Where the world comes to study the Bible

Lesson 44: The Divisive Jesus (John 7:40-52)

Related Media

February 16, 2014

As a preacher, it’s easy to become disappointed or discouraged when people do not respond to your teaching as you had hoped and prayed. That’s especially true when I’ve preached a clear, compelling gospel message, but no one asks for prayer or counsel on how he or she can trust in Christ as Savior.

But no less a preacher than the Lord Jesus Christ often experienced negative and hostile reactions to His preaching. As we saw in John 6, after Jesus gave the wonderful message about being the bread of life, offering that whoever was hungry and ate of Him would never hunger and would have eternal life, even some who professed to be His disciples walked away. They just couldn’t handle His comments about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Now, after Jesus gave the open appeal of John 7:37-38, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water,’” the crowd’s response was both mixed and mixed up. Some thought that He was the promised Prophet. Others went so far as to venture that He was the Christ, while others disputed that idea. The Jewish leaders wanted to arrest and execute Jesus. But the officers that they sent to arrest Him came back empty-handed, saying (7:46), “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks.” Then Nicodemus, whom we met in chapter 3, tries to check the murderous intent of the Sanhedrin, only to be rebuked. John 7:43 sums up the overall flavor of this section: “So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him.”

Do you think of Jesus as being divisive? We like to think of Jesus’ words in John 13, where He says that by our love the world will know that we are His disciples. Or we think of His prayer in John 17, that His followers would all be unified so that the world would know that the Father has sent Him. So we join hands and sing, “We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord.” Jesus and division don’t seem to go together.

But Jesus Himself said (Matt. 10:34-36), “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.” (See, also, Luke 2:34.) So we don’t have a true perspective of who Jesus is unless we see Him, in part, as one who divides people.

Why does Jesus cause division? One reason is that He is the truth and truth necessarily divides. Although the postmodernists today want us to think that there is no such thing as absolute truth in the philosophic or religious realm (which means that postmodernism is not absolutely true!) or that if there is truth, we can’t know it, Jesus drew a distinct line in the sand when He said (John 14:6), “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” Or, as Peter boldly proclaimed (Acts 4:12), “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” There aren’t many different ways to God. The familiar slogan, “It doesn’t matter what you believe, just so that you are sincere,” is patently false. Faith in Jesus Christ, as revealed in the apostolic witness of the New Testament, is the only way to God. That is inherently divisive! Here we learn:

Because Jesus claims exclusive allegiance as the truth, He inevitably causes division among people.

Satan hates the truth about Jesus and so he makes sure that there are always many, often within the church, who oppose the truth. We see this even in the pages of the New Testament. In Acts 20:29-30, Paul warned the Ephesian elders, “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.” There are many other warnings in the letters of Paul, Peter, and John about false teachers plaguing the church. We are not to forge a bond of unity with such teachers, but rather to draw clear lines of division. And, no matter how lovingly we act and how pure our motives, we will often face opposition, even from those in the church, when we separate from those who oppose the truth. But to be like Jesus, we must sometimes do it.

I’m going to walk you through the text, showing how Christ caused division both among religious people (7:40-44) and among religious leaders (7:45-52). Then I’ll draw some practical lessons.

1. Christ caused division among religious people (7:40-44).

There are three different views among the crowd:

A. Some had a correct but inadequate view of Christ: “This is certainly the Prophet” (7:40).

This refers to the prophet that Moses predicted (Deut. 18:15), “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.” In Jesus’ day, the common view was that the Prophet and the Christ were two separate persons. As we saw in John 1:20-21, John the Baptist denied that he was the Christ. But then the delegation from Jerusalem asked him, “Are you the Prophet?” In John 6:14, after Jesus fed the multitude with the five loaves and two fish, the people connected the dots with Moses giving the Israelites manna in the wilderness and proclaimed, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” So they wanted to take Jesus by force and make Him king.

Certainly, Jesus was the Prophet of whom Moses spoke. He was much greater than Moses, both in the signs that He performed and in the teaching that He gave. But by itself, to believe that Jesus was the Prophet was an inadequate view. A prophet, no matter how great, could not authoritatively claim what Jesus just claimed, that whoever would come and drink of Him would have rivers of living water gushing up inside of him and flowing out of him. Only God in human flesh could make such a claim.

There are many people today who think highly of Jesus and His teaching, but they do not believe that He is God. They do not submit their lives to Him as their Lord and God. They have correct, but inadequate views of Jesus.

B. Some had a correct but uncommitted view of Jesus: “This is the Christ” (7:41a).

“The Christ” was God’s promised “anointed one,” the redeemer and king who would reign on David’s throne (Psalm 2). While that view is absolutely correct, and a step up from viewing Jesus only as the Prophet, it is inadequate because it does not reflect any personal commitment or submission to Jesus as Lord and Christ. The text seems to indicate that they held their views as a point to debate with others, but not as disciples willing to follow Him no matter what the cost.

As Jesus pointed out to the Jewish leaders, the Christ is both David’s son and David’s Lord (Matt. 22:41-46). Psalm 2 is clear that God sets His Christ upon His throne and that He rules over the nations (2:6, 8, 9). Thus the bottom line in that psalm is (2:12), “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!” God’s salvation is only for those who bow before Jesus as their king and trust in Him as their refuge.

But there are many who say, “I believe in Jesus as my Savior,” but they don’t live in submission to Him as their Lord. They don’t bow before Him as their king. C. H. Spurgeon (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit [Pilgrim Publications], 47:27) says that these Jews who thought that Jesus was the Christ had orthodox heads but heterodox hearts. A. W. Pink (Exposition of John, on says, “Unless our hearts are affected and our lives molded by God’s Word, we are no better off than a starving man with a cook book in his hand.” In other words, intellectual belief in Christ without the accompanying obedience to Him is useless. Saving faith is obedient faith (Rom. 16:26; Heb. 3:18-19).

C. Some rejected Jesus’ claims outright for a flimsy reason that was really an excuse (7:41b-42).

This group denied that Jesus was the Christ because they knew that the Christ was not going to come from Galilee, but rather from the lineage and city of David, from Bethlehem. Here we have another example of John’s tongue-in-cheek irony. He assumes that his readers either know that Jesus really was born in Bethlehem and that He came from the lineage of David or that if they don’t know, they will dig a little deeper to try to resolve this seeming problem. But if his readers adopted the same approach as this group of critics, they would end up rejecting Jesus for a flimsy reason that was really nothing but an excuse.

These critics took pride in their theological knowledge. They loved to point out their knowledge of the truth. Their syllogism was, “The Messiah does not come from Galilee. Jesus comes from Galilee. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah.” That’s airtight—if the two premises are true. The first one is true, but the second one is not true in terms of Jesus’ birth and lineage. Therefore, the conclusion is false.

To hold to this sort of reasoning, these critics had to ignore Jesus’ many miracles, some of which they had no doubt seen with their own eyes or heard credible reports of. They had to dismiss Jesus’ powerful teaching, which even the arresting officers admit is like no other teaching they’ve ever heard (7:46). They had to shrug off Jesus’ astounding claims, such as the one He just issued, to be able to give rivers of living water to all who believed in Him. But the truth is, they weren’t interested in believing in Jesus. If they had been interested, they could have cleared up the question of His origins very easily. But they didn’t want to believe; they just wanted a comfortable excuse to reject Him. They would have seized Jesus if they could, but they could not lay their hands on Him, because God is sovereign over His enemies (7:30, 44; Dan. 4:35).

Like these critics, many liberal theologians today come up with all sorts of reasons why Jesus could not have done the miracles that the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament attribute to Him. Their syllogism is, “Miracles contradict modern science. Thus miracles are not possible. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles could not have happened as reported.” Such critics also reject Jesus’ teaching. They debate over which words in the Gospels Jesus may really have spoken and which were put in His mouth by later redactors. With these flimsy reasons that are really excuses, they do not believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord.

So Christ caused division among these religious people. Also,

2. Christ caused division among religious leaders (7:45-52).

Again, we encounter three parties of religious leaders:

A. The temple guards were impressed with the way Jesus spoke, but too fearful to believe (7:45-46).

The temple guards, who were Levites, came back from their mission to arrest Jesus (7:32) empty-handed, so the chief priests and Pharisees asked them (7:45), “Why did you not bring Him?” The guards easily could have said, “Because the crowd would have been upset with us!” But instead, they candidly admitted (7:46), “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks.” Although the guards did not intend this meaning, John probably wants his readers to think, “Precisely! Jesus is not merely a man! He speaks as He does because He is the eternal Word of God made flesh!” But the impression is that these temple guards were too fearful of the chief priests and Pharisees to take a bold stand with Jesus. That would have meant their jobs! So they fade from view.

