram helps David build a literal house, a palace, in Jerusalem. But while living there in Jerusalem, David continues to build his “house,” that is his family. In building both “houses” David is enhancing his position as the King of Israel.

Verses 11 & 12 introduce us to Hiram, the king of Tyre. Here is a man who could easily have viewed David as his enemy, but who chose to seek him as an ally. When God made His so-called Abrahamic Covenant with Abraham (see Genesis 12:1-3), He promised him that those who cursed him, He would curse, and that those who blessed him, He would bless. The Jebusites and the Philistines cursed David; Hiram blessed him. He sought to provide David with things he would need to build himself a palace in the city he had just defeated, and which he proceeded to strengthen and fortify. Hiram offered David the materials and the workmen who could build for him a great palace, and David gratefully accepted. Hiram's friendship with David

The text informs us that it was not until after this palace had been built that David fully grasped that he was indeed king of all Israel. It was like a dream to him for so long, but now he knew that God's promise had been fulfilled. What was it about the building of this house that brought about this realization? I am inclined to think that the reason may be related to this proverb:

Prepare your work outside And make it ready for yourself in the field; Afterwards, then, build your house (Proverbs 24:27).

Israel was an agricultural nation. One would not be wise to build his house before he had prepared his field. Once the field was prepared, the farmer could devote himself to building his house, because the crops would need time to grow. It was simply a matter of putting first things first. It would be like a man moving to Dallas from Detroit, buying a house in Duncanville and fixing it up nicely, only to find that the only job available was in McKinney. He would have been far better off to tend to getting a job first, and then finding a home to purchase. Now that David had a house, a place of his own, it was obvious that his “job” as Israel's king was certain and secure. The reality that God had finally and fully fulfilled His promise that David would reign over His people finally sank in. What David had waited for more than 20 years was now his. The building of his palace in Jerusalem convinced David it had all come true.

There was a second part to the building of David's house, and that was the building of his family. While David did have wives and children before moving to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 2:2; 3:2-5), it was there in Jerusalem that he added a number of other wives and they bore him other children. In the minds of those in the ancient orient, many wives and many children meant prosperity. Measured by this standard, David truly prospered in Jerusalem! The problem was that in adding a number of wives David came dangerously close to multiplying wives, in a way that disregarded this warning to Israel's kings:

“He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself” (Deuteronomy 17:17).

David defeats the Philistines
(5:17-25)

17 When the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines went up to seek out David; and when David heard of it, he went down to the stronghold. 18 Now the Philistines came and spread themselves out in the valley of Rephaim. 19 Then David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go up against the Philistines? Will You give them into my hand?” And the LORD said to David, “Go up, for I will certainly give the Philistines into your hand.” 20 So David came to Baal-perazim and defeated them there; and he said, “The LORD has broken through my enemies before me like the breakthrough of waters.” Therefore he named that place Baal-perazim. 21 They abandoned their idols there, so David and his men carried them away. 22 Now the Philistines came up once again and spread themselves out in the valley of Rephaim. 23 When David inquired of the LORD, He said, “You shall not go directly up; circle around behind them and come at them in front of the balsam trees. 24 “It shall be, when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees, then you shall act promptly, for then the LORD will have gone out before you to strike the army of the Philistines.” 25 Then David did so, just as the LORD had commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba as far as Gezer.

One can only imagine the conversations which must have taken place among the 5 Philistine kings when they received word that David had become king of Israel. Achish must have caught the brunt of the criticism for his role in offering David sanctuary among them (1 Samuel 21:10-15; 27:1--28:2; 29:1-11). David was actually a part of the Philistine army for a short time, and this would give him knowledge that could now be used against the Philistines. And so it was that the Philistines chose to go on the offensive, hoping to break the back of David's army, and to rid themselves of a formidable foe.

From a strictly military point of view, it may have been a good decision. The longer they waited, the more David would consolidate his kingdom, and the greater his military strength would be. But David's was God's king, ruling over the people of God, and thus he would not be defeated. When David learned of the Philistine attack, he went down, we are told, to the stronghold (verse 17). From 1 Chronicles 11:15, it would seem that David and his men fled to the cave of Adullam. It was while David and his men were there that the Philistines had taken Bethlehem and were camped there (1 Chronicles 11:16ff.). Did the Philistines expect to find David there? Regardless, this is where David expressed his desire for a cup of water from his favorite well in Bethlehem, and three of his brave men broke through the Philistine lines to get it for him (1 Chronicles 11:16-19).

If, indeed, David was in the cave of Adullam at the beginning of the battle with the Philistines, I find it interesting and encouraging. God does not waste His efforts. It was at the cave of Adullam that David's family and many of his fighting men came to him. (I now see why his family came to him there. It cannot have been that far from his home in Bethlehem, so that his family could slip away, without being seized by Saul's men.) In the process of David's fleeing from Saul, he found a number of “strongholds” which would serve him well in later years, when he was fighting folks like the Philistines.

In David's first confrontation with the Philistines, it was David whom they were after, and the new king turned to God for guidance. David inquired of God if he was to go up against the Philistines. God instructed him to go up against them, with the assurance that He would give the Philistines into his hands (verse 19). At Baal-perazim David met the enemy and defeated them, naming the place Baal-perazim as a reminder that God had given this “break-through” victory over the enemy. It was there, we are told, that the Philistines abandoned their idols, and David's men gathered them (verse 21). From 1 Chronicles 14:12 we learn that they were gathered in order to be burned.