In the same way, there are many in our day who are impressed with Jesus’ eloquence or His wisdom. They think He was a great man and a brilliant religious teacher. But they don’t see Him as the eternal Word of God in human flesh and so they don’t believe in Him as their Savior and Lord. Out of fear of what others may think, they don’t take a bold public stand of faith in Christ.

B. The Pharisees were arrogantly disgusted with anyone who was at all favorable toward Jesus (7:47-49, 52).

The arrogance and contempt of the Pharisees for anyone who was even remotely supportive of Jesus is not disguised here! They incredulously ask the temple officers (7:47-48), “You have not also been led astray, have you? No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?” (Again, with some irony, John is setting the stage for Nicodemus’ protest in 7:51.) But then, referring to the general crowd that was thronging the temple for the feast, the Pharisees arrogantly pronounce (7:49), “But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.” John wants us to see that it is really the proud Pharisees who are under a curse because the wrath of God abides on all who do not obey the Son (3:36).

By virtue of their position as religious leaders, the Pharisees should have been loving, caring shepherds over God’s people, teaching them His Word, binding up their wounds, and leading them by example in the ways of the Lord (Ezek. 34). But here they show their true colors. They despised the common people as a bunch of ignoramuses. Even when one of their own, Nicodemus, pointed out how they were violating the Law that they proclaimed to know by judging a man without hearing his case, they reviled him as being a Galilean (7:52). These Pharisees lived in Jerusalem, the capital, and they viewed the northern Galileans as a bunch of ignorant hicks from the sticks. They hated Jesus because He repeatedly confronted their hypocrisy and challenged their manmade traditions. He threatened their power and made them look bad in front of the crowds. So their pride blinded them to the truth about Jesus that their own Scriptures testified to (5:39).

We see this same sort of arrogance today among supposed intellectuals who proclaim evolution as the only scientific view and ridicule anyone who believes in the Bible as being a “flat-earth,” uneducated country bumpkin. In the recent debate between Answers in Genesis founder, Ken Ham, and Bill Nye, the so-called “Science Guy,” Nye often disparagingly referred to “your scientists,” as if Ham hired them to support his “unscientific” views! Even though Ken repeatedly pointed out that there are many men with Ph.D’s who believe in the biblical account of creation, but have no connection with Answers in Genesis, Nye persisted in his put-down. But Nye is the true fool, who attributes God’s intricately designed creation to pure chance (Ps. 14:1; Rom. 1:19-22).

C. Nicodemus registered a mild defense of Jesus and disagreement with his fellow leaders, only to be put down by them (7:50-52).

Nicodemus, whom John reminds us had come to Jesus before, who was one of them (a Pharisee), said (7:51), “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” This led to their put-down (7:52), “You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.”

A few commentators argue that we can never be sure that Nicodemus came to genuine faith in Christ, but most hold that his courageous act of helping Joseph of Arimathea bury Jesus (19:38-40) indicates that he did finally believe. But here we cannot be sure where he’s at in the process. He was at least sympathetic towards Jesus and concerned about the irrational hostility that he saw the Jewish leaders taking towards Him. So he registers this mild objection to their murderous intent. But when they vilify him as being a Galilean, he says no more. He could see that they weren’t in the mood for a rational discussion.

But his point was valid: In contradiction of the law that they purported to uphold, they were judging a man without hearing his case (Deut. 1:16-17). Also, their put-down (7:52), “Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee,” was incorrect. Jonah, Nahum, and perhaps other prophets had arisen out of Galilee. But they were so upset with the direction that they saw things going that they were not using sound reason, but just illogical ridicule.

I still remember an incident from when I was in college (back in the Dark Ages!). An agnostic philosophy professor told our class that Jesus never claimed to be God. I raised my hand and said, “What about when He said, ‘I and the Father are one’? Or what about when He told His disciples, ‘He who has seen me has seen the Father’?” But rather than deal honestly with my objection, she ridiculed me by asking, “Which Bible are you reading—the Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible?” The class laughed and my point was brushed aside. Even though this professor taught us the logical fallacy of ad hominem arguments, she used one against me to dodge the uncomfortable truth that Jesus did in fact claim to be God.


I conclude with five practical lessons that we can glean from these divided responses to Jesus’ clear gospel invitation:

1) The clearest gospel presentation in the world will not result in conversions unless the Holy Spirit opens blind eyes.

Jesus here had not said anything gross or controversial, like in chapter 6. True, His claim to be able to cause rivers of living water to flow from those who believed in Him was a claim that only God could make. But it was a wonderful, open invitation to all and was not inherently divisive. But while there was some mild intellectual agreement (“He is the prophet”; “He is the Christ”), some amazement (“Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks”), and even hesitant support (from Nicodemus), there is no clear response of faith in Jesus. There still was confusion, misunderstanding, and even aggressive hostility. Satan blinds people to “the light of the gospel of the glory Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4). So saving faith is always a God-thing. Pray for Him to open blind eyes!

2) The human heart apart from God’s grace is helplessly, hopelessly incapacitated by sin.

Pride is often the main sin that keeps people from Christ, as was true of these Pharisees. Learning and knowledge are good if they point you to the majesty and greatness of God, thereby humbling your heart. But they are dangerous if they lead you to pride over how much you know. Because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, even so-called intellectuals are futile in their speculations and their foolish hearts are darkened (Rom. 1:18, 21). So salvation is always the gift of God’s grace.

3) Expect to be ridiculed when you take a stand for Christ.

You will be accused of being narrow-minded, bigoted, homophobic, anti-intellectual, unscientific, and probably more pejorative labels. If they treated Jesus that way, they will treat His servants the same. Count it as an honor!

4) People are quick to hide behind excuses rather than dig deeper in search of the truth that might threaten their worldview.

People don’t want to face their sin and rebellion against God. So rather than investigating the truth about Jesus, they’d rather hide behind flimsy excuses: “Evolution proves that the Bible is not true.” “The Bible is full of contradictions.” “How can a good God allow innocent children to suffer?” The list goes on! Ask the critic, “If I can give you a reasonable answer to that problem, will you submit your life to Jesus?”

5) Jesus does not allow neutrality: to be neutral is to be against Him.

These people who held to favorable opinions about Jesus (“He is the Prophet; He is the Christ”) were on the side of the truth, but there’s no indication that they were committed to Him. Nicodemus would eventually come out of the closet for Christ. So must you! Jesus warns (Mark 8:38), “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” But He promises the suffering church of Smyrna (and us, Rev. 2:10), “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

Application Questions

  1. When is it both necessary and right to divide from those who profess to be Christians? What biblical guidelines apply?
  2. What is the biblical basis for true Christian unity? Are denominational divisions sinful?
  3. Why is a correct view about Christ necessary, but not sufficient, for eternal life? What else is needed? Give Scriptures.
  4. How can you discern whether a critic’s reasons for not believing are really just excuses? How can you probe deeper?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2014, All Rights Reserved.

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

Related Topics: Character of God, Christology, Discipleship, Soteriology (Salvation)

22. A Eira de Araúna, Cristianismo de Ocasião? (2 Samuel 24)

Related Media

Davi Faz o Censo


Nos primeiros anos da nossa igreja, nós não tínhamos escritório. A razão era porque o prédio da igreja ainda não tinha sido construído (no início, nós nos reuníamos em uma escola primária e depois no Hotel North Dallas). Por esta e outras razões, meu gabinete ficava num conjunto de salas comerciais. Minha sala era pequena, e uma jovem, dona de uma prestadora de serviços de secretaria, ficava numa saleta do lado de fora, onde ganhava a vida datilografando e tirando cópias para quem alugava os escritórios das proximidades. Certo dia, quando eu passava pela sua mesa, ela me parou e disse que um dos outros locatários tinha conversado com ela sobre os seus preços. Ele a convenceu de que, por ter um “ministério cristão”, deveria receber um desconto. Assim, uma vez que dava desconto ao ministério dele, ela achava justo fazer o mesmo com a nossa igreja.