I noticed in the paper today that Mike Tyson is eager and confident about his boxing rematch with Evander Holyfield, to whom he lost last November. He is not willing to let his defeat stand. He believes that he did not take his opponent seriously enough. The Philistines must have felt the same way about David and the Israelites. They would not give up that easily; they were unwilling to let their first defeat stand. They wanted a rematch. And so they made yet another attack against David. And so once again they spread themselves out in the valley of Rephaim. (It is almost as though they wished to recreate the first battle all over again, isn't it?) David wondered somewhat the same thing. Should he go up against them, just as he had done before? God's answer was that he should fight the Philistines, but not in the same way he had done in the past. This time, rather than attacking them head-on, David was told to circle around behind them. They were not to attack until they heard the “sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees” (verse 24).

Some seem to think that is was merely the noise of the wind in the trees that concealed the sounds of David's approach. I think there is more to it than this. God is infinite, and He seems to delight in bringing military victory to His people in an endless array of means. He has used a thunderstorm, with its bolts of lightening and rains, which is downright unhealthy for those whose weapons are made of iron, and the mud caused by the rains don't help chariots to function well, either (see 1 Samuel 7:10). God later employed an earthquake to shake up the enemy (1 Samuel 14:15). Earlier, God gave Israel victory over the Amorites by stoning the enemy with hailstones (Joshua 10:11). In 2 Kings chapter 7, God frightened off the Syrian army by causing them to hear the sounds of a great army, yet there was none (verses 6-7). I am therefore inclined to take the words of our text (2 Samuel 5:24) as a report of another great “multimedia presentation” by God, which served to unnerve the enemy and to pave the way for their defeat at the hand of David. This defeat was such that David pursued the Philistines back to their own territory (Gezer is virtually on the border of Philistine territory). The defeat of the Philistines is decisive. Though it was Saul's task to deliver Israel from the Philistines (1 Samuel 9:16), he was killed and Israel was defeated by the Philistines (1 Samuel 31). It was King David who gave Israel relief from the Philistines (2 Samuel 19:9).

Conclusion

There is, of course, a great sense of relief and of joy to arrive at this point in David's life. It has been many years since Samuel anointed David as Israel's king. David has been through many painful experiences in order to reach this point. There have been the good times, such as serving in Saul's house as his musician, and becoming close friends with his son, Jonathan. There was the defeat of Goliath, and there were promotions by Saul. There was the blessing of marriage to one of Saul's daughters, making David a part of the royal family. But there were many bad times as well. There were years of waiting, of hiding out from Saul in fear for his life. There were those times when David had to seek refuge among his enemies. Now, all of that has culminated in his reign over all Israel. It is indeed a joyous moment, a time for celebration.

I am impressed with David, especially when compared with Saul. Unlike Saul, David continually seeks God's will and endeavors to obey His commands. When David is wrong, he repents and seeks to do what is right. Though Saul does not give Israel victory over the Philistines, David does. Though Saul does not exercise moral leadership over the nation, David does. Over and over, David sets the moral and spiritual pace for Judah and the other tribes of Israel. He responds rightly to the news of Saul's death, and to the wickedness of those who raised their hands against the Lord's anointed.

Unlike Saul, David is not just a king who knows nothing other than crisis management, who seems only willing to “put out fires.” Saul only dealt with the problems he could not avoid. David dealt with problems that those before him had avoided, and with some success. The taking of Jebus is one such example of David's initiative and leadership. I believe that David understood God's promise that He would give over the Jebusites and their land. I further believe that David sought to obey God's command, though given to Israel in an earlier day, to defeat the Jebusites and drive them out of the land. I believe that David saw the city of Jebus as an ideal capital, and one that would serve to unite the tribes of Israel under his rule. He could have chosen to “peacefully co-exist” with the Jebusites, as others before him had done, but instead he took the difficult path and prevailed over them. And it was a victory such as this which gave Israel (and her king) status and respect (even fear) among the nations.

If I were to sum up the entire 5^th chapter of 2 Samuel, I believe it's unity can be found in one central theme: men's response to God's king. While Saul, Abner, and others may have resisted David's rise to the throne, it was the will of God. After Abner's death, the people of Israel recognized that David should be their king, and it was their leaders who approached David, expressing their desire for him to be their king. In short, the tribes of Israel submitted to David as God's king (5:1-5). The Jebusites opposed God's king, and so it was that God gave David -- His king -- the victory over the Jebusites (5:6-10). They were overthrown by God's king, because they opposed him. Hiram, king of Tyre, seems to have recognized to one degree or another that David was God's king, and by his offer to help build David a palace, he demonstrated his submission to God's king (5:11-12). In the taking of more wives and the bearing of more children, David was thriving as God's king (5:13-16). The Philistines, however, would not submit to David as God's king. They attacked David, seeking to kill him and to remove the threat that he and a united Israel posed (5:17-25). Not once, but twice, did these Philistines come against David and the army of Israel. And twice God gave David the victory over his enemies. Those who received David as God's king were blessed; those who rejected David as God's king were crushed.

David is most certainly a prototype of the “Son of David” who is to come, God's King, who will come to the earth to defeat His enemies, and to rule over His kingdom.

1 Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, 3 “Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!” 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. 5 Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying, 6 “But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.” 7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. 9 'You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.”' 10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. 11 Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling. 12 Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (Psalm 2:1-12)

This psalm speaks prophetically of the day when God will install His King, the Lord Jesus Christ, upon His throne. The enemies of God and of good will seek to unite themselves in order to resist and to overthrow the reign of Christ as King. It is clear that such resistance is foolish and fatal. When God sets His King upon His throne, no one will be able to resist or overthrow Him. Those who seek to do so will be crushed. There is only one wise response to the coming of God's King, and that is to humbly submit to Him, for in this is great blessing (verses 10-12).

David serves as a prototype of our Lord Jesus Christ as God's King, the King who is the subject of Psalm 2. Those who opposed David were eventually crushed. Those who submitted to him were blessed. When our Lord came to this earth 2,000 years ago, God made it clear that He was indeed the Son of God, God's King:

1 Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified (Matthew 17:1-6).

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased” (Mark 1:9-11).

30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:30-33).

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel” (John 1:47-49; see also Matthew 2:1-6).

In spite of all the evidence, many of those in the religious establishment chose to reject Jesus as God's Messiah. They grasped at straws to prove to themselves and others that He could not possibly be God's King. But their best efforts failed. They thought that they had triumphed over Him when they brought about His crucifixion and death, but when God raised Him from the dead, it was clear that He had triumphed over them.

Jesus Christ is God's King. When our Lord Jesus came to the earth the first time, He added unblemished humanity to his deity. While He was introduced as God's King, He was rejected and crucified by sinful men. The purpose of His first coming was not to establish His kingdom by overthrowing Rome, it was to die for the sins of men, so that they could enter into His kingdom. Those who trust in Him for the forgiveness of their sins and the gift of eternal life await His second coming. It is at this future time that He will defeat His enemies and establish His throne on the earth. Those who reject Him as God's king will be overthrown, just as the enemies of David were. There is no more important issue for you to settle than your relationship with Jesus Christ, God's king. Those who are His friends will reign with Him. Those who are His enemies will be destroyed. May you be like Hiram king of Tyre, rather than like the Philistines, who set themselves against David and against God.

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).

22 Actually, the text only says, “Therefore, they say, ‘The blind or the lame shall not come into the house.’“ The they seems to be contrasted with “David said” in verse 8. I doubt very much that this they can refer to the Jebusites, and thus it must refer to the Israelites. Based on this experience and upon David’s response, the people assumed that the ‘blind and the lame’ would never be allowed into this city, and most certainly not into the king’s house.

<

Definition

“He is the true God, and that all his knowledge and words are both true and the final standard of truth.”¹ Or, “That perfection of His being by virtue of which He fully answers to the idea of the Godhead, is perfectly reliable in His revelation, and sees things as they really are.”²

Numbers 23:19: “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”

Psalm 33:4: “For the word of the LORD is upright, and all his work is done in faithfulness.”

Psalm 119:151: “But you are near, O LORD, and all your commandments are true.”

John. 14:6: “Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

John 17:17: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”³

Implications For Apologetics

Apologetics Defends The God Of Scripture, Not “a god” Or Unknown Higher Power⁴

Christian apologetics is not about arguing for an undefined higher power while granting the unbeliever the ultimate authority to define its nature. Such would merely confirm the unbeliever’s idolatry or allow for the substitution of one idol for another, leaving the essence of unbelief unchallenged. At the heart of unbelief is both a denial of the obvious in what God has clearly revealed about Himself, while exerting one’s own opinion and will as ultimate. Sin presumes the place and prerogative of God in thought and deed. To admit of a “higher power” does nothing to challenge the presumed independence and authority of unbelief, as unbelievers remain free to define it to suit their presumed independence and authority. The apologetic challenge to unbelief is to repent of both the worship of false gods, and the false presumption of independence from God, and ultimate authority to define such gods. Idols are “worthless” and “a work of delusion” (Jeremiah 10:15).

Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing, and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness.

Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown, scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth, when he blows on them, and they wither, and the tempest carries them off like stubble.

To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? Says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name, by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing (Isaiah 40:18-26).

Further,

It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. When he utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehouses. Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols, for his images are false, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish. Not like these is he who is the portion of Jacob, for he is the one who formed all things, and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance; the LORD of hosts is his name (Jeremiah 10:12-16).

As a created work of God immersed in a sea of the works of God, unbelievers should know better. Idolatry and unbelief are without excuse.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things (Romans 1:18-23).

Unbelief is sin and worthy of condemnation precisely because unbelievers know better. Unbelief denies the obvious.

The only true definition of God is what He has revealed about Himself in Scripture. As we have seen, apart from God’s specific revelation of Himself, finite people are incapable of knowing the nature of an infinite, transcendent God. Attempts by fallen people to define God apart from Scripture result in as many definitions as there are people, each no more authoritative than another. No “true” and authoritative definition of God would be possible. Yet, God has revealed Himself. “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). We worship, proclaim, and defend the God of Scripture, not an unknown higher power.