Não me senti muito bem com essa oferta e disse-lhe que gostaria de pensar no assunto e conversar com o conselho da nossa igreja. Nós discutimos e concluímos que ela não tinha nenhuma obrigação ou responsabilidade de beneficiar-nos, reduzindo seu lucro. Por isso, voltei a falar com ela e disse-lhe que iríamos pagar o preço normal, pois não achávamos que ela devesse sacrificar seus ganhos em nosso benefício quando nem mesmo era membro da igreja.

Em nosso texto, Davi tem uma oportunidade de ouro para aquilo que eu chamaria de um “ministério de ocasião”. Deus lhe disse pelo profeta (ou “vidente”) Gade para levantar um altar na eira de Araúna. Para tanto, Davi tinha de comprar essa propriedade. Quando ele foi conversar com Araúna e lhe dizer que precisava do local para erigir um altar e oferecer sacrifícios a Deus, Araúna quis lhe dar a propriedade, os bois que estava utilizando e os trilhos puxados por eles. Em outras palavras, ele se propôs a dar a Davi tudo o que era necessário para oferecer um sacrifício a Deus de graça. Que negócio! Qualquer um poderia pensar que Davi ficaria encantado com a oferta. Ele poderia adorar a Deus sem nenhuma despesa, às custas de Araúna. Mas ele a recusou. Vamos tentar aprender porque e quais as implicações disso para nós.

É evidente que 2 Samuel 24 é o capítulo final de 1 e 2 Samuel (você deve se lembrar de que, originalmente, ambos formavam apenas um livro no Antigo Testamento hebraico). Aqui, o autor está se aproximando do fim. Ele faz suas últimas considerações enquanto atingimos o clímax do livro. Há muitas lições a serem aprendidas nesta passagem; portanto, vamos prestar atenção e esperar que o Espírito de Deus as torne claras para nós, assim como trabalhe em nós e por meio de nós conforme a Sua vontade.

Davi Faz as Coisas do Seu Jeito (24:1-9)2

Tornou a ira do SENHOR a acender-se contra os israelitas, e ele incitou a Davi contra eles, dizendo: Vai, levanta o censo de Israel e de Judá. Disse, pois, o rei a Joabe, comandante do seu exército: Percorre todas as tribos de Israel, de Dã até Berseba, e levanta o censo do povo, para que eu saiba o seu número. Então, disse Joabe ao rei: Ora, multiplique o SENHOR, teu Deus, a este povo cem vezes mais, e o rei, meu senhor, o veja; mas por que tem prazer nisto o rei, meu senhor? Porém a palavra do rei prevaleceu contra Joabe e contra os chefes do exército; saiu, pois, Joabe com os chefes do exército da presença do rei, a levantar o censo do povo de Israel. Tendo eles passado o Jordão, acamparam-se em Aroer, à direita da cidade que está no meio do vale de Gade, e foram a Jazer. Daqui foram a Gileade e chegaram até Cades, na terra dos heteus; seguiram a Dã-Jaã e viraram-se para Sidom; chegaram à fortaleza de Tiro e a todas as cidades dos heveus e dos cananeus, donde saíram para o Neguebe de Judá, a Berseba. Assim, percorreram toda a terra e, ao cabo de nove meses e vinte dias, chegaram a Jerusalém. Deu Joabe ao rei o recenseamento do povo: havia em Israel oitocentos mil homens de guerra, que puxavam da espada; e em Judá eram quinhentos mil.

Por alguma razão não indicada, Deus estava furioso com Israel. O texto literalmente diz que a ira de Deus estava acesa. Deus estava “pegando fogo” por causa do pecado de Israel. A expressão “acendeu-se a ira de Deus” é empregada muitas vezes no Antigo Testamento3. Em todos os casos, foi um pecado muito grave que inflamou a justa ira de Deus. Mais uma vez, Deus está irado com Israel e está determinado a disciplinar esse povo de dura cerviz. Para isso, Ele usa o pecado de Davi. De alguma forma, esse pecado induz tanto à culpa quanto ao castigo do povo. Ao voltar nossa atenção para Davi e seu pecado, não vamos nos esquecer de que o incidente ocorre por causa do pecado de Israel.

Divinamente incitado4, Davi decide contar os soldados de Israel e Judá. Essa contagem não é, necessariamente, errada. Moisés fez o censo dos soldados israelitas ao se preparar para a batalha (Números 1:1-4). Ele também fez a contagem dos coatitas (Números 4:2) e gersonitas para o serviço sacerdotal. Saul contou os israelitas para defender o povo de Jabes-Gileade na luta contra os amonitas (1 Samuel 11:8). Davi contou os homens leais a ele para se defender do ataque de seu filho, Absalão (2 Samuel 18:1)5. Em nenhum desses casos o censo foi errado.

É preciso ressaltar que o censo exigido por Davi nesta passagem não parece uma mera enumeração dos guerreiros israelitas, uma simples contagem de cabeças. O censo levou quase dez meses para ser concluído e, de alguma forma, exigiu a participação dos próprios comandantes militares. Minha interpretação é que, quando os soldados foram contados, eles também foram classificados. Em outras palavras, a contagem dos soldados implicou na sua organização e classificação, a fim de que estivessem prontos para lutar.

No livro de Êxodo vemos uma palavra de advertência sobre recenseamento:

“Quando fizeres recenseamento dos filhos de Israel, cada um deles dará ao SENHOR o resgate de si próprio, quando os contares; para que não haja entre eles praga nenhuma, quando os arrolares. Todo aquele que passar ao arrolamento dará isto: metade de um siclo, segundo o siclo do santuário (este siclo é de vinte geras); a metade de um siclo é a oferta ao SENHOR. Qualquer que entrar no arrolamento, de vinte anos para cima, dará a oferta ao SENHOR. O rico não dará mais de meio siclo, nem o pobre, menos, quando derem a oferta ao SENHOR, para fazerdes expiação pela vossa alma.  Tomarás o dinheiro das expiações dos filhos de Israel e o darás ao serviço da tenda da congregação; e será para memória aos filhos de Israel diante do SENHOR, para fazerdes expiação pela vossa alma”. (Êxodo 30:12-16)

Esse texto deixa claro que o recenseamento militar não era uma coisa muito espiritual. Era um mal que precisava ser expiado e, se não fosse, a nação seria assolada por alguma praga.

Tenho me esforçado para entendê-lo, principalmente para compreender o que há de tão errado com a contagem dos israelitas. Parece não haver nenhuma razão clara para isso. Então, pensei que, se não há nenhuma razão explícita para o desagrado de Deus em relação à atitude de Davi, também não há nenhuma explicação sobre os motivos de Davi. Praticamente em todos os casos em que houve a contagem de algum grupo, a razão era óbvia. Quando os soldados eram recenseados, era em preparação para a guerra. Mas nenhuma guerra é mencionada neste texto ou nos textos próximos. Parece que o único motivo de Davi era satisfazer a sua própria curiosidade e encher-se de orgulho. Ele aparenta estar interessado demais no seu poder, na sua habilidade de lutar. Ele parece ter perdido o senso de dependência de Deus. Talvez ele estivesse muito parecido com o rei Nabucodonosor em Daniel 4, super impressionado consigo mesmo, com seu poder e posição.

Há uma “sensação” nesse texto que me faz lembrar da queda de Adão e Eva em Gênesis 3. O censo de Israel parece ter produzido em Davi um “conhecimento” que ele não podia ter, o conhecimento do seu poder e da sua potência militar (compare com Deuteronômio 17:14-20). Ele queria “ver” a sua força e o seu poder e, embora isso fosse proibido, era o desejo do seu coração.

Mesmo ficando confusos a respeito da “pecaminosidade” da atitude de Davi, não parece que isso era algo difícil de ser reconhecido por aqueles que conduziam as suas forças armadas. Joabe (verso 3 e também 1 Crônicas 21:6) e os chefes do exército (verso 4) se opuseram ao recenseamento dos soldados. No fim, o próprio Davi acabou tomando consciência do seu erro (verso 10), mesmo sem o profeta Gade ter de confrontá-lo ou censurá-lo (como fizera Natã no caso de Bate-Seba e Urias — 2 Samuel 12). O levantamento do censo era errado e, naquele dia,  ninguém parecia ter algum problema em reconhecê-lo.

Joabe protestou o quanto pôde, sem colocar em risco sua segurança e sua posição. Todavia, Davi prevaleceu sobre ele e os outros comandantes, insistindo para que o censo fosse levantado. Com relutância e meio a contragosto (ver 1 Crônicas 21:6), Joabe foi fazer sua abominável tarefa. Foi realmente uma grande empreitada. Eles atravessaram o Jordão, seguiram para o norte, depois para oeste e então para o sul, viajando por toda a nação em sentido anti-horário. Quando a missão foi concluída, os números foram apresentados a Davi. Havia 800.000 valentes em Israel e 500.000 combatentes experientes em Judá (verso 9)6.

Davi Recupera o Senso (24:10-14)

Sentiu Davi bater-lhe o coração, depois de haver recenseado o povo, e disse ao SENHOR: Muito pequei no que fiz; porém, agora, ó SENHOR, peço-te que perdoes a iniquidade do teu servo; porque procedi mui loucamente. Ao levantar-se Davi pela manhã, veio a palavra do SENHOR ao profeta Gade, vidente de Davi, dizendo: Vai e dize a Davi: Assim diz o SENHOR: Três coisas te ofereço; escolhe uma delas, para que ta faça. Veio, pois, Gade a Davi e lho fez saber, dizendo: Queres que sete anos de fome te venham à tua terra? Ou que, por três meses, fujas diante de teus inimigos, e eles te persigam? Ou que, por três dias, haja peste na tua terra? Delibera, agora, e vê que resposta hei de dar ao que me enviou.   Então, disse Davi a Gade: Estou em grande angústia; porém caiamos nas mãos do SENHOR, porque muitas são as suas misericórdias; mas, nas mãos dos homens, não caia eu.

Mesmo sem ter sido repreendido, Davi reconhece ter errado ao fazer o recenseamento dos combatentes da nação. Sentindo o coração bater, ele se arrepende. Ele confessa a enormidade do seu pecado e reconhece a loucura das suas ações (verso 10). Esse sentimento de culpa e a confissão parecem ter ocorrido durante a noite, pois, quando ele acorda, o profeta Gade7 vai ter com ele com uma palavra do Senhor. Não há debate nem discussão sobre se Davi pecou ou não. Isso é certo. A única coisa que precisa ser decidida é qual castigo ele prefere. Ele recebe três opções, todas mencionadas em Deuteronômio 28 como castigo para as falhas de Israel em guardar a aliança com Deus8.

O que difere nas opções de Davi é a extensão da pena: três anos de fome9, três meses de fuga dos inimigos ou três dias de peste enviada por Deus. Davi escolhe a terceira opção, não porque o tempo de sofrimento seja menor, mas porque a penalidade é administrada diretamente por Deus. Davi prefere sofrer na mão do Senhor a sofrer na mão dos homens.

Mas, por quê? Por que Davi prefere sofrer na mão de um Deus santo e justo a sofrer na mão dos homens? Creio que seja porque ele sabe que não vai sofrer a ira de Deus como um descrente, mas como um filho. A ira é um pensamento aterrorizante:

Os reis da terra, os grandes, os comandantes, os ricos, os poderosos e todo escravo e todo livre se esconderam nas cavernas e nos penhascos dos montes e disseram aos montes e aos rochedos: Caí sobre nós e escondei-nos da face daquele que se assenta no trono e da ira do Cordeiro, porque chegou o grande Dia da ira deles; e quem é que pode suster-se? (Apocalipse 6:15-17)

Vi também os mortos, os grandes e os pequenos, postos em pé diante do trono. Então, se abriram livros. Ainda outro livro, o Livro da Vida, foi aberto. E os mortos foram julgados, segundo as suas obras, conforme o que se achava escrito nos livros. Deu o mar os mortos que nele estavam. A morte e o além entregaram os mortos que neles havia. E foram julgados, um por um, segundo as suas obras. Então, a morte e o inferno foram lançados para dentro do lago de fogo. Esta é a segunda morte, o lago de fogo. E, se alguém não foi achado inscrito no Livro da Vida, esse foi lançado para dentro do lago de fogo. (Apocalipse 20:12-15)

Davi não precisa temer a ira de Deus que recai sobre os ímpios. A disciplina que ele vai experimentar não deve e não vai ser fácil, mas é a disciplina de um pai amoroso, disciplina que tem o propósito de aproximá-lo de Deus:

É para disciplina que perseverais (Deus vos trata como filhos); pois que filho há que o pai não corrige?  Mas, se estais sem correção, de que todos se têm tornado participantes, logo, sois bastardos e não filhos. Além disso, tínhamos os nossos pais segundo a carne, que nos corrigiam, e os respeitávamos; não havemos de estar em muito maior submissão ao Pai espiritual e, então, viveremos? Pois eles nos corrigiam por pouco tempo, segundo melhor lhes parecia; Deus, porém, nos disciplina para aproveitamento, a fim de sermos participantes da sua santidade. Toda disciplina, com efeito, no momento não parece ser motivo de alegria, mas de tristeza; ao depois, entretanto, produz fruto pacífico aos que têm sido por ela exercitados, fruto de justiça. Por isso, restabelecei as mãos descaídas e os joelhos trôpegos; e fazei caminhos retos para os pés, para que não se extravie o que é manco; antes, seja curado. (Hebreus 12:7-13)

Por mais paradoxal que possa parecer, o Deus que é santo e justo é também misericordioso e bondoso:

E, passando o SENHOR por diante dele, clamou: SENHOR, SENHOR Deus compassivo, clemente e longânimo e grande em misericórdia e fidelidade; que guarda a misericórdia em mil gerações, que perdoa a iniquidade, a transgressão e o pecado, ainda que não inocenta o culpado, e visita a iniquidade dos pais nos filhos e nos filhos dos filhos, até à terceira e quarta geração! (Êxodo 34:6-7)

É sobre esse tipo de bondade que Davi se lança em nosso texto. Ele sabe que é culpado diante de Deus e merece sofrer em Suas mãos. Mas ele também sabe que a mão de Deus é mais bondosa que a mão dos homens. Pense nisso por um instante. Davi não apenas crê em Deus para a sua salvação e para o livramento dos seus inimigos, mas também para ser corrigido por Ele. Não existe área em nossa vida na qual devamos confiar nos homens e não em Deus.

Calamidade e Compaixão (24:15-17)

Então, enviou o SENHOR a peste a Israel, desde a manhã até ao tempo que determinou; e, de Dã até Berseba, morreram setenta mil homens do povo. Estendendo, pois, o Anjo do SENHOR a mão sobre Jerusalém, para a destruir, arrependeu-se o SENHOR do mal e disse ao Anjo que fazia a destruição entre o povo: Basta, retira a mão. O Anjo estava junto à eira de Araúna, o jebuseu. Vendo Davi ao Anjo que feria o povo, falou ao SENHOR e disse: Eu é que pequei, eu é que procedi perversamente; porém estas ovelhas que fizeram? Seja, pois, a tua mão contra mim e contra a casa de meu pai.

O Senhor estava furioso com Israel e a peste lançada sobre Seu povo era totalmente merecida, não só devido ao pecado de Davi, mas também devido ao pecado de Israel. Que ironia Davi querer saber quantos guerreiros israelitas estavam à sua disposição e, em consequência disso, os números baixarem para apenas 70.000 homens. A praga desce sobre cada parte da nação. O anjo destruidor do Senhor parece quase refazer os passos daqueles que fizeram o recenseamento. Agora, ele se aproxima de Jerusalém, pronto para lançar a calamidade sobre ela também. Davi é capaz de ver o anjo do Senhor, com a espada erguida, prestes a destruir muitas pessoas na cidade. Já fomos informados, no entanto, de que Deus não quer causar mais calamidade. A fé depositada por Davi no julgamento de Deus era bem fundada. Deus derramou a Sua ira sobre o povo, mas agora Ele tem compaixão deles. O anjo do Senhor está parado junto à eira de Araúna, o jebuseu10, quando recebe a ordem para parar.

Davi ainda não conhece o propósito de Deus, por isso, faz uma petição a Ele na tentativa de acabar com a praga. Ele pede que o furor de Deus seja satisfeito com o derramamento da Sua ira sobre ele e a casa de seu pai (não muito diferente do que tinha ocorrido com a casa de Saul no capítulo 21). Mas Deus tem um plano melhor, o qual Ele dirá a Davi pelo profeta Gade nos últimos versos deste livro maravilhoso.