Only God’s Revelation Is Absolutely True And Worthy To Be Trusted Fully

As God Is True, So The Words And Word Of God Are True

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Had Christ said, “I am not the way, and the truth, and the life,” the entire Gospel and meaning of the history of redemption in Scripture would be undone. A single word can make a world of difference. Indeed, the serpent’s temptation of Eve in the garden rested on slight alterations to the words of God, with immense implications. Theologians rightly speak of the inspiration of Scripture as verbal, applying to the very words of Scripture, and plenary, applying to the entirety of Scripture. As our brief illustrations show, statements of “truth” are untrustworthy when the individual words are untrustworthy.⁵ And as we have seen, truth and knowledge are determined by God. As created and finite, we depend upon God for ultimate truth and knowledge. And as determined by God who is Himself trustworthy, all God’s revelation is trustworthy. A proper doctrine of the authority and inspiration of Scripture, therefore, is founded upon a proper doctrine of God. God is true and the source of all truth. The words penned by the human writers of Scripture are the very words of God.

Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Indeed, Christ promised the disciples that they would be the instruments of His truth in His giving them a “Helper,” “the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17).

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you (John 16:13-14).

At issue concerning the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, then, is the same issue with all claims by created, finite, and dependent people: to what higher authority than Scripture can one appeal for the ultimate explanation concerning God and the universe He created? As we have seen, no such higher authority exists. To what or whom, then, do those who deny the orthodox doctrine of the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture appeal? If to human opinion, we are left with the same problem of billions of ultimate authorities, none of whom are equipped to speak of ultimate truth. Truth is therefore lost in a sea of opinions.

Yet, this is exactly the case with those who deny the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture. For instance, many who deny the historical nature of certain Old Testament events, such as the flood or the creation and temptation of Adam and Eve in the garden, at the same time affirm certain New Testament doctrines and history. Yet, having already established the principle that they are personally adequate to determine what is historical and not historical in the Old Testament, even if such events are spoken of as historical in the New Testament, they nonetheless want to maintain the authority of the New Testament. But why? If such interpreters can assume the authority to question Old Testament historical events, why not New Testament events? Possibly because one can seemingly deny the historicity of the flood while maintaining the historicity of the life and death of Christ, upon which all of Christianity stands. Yet, the personal authority assumed in interpreting the Old Testament is the same unbelieving assumption of those who deny the historicity of the New Testament. If the ultimate authority of human opinion is the final court of appeal in interpreting the Old Testament, why is it not the final court of appeal in interpreting the New Testament? At least those who deny the truthfulness of all of Scripture are consistent in assuming their own opinion as ultimate authority in interpreting both the New and Old Testaments. But those wanting to profess the authority of Scripture and Christ as Lord and Savior want to have it both ways, to operate in the place of God in determining what is true and acceptable in the Bible according to their own criteria, contrary to the testimony of Scripture itself, while choosing to acknowledge God’s authority wherever they choose, such as in the New Testament. In either case, they act as the final authority as to what they will accept or deny, imitating the sin of Adam and Eve in their presumption of authority to choose between God’s word and the word of the serpent.

Of course, interpreters will appeal to data or certain criteria in making their interpretation. For those holding to verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture, the criteria are explicitly stated in Scripture. Assumptions include God as truthful and the source of all truth, and God as perfect and unable to do anything in or with error, and able to use the imperfect to accomplish His perfect ends. As the well-known saying goes, God can make a straight line with a bent stick. Christ took upon Himself corruptible human flesh, yet he was without sin and error in all He did and said. As Scripture tells us, God used imperfect apostles to pen his perfect truth.⁶ Who, then, can deny that the infinite, perfect, and all-powerful and wise God cannot use human writers to pen perfect truth? No authority exists to which one can appeal to deny God’s ability to do so. As with all interpreters of the biblical and extra-biblical data, the data will be interpreted according to either the nature of God as the starting point of all truth and knowledge, or the assumed authority of human opinion.

A more in-depth discussion of the various issues related to biblical inspiration would take us too far afield, but note well that the same issues with respect to ultimate authority concerning knowledge and truth apply to interpreters denying the historicity of parts of Scripture that are written as history. Created, finite, and fallen people are dependent upon God for all knowledge and truth. The proper starting point and foundation for a right doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is the nature of God as revealed in Scripture. All improper views of inspiration go wrong at this point.

The Only True Interpretation Of Reality Is God’s Interpretation.

God’s knowledge and explanation of Himself and reality correspond to reality perfectly.⁷ God is perfectly objective and knows things exactly as they are in every respect. He created and sustains all things, while His knowledge “precedes the existence of things”⁸ and determines all facts. Our knowledge of truth is derived from God, therefore our interpretation of facts is only true when it corresponds to God’s interpretation. Again, this is not to deny that we can know facts truly, but affirms our dependence on God for true knowledge and our need for humility and reverence in approaching Scripture. God has revealed truth and has given us the ability to know it.

Not only are we limited in our capacity for knowledge, lacking the capacity and perspective of God, our perception of facts is influenced by subjective factors of our experience, mood, prejudices, etc., as well as our physical and mental limitations. Moreover, all unbelievers will suppress the truth in unrighteousness and interpret reality to suit their denial of the God of Scripture. Even as believers, in our sinfulness we will also suppress the truth in unrighteousness in our moments of rebellion against God’s lordship. Thus, the only interpretation of reality that can be trusted fully is God’s interpretation.

Truth Is Unaffected By Unbelief

Truth Depends Upon God Alone And Exists Independently Of Human Perception Or Acceptance Of It

As noted concerning God as eternally self-existent and the creator of all things, God’s existence and attributes are unaffected by unbelief. God is independent of His creation. He is who He is regardless of what anyone thinks. In the same way, as God is true and the source of all truth, truth is unaffected by unbelief. Should the whole world deny God and His word, God and His word remain true. And as God does not change, so His truth does not change.

Unbelief Reflects The Sinful Nature Of The Heart, Not Defects In God’s Truth

“Let God be true though every one were a liar” (Romans 3:4). That mankind misunderstands and rejects the truth of God points to defects in the interpreter, not defects in God or His truth. Created reality and Scripture bear the clear marks of the divine Creator and Author such that all people are without excuse for not worshipping and giving Him thanks. Moreover, God and the Gospel are infinitely excellent. To not see, appreciate, and worship God for His excellence reveals the perversity of the fallen human heart. Christ, the perfect revelation of the character of God was no less excellent as God when the crowd shouted for His death. To view the Gospel as foolish or to interpret Scripture according to naturalistic assumptions of unbelief reflects the heart of sin. Such presumes the place of God as the ultimate authority in determining what is true and acceptable concerning God.

God Is True And His Knowledge And Explanation Of All Things Is True, Or He Is Not God

The creator and sustainer of all things is perfectly true and cannot lie or deny Himself, for He is omniscient, immutable, wise, powerful, holy, righteous, and good. As omniscient, He knows everything truly. As immutable, truth does not change because God as the source and sustainer of all things does not change. As wise, He knows what is best and true in every conceivable reality and circumstance. As all-powerful, He determines all things after the counsel of His own will and nothing can stay His hand in doing so; determining all things He determines all truth. As holy, all He says is true for He cannot lie. As infinite, He is perfect and without defect and thus always true. As righteous, all His judgments are correct according to the reality of every case and therefore true. As good, He can only do that which is true, holy, and right.

God’s truthfulness is intimately related to and dependent upon all His attributes, for the denial of God as true and truthful denies all the attributes of God. God would not be God if He were not true and truthful.

Truth Is Impossible Without God

One of the apologetic implications of the self-existence and self-sufficiency of God discussed earlier was the impossibility of God not existing, that God is the only possible explanation of all things as they exist. Apart from God, all would be random chance, and life and reality as we know it would be impossible in such a universe. We noted that truth and language would be impossible in a universe consisting of unrelated and meaningless random chance occurrences interpreting meaningless random occurrences. Truth would be impossible as everything would be unrelated and nothing could be said to be true from one second to the next. Assuming anything would even exist for more than a moment, the uniformity of God’s universe that allows us to think, use language, conduct science, among other things, would not exist.

We noted that the world does not operate that way, because God exists. Science and knowledge are possible because God exists. Uniform and universal laws exist because God exists. We think and reason because God exists. One might imagine that God does not exist, but it is impossible to account for reality as it is apart from Him. We have the pleasure of musing on such things precisely because God created, orders, and sustains all things according to His power and purpose. We can deny Him only because we are not random chance occurrences in a random chance universe.

We also noted that the denial of God’s existence and authority results in pure relativism and the loss of knowledge and truth. Apart from God, no ultimate authority and standard for truth could exist. Absolute truth would be impossible. All “truth” would be reduced to mere opinion, everyone’s best guess. Again, this is not to deny that unbelievers know truth. It is to deny any justification for truth according to a worldview that excludes God. Finite people are incapable of authoritatively explaining the ultimate nature of reality apart from God’s explanation of it, especially if they are themselves mere random chance occurrences. All are limited in their perspective and lack an outside objective perspective. Van Til illustrated the problem as follows.

Suppose we think of a man made of water in an infinitely extended and bottomless ocean of water. Desiring to get out of water, he makes a ladder of water. He sets this ladder upon the water and against the water and then attempts to climb out of the water. So hopeless and senseless a picture must be drawn of the natural man’s methodology based as it is upon the assumption that time or chance is ultimate. On his assumption his own rationality is a product of chance. On his assumption even the laws of logic which he employs are products of chance. The rationality and purpose that he may be searching for are still bound to be products of chance.⁹

The situation would be hopeless apart from God. Truth exists because God exists.

“Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”

¹ Grudem, Systematic Theology, 195.

² Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 69.

³ See also Romans 3:3-4, 2 Timothy 2:13, Titus 1:1-2.

⁴ For a discussion of God as true as to His essence or being, which in turn is the ground of truth expressed, as in God’s revelation, and truth in knowing intellectually (in the sense that knowledge conforms to that which is known), see Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 207-210. See also Frame’s discussion and interaction with Bavinck, in Frame, Doctrine of God, 475-9.

⁵ A comprehensive treatment of the nature of biblical inerrancy is beyond the scope of this short work, but the importance of a proper understanding of the attributes of God to the doctrine of the inspiration and authority of Scripture cannot be overstated.

⁶ Note that the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the original autograph, not the copies. Adherents to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy admit to slight textual issues such as copyist errors and slight differences between some manuscripts. For two excellent treatments of the issue of inerrancy (among many), see John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corporation, 1982), and John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010).

⁷ See Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:209.

⁸ Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:209.

⁹ Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4th Edition, Ed. By K. Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing), 124-5.