Um Lugar de Sacrifício e Expiação (24:18-25)

Naquele mesmo dia, veio Gade ter com Davi e lhe disse: Sobe, levanta ao SENHOR um altar na eira de Araúna, o jebuseu. Davi subiu segundo a palavra de Gade, como o SENHOR lhe havia ordenado. Olhou Araúna do alto e, vendo que vinham para ele o rei e os seus homens, saiu e se inclinou diante do rei, com o rosto em terra. E perguntou: Por que vem o rei, meu senhor, ao seu servo? Respondeu Davi: Para comprar de ti esta eira, a fim de edificar nela um altar ao SENHOR, para que cesse a praga de sobre o povo. Então, disse Araúna a Davi: Tome e ofereça o rei, meu senhor, o que bem lhe parecer; eis aí os bois para o holocausto, e os trilhos, e a apeiragem dos bois para a lenha. Tudo isto, ó rei, Araúna oferece ao rei; e ajuntou: Que o SENHOR, teu Deus, te seja propício. Porém o rei disse a Araúna: Não, mas eu to comprarei pelo devido preço, porque não oferecerei ao SENHOR, meu Deus, holocaustos que não me custem nada. Assim, Davi comprou a eira e pelos bois pagou cinquenta siclos de prata. Edificou ali Davi ao SENHOR um altar e apresentou holocaustos e ofertas pacíficas. Assim, o SENHOR se tornou favorável para com a terra, e a praga cessou de sobre Israel.

Gade vai ter com Davi com outra solução — sacrifício. Davi devia erigir um altar ao Senhor bem ali na eira de Araúna. Na mesma hora, ao que parece, Davi vai ao lugar onde o anjo do Senhor recebeu a ordem de parar. Araúna e seus quatro filhos estão na eira, debulhando trigo. Ele olha para o alto e vê o anjo do Senhor e Davi e seus servos indo em sua direção (1 Crônicas 21:20-21). Deve ter sido um momento terrível para Araúna (chamado de Ornã em 1 Crônicas).

Ao fazer um retrato mental do nosso texto, lembro-me de um colega de quarto da faculdade. Ele tinha um Ford 1953 que, literalmente, estava caindo aos pedaços. Na mesma época, um outro amigo tinha uma concessionária de carros novos, mas que também vendia carros usados. Jerry, o meu amigo, dirigiu seu Ford 53 até Auburn, Washington, para ver um Chevrolet 1959. Ele ficou interessado, mas não queria dar na vista. Após o vendedor cotar seu “melhor preço” (o qual incluía o Ford 53 como parte da transação), Jerry disse que ia pensar no assunto e voltaria depois. Ele entrou no Ford e deu a partida; nada. Com toda calma, ele saiu do carro, foi até o vendedor e lhe disse: — Fico com ele. — Não era hora pra barganhar. Jerry não tinha saída.

Araúna também não estava em posição de fazer um grande negócio. Ali estava o anjo do Senhor, ainda à vista, e Davi chegando com uma porção de servos. Araúna era um estrangeiro que teve a sorte de continuar vivo, sem falar em ter uma propriedade tão perto de Davi e da cidade de Jerusalém. Ele era dono de um excelente pedaço de terra e Davi acabara de saber que devia possuí-la. Davi pediu que ele desse seu preço. Araúna achou que era uma boa hora para lhe fazer uma oferta irrecusável. Ele queria doar não somente a terra, mas também os bois, os trilhos e a apeiragem dos bois, a fim de que Davi pudesse oferecer o sacrifício ao Senhor.

Para mim, a oferta teria sido tentadora. Ali estava a oportunidade de ter um ministério de “ocasião” — um ministério excelente com ótimo custo-benefício (zero). Araúna deve ter ficado em choque com a resposta de Davi. Davi não quis aceitar a generosa doação de um excelente pedaço de terra. Se ele tivesse aceitado, o sacrifício não teria lhe custado um tostão. Mas como se pode oferecer “sacrifício” sem fazer algum sacrifício? Davi comprou a terra (não tenho certeza se ele também comprou os bois e os trilhos) pelo preço integral, e em seguida ofereceu o sacrifício. Quando o sacrifício foi feito, o Senhor ouviu as súplicas do Seu povo e cessou a praga.


Este capítulo é parte da conclusão dos livros de 1 e 2 Samuel. Podemos dizer que é a conclusão da conclusão. Em certo sentido, o livro termina no capítulo 20. Os capítulos 21 a 24 servem como epílogo do livro, esclarecendo os pontos mais importantes que o autor deseja que compreendamos. A melhor maneira de entender esse epílogo e sua mensagem talvez seja com um gráfico, como mostrado a seguir.

A parte central do epílogo é composta pelos dois salmos de Davi, sendo que o primeiro evoca seus livramentos das mãos de Saul e seus inimigos e depois seu governo como rei, enquanto o segundo rememora seu reinado diante da proximidade do momento da sua partida (22:1-51; 23:1-7). O tema dos dois cânticos é “Deus é a minha salvação”. A despeito dos grandes perigos e de todas as adversidades que lhe sobrevieram, Deus o livrou da morte e cumpriu a promessa de que ele seria rei de Israel. Além disso, Davi vê Deus como seu futuro libertador, quando Ele enviar o grande rei, o Messias, para realizar sua plena e derradeira salvação.

O segundo e quinto segmentos do epílogo têm a ver com os “valentes” de Davi. No capítulo 21, de 15 a 22, Davi já perdeu o vigor e um descendente de Golias quase o domina na batalha. Abisai sai em seu socorro e mata o gigante Isbi-Benobe. Mais três gigantes são mencionados e, em cada caso, um dos valentes de Davi mata o “Golias” (na verdade, descendente de Golias). No capítulo 23, de 8 a 39, dois grupos distintos de valentes são relacionados: os “três” e os “trinta”. Esses homens confiaram em Deus e foram providenciais nas vitórias impressionantes sobre os inimigos de Israel, apesar das chances incríveis contra eles. Foi por meio deles que Deus muitas vezes deu a vitória a Davi e a Israel.

O primeiro e o último segmentos do epílogo têm a ver com os pecados dos dois primeiros reis de Israel. No capítulo 21, de 1 a 14, o pecado cometido por Saul ao tentar aniquilar os gibeonitas foi expiado, pois aqueles eram protegidos por uma aliança feita com os israelitas. Sete dos “filhos” de Saul foram executados pelos gibeonitas e só então a fome foi removida em resposta às súplicas do povo de Deus. No capítulo 24, de 1 a 25 (nosso texto), vemos o pecado de Davi, que também levou a nação a estar sob a disciplina divina. Só depois da aquisição da eira de Araúna, da construção do altar e da oferta de sacrifícios, Deus cessou a praga lançada sobre Israel devido aos seus pecados e ao pecado de Davi.

Esses três pares de parágrafos servem como a conclusão do livro e ressaltam algumas lições muito importantes que o autor deseja deixar conosco. Permitam-me resumi-las.

Primeiro, mais uma vez somos relembrados da fidelidade de Deus como Salvador do Seu povo. O livro de 1 Samuel começou com o sofrimento de Ana, que não podia ter filhos. Deus a salvou da esterilidade e lhe deu não apenas Samuel, mas também outros cinco filhos. O cântico de Ana é um “cântico de salvação” (1 Samuel 2). Começando por Moisés e Arão, e durante todo o período dos juízes, Deus salvou o Seu povo quando eles clamaram a Ele (1 Samuel 12:6-11). Depois Deus salvou Israel por intermédio de Saul e Davi, quando eles conduziram a nação na guerra contra os inimigos, principalmente contra os filisteus. Deus serviu como Salvador de Davi muitas e muitas vezes durante a sua vida, e Davi espera o “filho de Davi” como seu derradeiro Salvador. Samuel tem muito a nos dizer sobre a fidelidade de Deus como Salvador do Seu povo, mesmo quando esse povo falha. Não é de admirar que Davi resuma sua vida louvando a Deus como sua fortaleza e salvação.

Segundo, vemos que Deus, embora seja um Salvador fiel, frequentemente usa homens de fé e coragem. Davi foi preparado para reinar em Israel quando pastoreava o pequeno rebanho de ovelhas de seu pai. Nessa época, ele aprendeu a confiar em Deus e a agir com coragem para salvar seu rebanho dos ursos e leões. Sua carreira militar teve início com o confronto com Golias no campo de batalha, quando Davi estava em incrível desvantagem. Enquanto Saul não inspirava tal coragem em seus homens, a coragem de Davi inspirou muitos outros soldados a lutar com fé e ousadia, mesmo quando todas as chances estavam contra eles. Esses homens tornaram possível que Davi pudesse parar de lutar quando suas forças começaram a falhar. Mesmo sendo Deus um Salvador fiel, muitas vezes Ele livrou Israel por meio de homens de fé e coragem, os quais confiaram nEle ao lutar contra Seus inimigos. A soberania de Deus na salvação dos homens não os impediu de ter fé e iniciativa; ela os inspirou.