March 12, 2017

It’s always cute to hear little children say their bedtime prayers. Often, they make sweeping, catch-all prayers that go something like: “God bless mommy and God bless daddy and God bless all my brothers and sisters and God bless all the missionaries. Amen!”

But, maybe your prayers sometimes sound like that, too. It’s a lot of work to get specific. It’s easier just to shoot up blanket prayers and let God sort out the specific needs. But in our text the apostle Paul gives us two specific requests that we can pray on behalf of missionaries, other Christian workers, and for all the Lord’s people. To sum up:

Pray for the word of the Lord to spread and that the Lord’s people, relying on His faithfulness, will stand firm in Him in the spiritual battle.

Paul knew that these new converts were going through intense persecution (1 Thess. 3:3-4; 2 Thess. 1:6-7). Also, false teachers were spreading spiritually damaging teachings in the church (2 Thess. 2:1-3). In light of this, note the flow of Paul’s thoughts here: After commanding them to stand firm (2 Thess. 2:15), he directs them to focus on praying for the gospel to spread through him and others, who also needed God’s protection from evil men; and, he emphasizes the Lord’s faithfulness along with the need for their continuing obedience. Then, he asks the Lord to direct their hearts into God’s love and into the example of Christ’s steadfastness, who obeyed God through the things He suffered (Heb. 2:10; 5:8; 12:3).

That’s a healthy way to deal with your own trials, or to help others who are going through trials. Get your focus off your problem and onto others’ needs. Especially, pray for those who serve the Lord in difficult places, who may be suffering on behalf of the gospel. And, get your focus onto the Lord’s faithfulness, love, and example of steadfast obedience when He suffered.

1. Pray that the word of the Lord will spread and that those who proclaim it will be protected so that the word will continue to spread (2 Thess. 3:1-2).

A. Pray that the word of the Lord will spread through the gospel being received.

2 Thess. 3:1: “Finally, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord will spread rapidly and be glorified, just as it did also with you.” Paul’s “finally” is like many preachers’ “finally”: it doesn’t mean that the sermon is almost over! In 1 Thessalonians 4:1, Paul says “finally” and then goes on for two more chapters (see, also, Phil. 3:1). The phrase means, “As far as the rest is concerned,” or, “in addition” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Walter Bauer, William Arndt, Wilbur Gingrich, & Frederick Danker [University of Chicago Press], 2nd ed., p. 480).

In asking for prayer for himself, Paul’s focus was not only for personal safety, but also that the gospel would spread so that God would be glorified, as had happened in Thessalonica. Even though he was a veteran apostle and the Thessalonians were new believers, Paul needed their prayers. He didn’t assume that his impressive spiritual gifts or his past successes would result in future success. Paul knew that he had to depend on the Lord through prayer.

When people respond in faith to the gospel, they glorify the Lord who gave that gospel to us. Verse 1 is really asking these new converts to pray the first part of the Lord’s Prayer on behalf of Paul and his fellow missionaries (Matt. 6:9-10): “Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Note several other things about Paul’s request.

1) The gospel is not a message that Paul or the other apostles made up.

Rather, it is “the word of the Lord.” It comes from the Lord and centers on the Lord. It is the message that the eternal Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8) came to this earth, took on human flesh, and suffered and died in our place, bearing the punishment that we deserved for our sins. And God raised Him from the dead. The good news is that God offers forgiveness for all our sins and eternal life as a free gift to all who trust in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9).

2) In whatever culture people respond to the gospel, their lives are demonstrably changed.

Paul could say, “just as it did also with you,” because he saw that these former pagan idolaters had turned from idols to the living and true God (1 Thess. 1:9). If people profess to believe in Jesus but there is no observable change in their lives, they need to examine whether they truly believed.

3) Paul asks for prayer that the word of the Lord will “spread rapidly and be glorified.”

The Greek is literally, “will run and be glorified.” Paul was probably thinking of Psalm 147:15, “He sends forth His command to the earth; His word runs very swiftly.” Paul was writing from Corinth, which hosted the Isthmian Games. So he may have had in mind an athletic contest, where the winning runner received the prize and was honored. Paul wants the gospel to win the hearts of those who hear so that it, and the Lord who sends it forth, will get the honor and glory. For people to respond favorably to the gospel, God has to open their blind eyes and draw them to Christ (2 Cor. 4:4-6; John 6:44, 65). Even a preacher as gifted as Paul knew that if God did not open the hearts of those who heard him preach, they would not respond (Acts 16:14).

4) Paul saw no contradiction between the doctrine of election and the need for evangelism and prayer for the success of the gospel.

Sometimes people object, “If God predestines all who will be saved, then why evangelize? Why pray?” But Paul mentions election, prayer, and evangelism in close proximity (2 Thess. 2:13; 3:1) with no need to explain the seeming tension. The Bible teaches that God ordains the means as well as the ends. He has chosen many to be saved, but they come to salvation through the prayerful proclamation of the gospel. We don’t change God’s mind through our prayers, but in a mysterious way God uses our prayers to accomplish His predetermined will (G. K. Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians [IVP Academic], pp. 242-243).