Terceiro, vemos que, embora o homem seja pecaminoso, seu pecado nunca impede Deus de realizar a Sua obra salvífica. Se Davi é o melhor exemplo oferecido pela história a nós, é óbvio que ele não é o Salvador da humanidade. A salvação prometida por Deus através da sua descendência teria de vir por intermédio de alguém maior do que ele. Davi pecou, não há dúvida quanto a isso. Seus pecados podem ter sido uma exceção, mas com certeza o desqualificaram para ser o Messias de Israel. O mais incrível em 1 e 2 Samuel é que, embora Davi tenha pecado e muitos tenham sofrido por causa disso, Deus soberanamente escolheu derramar grandes bênçãos por meio de seus erros. Duas das maiores bênçãos de Israel ocorreram em consequência dos maiores pecados de Davi. Seu pecado com Bate-Seba resultou na linhagem messiânica por meio dela e no casamento que gerou o próximo rei de Israel — Salomão. O pecado referente ao recenseamento dos guerreiros israelitas resultou na aquisição da eira de Araúna, local onde devia ser construído o templo por Salomão. A salvação dos gentios, em parte, foi devido à rejeição de Jesus Cristo como Messias pelos judeus (ver Romanos 11). O nosso pecado, embora ofenda um Deus justo, não O impede de agir. Deus pode até usar o nosso pecado para realizar Seus propósitos e cumprir Suas promessas. E não é só isso, Ele até mesmo utiliza Satanás para alcançar Seus objetivos (1 Crônicas 21:1 e ss).

Quarto, vemos por esse epílogo que nenhum rei humano jamais seria capaz de cumprir a promessa de salvação feita por Deus. Era preciso vir alguém maior do que Davi. Em 1 Samuel 8, Israel rejeitou a Deus como seu rei ao exigir um rei para “salvá-los” de seus inimigos. Mas Deus nunca realmente abdicou do Seu lugar como rei de Israel, como Salvador de Israel. Através da linhagem de Davi, um dia Ele iria providenciar um rei para o Seu povo, O qual os salvaria dos seus pecados. Ele seria mais do que Davi, mais do que um homem, e seria alguém sem pecado. Ele seria o Senhor Jesus Cristo, O qual viria como “O Cordeiro de Deus que tira o pecado do mundo” (João 1:29). Ele viveria uma vida sem pecado e teria uma morte sacrificial em lugar do pecador. Ele seria “livrado da morte” por  Deus Pai ao ser ressuscitado dentre os mortos. Ele voltaria como Rei de Israel, triunfante sobre os Seus inimigos. Samuel simplesmente aguça o nosso apetite quanto ao futuro “Rei”, que viria para salvar o Seu povo dos seus pecados.

Ao deixarmos o livro de Samuel, nossos olhos estão fixos na pessoa de Jesus Cristo, que haveria de vir como o “Filho de Davi” para salvar o Seu povo, e que Se “assentaria no trono de seu pai, Davi”. Do mesmo modo, nossos olhos estão fixos em um lugar, um local plano no topo de uma montanha perto de Jerusalém. Quando vejo o anjo do Senhor parado ali, com o braço erguido, prestes a atingir Jerusalém com sua espada, não posso deixar de me lembrar de Abraão, o qual também levantou a mão, pronto para cravar a faca em seu amado filho, Isaque. Aconteceu exatamente no mesmo lugar, o monte Moriá. E, nas duas vezes, Deus impediu a mão de tirar a vida, pois Ele tinha um sacrifício muito melhor, Um que tiraria o pecado do mundo.

Sim, o templo foi construído exatamente no mesmo lugar, no monte Moriá. E foi lá que foram oferecidos os sacrifícios que fizeram parar o julgamento da mão de Deus. Mas o melhor de tudo estava num monte não muito longe dali, o monte Calvário, onde a mão de Deus desceu sobre o Seu próprio Filho amado e, devido a esse sacrifício, os homens não precisam sofrer a ira eterna de Deus por causa dos seus pecados. É pela morte sacrificial de Jesus na cruz, e Sua ressurreição dentre os mortos — salvo pelo Pai — que a salvação eterna é oferecida a nós. Você já tomou posse desse presente? Já teve um encontro com Deus como seu Salvador, seu Libertador, sua Fortaleza? Se não, eu lhe digo para aceitá-lo agora mesmo.

Nosso texto tem muitas outras lições a nos ensinar, mas só vou mencionar mais algumas para sua reflexão. É bom tomarmos cuidado para não nos orgulhar daquilo que Deus realizada em nós e por meio de nós. Parece que uma parte do problema de Davi nesta passagem é a questão do orgulho, orgulho pelo que ele tinha feito, não pelo que Ele (Deus) tinha feito. Não vamos tentar medir o nosso sucesso ou a nossa santidade em termos quantitativos. Aos olhos de Deus, o sucesso raramente é visto dessa forma. Precisamos saber também que podemos ser tentados (pelo orgulho) a cair naquelas áreas onde mais nos sentimos seguros.

Não vamos descansar nas glórias passadas, rememorando aquilo que fizemos, mas sigamos em frente para aquilo que Deus ainda tem a realizar em nós e por meio de nós, para Sua glória e louvor (ver Filipenses 3).

Finalmente, vamos aprender com Davi que não existe adoração sem sacrifício. É claro que, em última análise, a nossa adoração é fundamentada no sacrifício de nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Contudo, há um sentido também em que o nosso culto deve ser prestado por meio do nosso sacrifício pessoal.

Rogo-vos, pois, irmãos, pelas misericórdias de Deus, que apresenteis o vosso corpo por sacrifício vivo, santo e agradável a Deus, que é o vosso culto racional. E não vos conformeis com este século, mas transformai-vos pela renovação da vossa mente, para que experimenteis qual seja a boa, agradável e perfeita vontade de Deus. Porque, pela graça que me foi dada, digo a cada um dentre vós que não pense de si mesmo além do que convém; antes, pense com moderação, segundo a medida da fé que Deus repartiu a cada um. Porque assim como num só corpo temos muitos membros, mas nem todos os membros têm a mesma função, assim também nós, conquanto muitos, somos um só corpo em Cristo e membros uns dos outros, tendo, porém, diferentes dons segundo a graça que nos foi dada: se profecia, seja segundo a proporção da fé; se ministério, dediquemo-nos ao ministério; ou o que ensina esmere-se no fazê-lo; ou o que exorta faça-o com dedicação; o que contribui, com liberalidade; o que preside, com diligência; quem exerce misericórdia, com alegria. (Romanos 8:1-12)

Não vos deixeis envolver por doutrinas várias e estranhas, porquanto o que vale é estar o coração confirmado com graça e não com alimentos, pois nunca tiveram proveito os que com isto se preocuparam. Possuímos um altar do qual não têm direito de comer os que ministram no tabernáculo.  Pois aqueles animais cujo sangue é trazido para dentro do Santo dos Santos, pelo sumo sacerdote, como oblação pelo pecado, têm o corpo queimado fora do acampamento. Por isso, foi que também Jesus, para santificar o povo, pelo seu próprio sangue, sofreu fora da porta. Saiamos, pois, a ele, fora do arraial, levando o seu vitupério. Na verdade, não temos aqui cidade permanente, mas buscamos a que há de vir. Por meio de Jesus, pois, ofereçamos a Deus, sempre, sacrifício de louvor, que é o fruto de lábios que confessam o seu nome. Não negligencieis, igualmente, a prática do bem e a mútua cooperação; pois, com tais sacrifícios, Deus se compraz. Obedecei aos vossos guias e sede submissos para com eles; pois velam por vossa alma, como quem deve prestar contas, para que façam isto com alegria e não gemendo; porque isto não aproveita a vós outros. (Hebreus 13:9-17)

Praticamente em todas as igrejas evangélicas que conheço (sem mencionar as demais), há uma minoria de crentes fiéis que trabalha e se doa com sacrifício, a qual sustenta os muitos que pouco ou nada fazem. Há quem nunca dê aula, nunca ajude ou nunca faça alguma coisa. Estes são os cristãos “oportunistas”, que procuram o máximo benefício pelo menor custo. Eu lhe digo que a sua adoração vale muito pouco se você não sacrifica seu tempo, sua energia e seu dinheiro.