Paul was in the rough, pagan city of Corinth when he wrote this letter. He was afraid and thinking about leaving there before he suffered another beating or worse. One night the Lord graciously appeared to Paul in a vision and said (Acts 18:9-10), “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” So Paul settled there for 18 months, teaching the word of God among them (Acts 18:11). Later, he explained to Timothy (2 Tim. 2:10), “For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.” God has chosen those who will be saved, but He saves them through our prayers and proclaiming the gospel to them.

5) For the word of the Lord to spread and be glorified, the word that is spread must be the true gospel, not a perversion of it.

From the earliest times, Satan has infiltrated the church with teachers who promote a false “gospel” that is really bad news, not good news. In the churches of Galatia, the Judaizers had come in with the message, “Paul was basically right: we are saved by God’s grace through faith. But, also you must be circumcised and keep the Old Testament law.” Many were being led astray by this seemingly “slight” alteration of the gospel. But Paul forcefully wrote (Gal. 1:8-9), “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

Even so, there are many false “gospels” today: “Believe in Jesus and He will give you wealth and health!” “Believe in Jesus and be baptized, and you will be saved.” “Believe in Jesus and add your good works, so that eventually you will earn enough merit to get out of Purgatory.” So pray that the gospel that is being proclaimed will be the true gospel, not a perversion of it.

B. Pray that the word of the Lord will continue to spread through God’s protection of those who proclaim it.

2 Thess. 3:2: [Pray] “that we will be rescued from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith.” As I said, Paul was not so much trying to save his own skin as he wanted to see the gospel continue to spread. If the messengers are protected from evil men, they have more freedom to proclaim the message. Granted, Paul evangelized the Praetorian Guard while he was a prisoner in Rome. And, the testimonies of many martyrs have resulted in many coming to faith through their deaths. But there is nothing wrong with asking for prayer for protection from persecution for those who take the gospel into hostile areas. The main aim is for the word of the Lord to spread.

Note the prominence of “the Lord” in verses 1-5. In verse 1, it is “the word of the Lord.” In verse 3, “the Lord is faithful.” In verse 4, “We have confidence in the Lord.” In verse 5, “May the Lord direct your hearts ….” In times of trial or persecution for the sake of the gospel, it’s important to remember that Jesus is the Lord, the sovereign of the universe. No one can harm you or kill you unless it is in God’s good and loving purpose for His glory.

Scholars differ over who these perverse and evil men who did not have faith were. Some think that Paul was referring to the unbelieving Jews in Corinth. Acts 18:12-17 reports how they rose up against Paul and brought him before the proconsul, accusing him of persuading people to worship God contrary to the law. When the proconsul wouldn’t listen to them, they took hold of Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue who had trusted in Christ (1 Cor. 1:1) and began beating him in front of the proconsul, who ignored them. So Paul may have been referring to the unbelieving Jews.

But other scholars (e.g. Beale, pp. 239-242) argue that he was referring primarily to false believers in the church, who were either promoting false doctrine or whose lives did not back up their profession of faith. Often, such people can cause more harm to the church from the inside than those who are outside the church. Jesus warned (Matt. 7:15) about false prophets who come into the flock disguised as sheep, but really are ravenous wolves. Paul warned the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29-30), “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” He also said (2 Cor. 11:14-15) that even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and his servants as servants of righteousness.

So the takeaway application from verses 1 & 2 is, pray for everyone in this church to have opportunities to proclaim the gospel and that God will bless those efforts with genuine conversions. And, pray that God will protect us from those, whether from without or within, who oppose the gospel and seek to harm those who proclaim it. We are not wrestling against flesh and blood, but rather against the spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places (Eph. 6:12). Also,

2. Pray that the Lord’s people, relying on His faithfulness, will stand firm in Him in the spiritual battle (2 Thess. 3:3-5).

Paul turns from the faithlessness of men to the faithfulness of the Lord, a theme that he mentions often (cf. 1 Thess. 5:24; 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:13). Since Paul has been asking for prayer for his own protection, you would expect that he would continue, “But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect us from the evil one.” But rather, he shifts to “strengthen and protect you.” This reflects his pastor’s heart, which was more concerned about these new believers than he was about himself (John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries [Baker], pp. 349-350).

“Evil one” may also be translated, “evil,” but it’s more likely that it refers to the archenemy of our souls, the devil (see, 1 Thess. 2:18; 3:5; 2 Thess. 2:9). As Calvin observes (p. 350), “For it were a small thing to be delivered from the cunning or violence of men, if the Lord did not protect us from all spiritual injury.” Again, it’s a reminder that spreading the gospel engages us in a spiritual battle against satanic forces, which are too powerful for us in our own strength. We must rely on the Lord. Note three things:

A. Relying on God’s faithfulness is the foundation for standing firm in the spiritual battle.

2 Thess. 3:3: “But the Lord is faithful, and He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one.” In 1 Thessalonians 5:24, Paul reminded these new believers who were enduring persecution, “Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.” Here, he again reminds them of this comforting truth, “the Lord is faithful.” After Jerusalem had been destroyed by the Babylonians, thousands of Jews had been slaughtered, and most of the others were forced into captivity in Babylon, Jeremiah (the most probable author) wrote Lamentations, expressing his overwhelming grief over the tragedy that he had witnessed. In the middle of that sorrowful lament, there is this well-known ray of hope (Lam. 3:22-24):

The Lord’s lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
They are new every morning;
Great is Your faithfulness.
“The Lord is my portion,” says my soul,
“Therefore I have hope in Him.”

So when you’re under attack, whether from criticism or slander or outright persecution, rely on God’s faithfulness. Even when the enemy seems to be winning (as in Jeremiah’s situation), God is faithful and He will work it all together for good.

Paul assures us that our faithful Lord will both strengthen and protect us. “Lord” refers to the Lord Jesus. The fact that Jesus is able both to strengthen and protect his people all around the world when they are under attack shows that He is God. But Paul’s word of assurance raises a problem: If the Lord promises to strengthen and protect His people, then why do they suffer terribly under persecution? Why are there martyrs if the Lord is protecting them?

We need to understand that the Lord’s promise for protection is not a guarantee of deliverance from every enemy. In Luke 21:16-18, Jesus says, “But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death, and you will be hated by all because of My name. Yet not a hair of your head will perish.” By saying, “not a hair of your head will perish,” Jesus was not promising immunity from death, which He just said will happen to some. Rather, He means that if we are faithful to the Lord under persecution, even if they kill the body they cannot touch the soul (Luke 12:4-5). God has sovereignly determined the exact number of martyrs, and when that number is fulfilled, He will judge those who shed their blood (Rev. 6:9-11). So we can rely on God’s faithfulness as our foundation for standing firm in the spiritual battle.

B. Relying on the Lord for ongoing obedience is the framework for standing firm in the spiritual battle.

2 Thess. 3:4: “We have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that you are doing and will continue to do what we command.” Paul’s confidence was “in the Lord” regarding the Thessalonians’ continuing obedience. As an apostle, Paul could give commands (not suggestions!) to the churches. We now have those apostolic commands in the New Testament. In verse 4, Paul is laying the framework for what will follow, where three times he gives commands regarding those who were not working and sponging off the rest of the church (2 Thess. 3:6, 10, 12).

In our day, many professing Christians believe that if you teach the need to obey God’s commandments, you’re legalistic. I’ve been accused of that, even when I preface it by saying that God’s grace is the motivation to obey Him. They claim that God’s grace and their feelings exempt them from obedience. A young woman once told me, “My fiancé isn’t a Christian, but I prayed about marrying him and feel such a peace. So it must be God’s will.” She was disobeying the clear command that a believer should not be unequally yoked to an unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:14) to follow her feelings.

That’s like driving on the wrong side of the road and running red lights so that you’ll get somewhere faster. It may work for a while, but at some point, disobeying the traffic laws will result in severe consequences. It’s the same with disobeying God’s laws. You can’t live in disobedience to God and then, when you get into a difficult place, call out to Him to bless and protect you. Ongoing obedience to the Lord is the framework for standing firm in the spiritual battle.

C. Asking God to direct our hearts into His love and Christ’s steadfastness is the fuel for standing firm in the spiritual battle.

2 Thess. 3:5: “May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ.” By “fuel,” I mean that God’s love and Christ’s steadfastness fuel our desire to stand firm when we’re under attack. Again, keep in mind the context here. These new believers were under attack, both from direct persecution and from dangerous false teaching. In that context of spiritual battle, Paul prays that the Lord will direct their hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ. Note three things:

1) In the spiritual battle, ask God to direct your heart.

“To direct” means “to clear away the obstacles” (Thomas Constable, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. by John F. Walvoord & Roy Zuck [Victor Books], p. 723) or “to make a straight path.” Paul used this word in 1 Thessalonians 3:11, where he asked that the Lord would “direct our way to you.” When you’re under spiritual attack, you need God to clear away the obstacles, because it’s easy at such times to get confused, turn away from the Lord, and follow worldly counsel to deal with your situation. God directs our hearts at such times through prayerful understanding and obedience to His word.

2) In the spiritual battle, ask God to direct your heart into His love.

When you’re under spiritual attack, often the enemy will tempt you with thoughts like, “If God really loves you, He wouldn’t allow you to be going through this difficult trial.” At such times, you must rely on the many promises in God’s word that assure us of His great love. Don’t focus on the situation, but rather on the Savior.

3) In the spiritual battle, ask God to direct your heart into the steadfastness of Christ.

The King James Version and a few commentators understand this to mean that we should wait patiently for Christ’s return. But it’s more likely that Paul is praying that the Lord will direct our hearts to focus on the steadfastness that Christ displayed as He faced the cross (Heb. 12:1-3; 1 Pet. 2:21-24). Jesus’ example of enduring the cross for our salvation should encourage us to be steadfast when we’re under attack for the sake of the gospel.

Conclusion

So, rather than just praying, “God bless all the missionaries,” pray that the word of the Lord will spread and be received. Pray that those who proclaim the gospel will be protected so that the gospel will continue to spread. Pray that the Lord’s people will rely on His faithfulness so that they might stand firm in Him in the spiritual battle.

Application Questions

1. Someone asks you, “If God has predetermined all things, why pray? Why evangelize?” Your response?
2. Someone asks you, “If God really loves us and if He wants all people to hear the gospel, why does He allow the persecution and martyrdom of His people?” Your reply?
3. Are we being legalistic to teach the necessity of obedience to God’s commandments? Why/why not? Can obedience be taught in a legalistic manner? If so, how?
4. Are New Testament Christians required to obey the Old Testament commandments? If so, all? Some? Which ones?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2017, All Rights Reserved.

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