Não digo isso para você se sentir culpado, embora deva se sentir assim e se arrepender se for um crente preguiçoso e negligente. Digo-o para o seu próprio bem. Se você não está fazendo nenhum sacrifício, sua adoração praticamente não vale nada. Se quer prestar um culto que valha a pena, não é frequentando uma igreja com uma equipe profissional de líderes e de louvor, é tomando a cruz que Deus lhe deu e se sacrificando a Seu serviço. Não estou zangado quando digo isso, mas tenho pena daqueles cuja adoração não lhes custa nada. Deixe-me terminar com as palavras da boca dAquele que é padrão para todos os sacrifícios:

Pois o próprio Filho do Homem não veio para ser servido, mas para servir e dar a sua vida em resgate por muitos. (Marcos 10:45)

Cingido esteja o vosso corpo, e acesas, as vossas candeias. Sede vós semelhantes a homens que esperam pelo seu senhor, ao voltar ele das festas de casamento; para que, quando vier e bater à porta, logo lha abram. Bem-aventurados aqueles servos a quem o senhor, quando vier, os encontre vigilantes; em verdade vos afirmo que ele há de cingir-se, dar-lhes lugar à mesa e, aproximando-se, os servirá.  Quer ele venha na segunda vigília, quer na terceira, bem-aventurados serão eles, se assim os achar.  Sabei, porém, isto: se o pai de família soubesse a que hora havia de vir o ladrão, [vigiaria e] não deixaria arrombar a sua casa. Ficai também vós apercebidos, porque, à hora em que não cuidais, o Filho do Homem virá. Então, Pedro perguntou: Senhor, proferes esta parábola para nós ou também para todos?  Disse o Senhor: Quem é, pois, o mordomo fiel e prudente, a quem o senhor confiará os seus conservos para dar-lhes o sustento a seu tempo? Bem-aventurado aquele servo a quem seu senhor, quando vier, achar fazendo assim. Verdadeiramente, vos digo que lhe confiará todos os seus bens. (Lucas 12:35-44)

Tradução: Mariza Regina de Souza

1 NT: O título dado pelo autor — Neiman Marcus Militar, Christianity Kmart? — é praticamente intraduzível para o português, uma vez que Neiman Marcus é uma luxuosa loja de departamentos norte-americana e kmart se refere a uma grande cadeia de lojas de descontos. O sentido geral do título é que a oferta feita por Araúna a Davi seria um “negócio de ocasião, uma oferta irrecusável”, contrastando o alto nível daquilo que é oferecido com uma oferta atraente.

2 O leitor deve verificar o texto paralelo de 2 Crônicas 21. Há uma porção de diferenças entre os dois textos. Elas até poderiam ser chamadas de contradições. Existe solução e explicação para cada uma delas, mas não vou me preocupar com isso nesta lição.

3 Essa expressão é usada com muita frequência na Bíblia e, quando aparece, é para descrever a ira de Deus devido a algum pecado muito grave. Veja, por exemplo, Êxodo 4:14, Números 12:9, Deuteronômio 29:27, Josué 7:1, Juízes 2:14, 20, 10:7, 2 Samuel 6:7, 2 Crônicas 25:15.

4 Poderíamos entrar numa longa discussão neste ponto, o que tentarei evitar. Aparentemente, poderíamos pensar que Deus fez Davi pecar fazendo o censo dos israelitas. Sabemos que Deus não tenta ninguém (Tiago 1:13-17), embora, com certeza, Ele nos prove (Deuteronômio 8:2). No entanto, o autor do texto quer que saibamos que Deus está por trás do pecado de Davi, no sentido de que isso realmente iria acontecer (como no caso da traição de Judas a nosso Senhor). Assim como Deus disse a Moisés que Ele iria endurecer o coração de faraó (Êxodo 4:21), a fim de poder usar sua rebelião para glorificar a Si mesmo (ver Romanos 9:14-18), Moisés também disse que faraó endureceu o seu próprio coração (Êxodo 8:32). O recenseamento feito por Davi fazia parte do propósito de Deus. Isso ia realmente acontecer, mas Deus não o forçou a pecar. Ele deu a Davi a oportunidade e a liberdade de fazer a escolha pecaminosa que Ele iria utilizar em Seu próprio intento (comparece com Gênesis 50:20).

5 Ver também 1 Reis 20:15, 26-27; 2 Reis 3:6; 2 Crônicas 25:5.

6 Como apontado praticamente por todos os estudiosos, esses números não batem exatamente com os números informados em 1 Crônicas 21. Existem várias explicações, mas, no final das contas, devemos confiar em Deus e esperar até a eternidade (com toda probabilidade) por uma solução satisfatória. Uma coisa em que tanto Samuel quanto Crônicas concordam é que, após o levantamento do censo, havia menos guerreiros do que antes, devido ao derramamento do juízo de Deus.

7 Repare que Gade também é chamado de “vidente”, o nome anterior para profeta (ver 1 Samuel 9:9).

8 Para a fome, ver Deuteronômio 28:48, 32:24; para fugir dos inimigos, ver Levítico 26:17, 36. As pragas eram consequência da quebra da aliança com Deus (Deuteronômio 28:21, cf. 1 Reis 8:31), mas estavam especialmente relacionadas a levantar o censo sem fazer expiação (Êxodo 30:12-16).

9 O texto hebraico de 2 Samuel 24:13 diz “sete anos de fome”, mas a tradução grega do texto (a Septuaginta) e o texto paralelo de 1 Crônicas 21:12 dizem “três anos de fome”. Sou mais propenso a aceitar a opção “três anos”, principalmente porque parece haver uma certa ênfase no número três: três anos de fome, três meses de derrota nas mãos do inimigo, três dias de peste enviada por Deus.

10 É fácil dizer que Araúna não era judeu, mas gentio. Há quem pense que, na verdade, ele era um antigo rei dos jebuseus, o qual, graciosamente, foi deixado com vida. É bem possível que isso tenha ocorrido por ele ter tido fé no Deus de Israel. Já que ele era estrangeiro, poderia vender sua propriedade, pois não era sua “herança”.

Rest In Troublesome Times

Related Media

When we think of the word “rest,” many different ideas come to mind such as: peace, quietness, relaxation, ease, or a good night’s rest (i.e., sleep). Many consider the thought of death as an everlasting rest from the pressures of this life. For example, Poe writes:

Lo! Death has reared himself a throne
In a strange city, lying alone
Far down within the dim West,
Where the good and the bad and the worst and the best
Have gone to their eternal rest.1

Many of these are reflected in the Bible as well. Although several Hebrew words convey the idea of rest, “rest” is most commonly associated with words from the Hebrew root nwḥ. Even here “rest” is used in many varied contexts. Although the commonly held view of death as the true place of rest is attested (e.g., Job 3:17), of distinct interest are those that are used in connection with God’s promises concerning “rest” for his people, which include: “a place to land on, a place of serenity, and cessation from effort” as well as “safety and security.” 2

Scriptural Examples of Rest

David’s rehearsal of the God’s instructions to him concerning Solomon is told in 1 Chronicles 22. Here we learn that although David had a strong desire to build a temple for the Lord, the Lord did not permit him to do so (I Chron. 22: 5-8). Rather, the Lord said, “Look, you will have a son, who will be a peaceful man. I will give him rest from his enemies on every side. Indeed, Solomon will be his name; I will give Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He will build a temple to honor me” (1 Chron. 22:9-10).3 Not David, the man of many wars, but his son Solomon, whose very name conveys the thought of peace (see NET text note), would have this privilege. As Selman remarks,

David’s disqualification was not because of sin, for he had fought ‘before me’ (v. 8). It was God who had promised him military victory (14:10, 14; 17:11) and enabled him to achieve it (18:6, 13; 19:13)… the main thrust is probably to underline the contrast with Solomon’s reign as one of peace and rest.4

Here, then, we see one use of the thought of “rest”—that of peace and security.

Indeed, Solomon’s long reign of 40 years was largely characterized as one of peace, security, and prosperity (cf. 1 Kings 8:56). Nevertheless, his many alliances with foreign nations sealed by marriage arrangements caused Solomon’s a great spiritual decline. As a man endowed with God’s wisdom he should have remembered and followed the Lord’s specific instruction for kings: “He must not marry many wives lest his affections turn aside” (Deut. 17:17). Moreover, Solomon’s multiple marriages contributed not only to internal strife engendered by political rivals in his later years but after his death to the actual division of his kingdom.5 As Kaiser points out,

At the root of his problems was his multiple marriage alliances with other nations, alliances that required him to provide for their foreign pantheons right in the heart of the land to pacify his wives….The seeds of defection from the union had been well established in               his own day. Though he would die before the fruit of some of his own disastrous policies would come to fruition, the division of the kingdom was now beyond repair or remediation. 6

Peaceful conditions and prosperity can deteriorate rapidly when one abandons the priority of God to live a self-centered life.

This was a lesson that God’s people Israel learned during the days of their wilderness experience after their exodus from Egypt. As the psalmist records citing God’s feelings toward his all-too-often disobedient people,

For forty years I was continually disgusted with that generation,
and I said, “These people desire to go astray;
they do not obey my commands.”
So I made a vow in my anger,
“They will never enter into my resting place I had set aside for them.” (Ps. 95:10-11)

Rather than entering into the land, which the Lord had promised to the heirs of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and experiencing that “rest,” that generation had forfeited God’s blessings. In this regard it is tragic that this should be the case, for God had assured Moses that the Lord’s presence would be with him and an assumedly faithful Israel to guide them into the land of promise and rest: “My presence will go with you and I will give you rest” (Exod. 33:14). As Stuart explains, this was “a full restoration of the original idea of God’s promise to bring the people out of Egypt and into the promised land personally as stated in 3:8, 12, 17).”7 Nevertheless, despite God’s assurances and all that he had done for them, their hearts and lives had become self-centered and callous toward him. As Leupold remarks, “There is no parallel on record when God decreed the death of a whole generation as He did in connection with the stubborn sin of Israel.”8 Citing this incident, the author of the book of Hebrews appropriately admonishes his readers, “See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has an evil, unbelieving heart that forsakes the living God” (Heb. 3:12).

The events in Israel’s journey in the wilderness should have served as a spiritual lesson for subsequent generations of Israelites. Moreover, God renewed the assurance of his presence to his people as they were about to cross the Jordan River to enter the land of promise and rest. “When you do go across the Jordan River and settle in the land he is granting you as an inheritance and you find relief (Heb., He gives you rest) from all the enemies who surround you, you will live in safety” (Deut. 12:10). Yet as time went on and generation followed generation, God’s people were often far from being faithful to the Lord and his standards. Thus it is not totally surprising that even the God-blessed Solomon would become spiritually unfaithful and his kingdom divided or that the people of the people of divided Israel would eventually prove so spiritually corrupt that God would judge them. They would be defeated by enemies and taken into captivity:

In the past he said to them,
“This is where security can be found.

This is where rest can be found.”
But they refused to listen.
So the Lord’s word to them will sound like
meaningless gibberish, senseless babbling,
a syllable here, a syllable there.
As a result they will fall on their backsides when they try to walk,
and be injured, ensnared, and captured. (Isa. 28:12-13).

As Oswalt observes, “Something within the human heart wants to find its security in its own devices over which it has control. So they would not listen. … Since they would not listen to the gentle words of God, but mocked them, the people of Samaria were doomed to learn the effects of sin at the hands of a much harder teacher—experience.”9 Not only would the northern kingdom of Israel fall to Assyria in 722 B.C. but later the southern kingdom of Judah would be defeated and taken into exile by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.

The record of the people of Israel’s preoccupation with their own way instead of being faithful to the Lord should stand as a spiritual lesson for believers of all times and nations. As George Herbert wrote, rather than living for self,

Teach me, my God and King,
In all things Thee to see,
And what I do in anything
To do it as for Thee.10

So it is that when believers and nations live in faithfulness to the Lord, not self, they may ask the Lord for forgiveness, relief, and rest. So it would prove even for all of the judged, exiled people of the divided kingdom, Judah and Israel. There was yet hope for a repentant, faithful people. The Lord could and would have compassion on them, judge their captors, arrogant Babylon and other wicked nations, and restore them to their land (Isa. 14:1-2). He would thereby give “relief (Heb., rest) from your suffering and anxiety, and from the hard labor which you were made to perform” (Isa. 14:3).

Relief from earth’s toils, trials, and tribulation did not cease with the experience of God’s people Israel. As we shall see below, true rest remained and is still to be found in the Lord. Therefore, as John Haynes Holmes expresses it, believers may seek true relief and rest:

O God, whose smile is in the sky,
Once more from earth’s tumultuous strife,
We gladly turn to Thee.

We come as those with toil far spent
Who crave Thy rest and peace,
And from the care and fret of life
Would find in Thee release.11

Indeed, the Lord is ever available for faithful believers who call upon him in sincerity for the relief that only he can provide. As David declares in the thirty-seventh Psalm, a consistent, total, whole-soul commitment to the Lord (intellect emotions, and will) can enable a person to “Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him” (v.7; NASB, NKJV). Psalm 37 is one of several alphabetic acrostic psalms in which each letter of the Hebrew alphabet successively introduces a section of the psalm. In this psalm two couplets are devoted to each letter. In verses 3-7, which is the focus of our attention, the second (vv.3-4), third (vv. 5-6), and fourth (v. 7) Hebrew letters are used. Alphabetic acrostics thus display literary artistry. Yet that artistry is devoted to emphasizing solid biblical teaching, while making memorization all the more easy.

David begins his psalm (vv1-2) with a statement that provides a rather good summation of what is to be emphasized and learned from what will be presented in the psalm as a whole. Believers are encouraged not to be discouraged by or envious of the wicked regardless of their success or prosperity. For their coming adversity is certain. Rather, believers should first of all,

Trust in the Lord and do what is right!
Settle in the land and maintain your integrity! (v.3)

The phrase “trust in” carries with it the thought of having full confidence in the Lord. It indicates that a person may know for certain that he can rely on God completely. Other notable examples include (but are not limited to) Psalms 32:10; 112:7; and Jeremiah 17:7 where there is “a strong interest in Wisdom.… The recurring admonition, Trust in the Lord!” can be understood in the light of this. It is especially impressive in antithetical statement in Prov. 3:5: “Trust in Yahweh with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.”12 Although a synonym is used to express Abraham’s faith (Heb. ’mn, “believe, put trust in”), it likewise expresses the thought of full, knowledgeable faith accompanied by a favorable spiritual evaluation: “Abraham believed the LORD, and the LORD considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty (Gen. 15:6). Thus one’s faith in the Lord should be so deeply embedded in his heart and mind that whatever he does bears witness to his integrity and right standing before the Lord.

Moreover, when a person lives in this way, he experiences true joy of living:

Take delight in the LORD
and He will give you your heart’s desires. (Psalm 37:4, HCSB).

One who takes his delight in the Lord, rather than self, will realize his desires because that which he now desires is in accordance with the Lord’s desires for him. As Delitzsch remarks, “He who, entirely severed from the creature, finds his highest delight in God, cannot desire anything that is at enmity with God, but he can also desire nothing that God, with whose will his own is thoroughly blended in love, would refuse him.”13 The believer’s trust is also underscored in a total commitment of his will to the Lord:

Commit your way to the LORD;
trust in Him and he will act,
making your righteousness shine like the dawn,
your justice like the noonday. (vv. 5-6, HCSB)

In context, this call for commitment is more literally expressed as to “’roll away’ or ‘cast’ on the Lord one’s feelings of anger, resentment, and jealousy (cf. 55:22; Pr 16:3; 1 Pe 5:7). “The ‘way’ pertains to one’s whole life, including negative feelings, nagging questions, and concerns of justice. God expects His children to be children and to put themselves entirely under His fatherly love.”14 Such a commitment of the will to the God of righteousness and justice (cf. Deut. 32:4) will be rewarded by the Lord’s vindicating the integrity of the believer’s life.

What has been presented in these verses is a charge to exercise genuine faith. Faith may be defined as a whole-soul commitment to God, intellect, emotions, and will, resting in the sufficiency of the evidence. True faith involves firm belief and trust in the Lord (intellect), distinctly genuine delight and joy in him above all (emotions), and a total commitment to him and adherence to the revealed standards in the Word of God (will). Rather than an “easy believism,” true faith involves an exercise of the total person.

When real faith resides in an individual, it enables the believer to “rest in the LORD and wait patiently for Him” (v. 7; NASB; NKJV). Where such strong faith and trust exist there is a proper perspective on the issues of life. Rather than envying the seeming successes and state of the wicked or worrying needlessly concerning various matters, the believer can be assured that the Lord’s way is the best way. God’s plans will ultimately succeed and the believer’s faith will be fully rewarded.

Rest in the Midst of Trials and Troubles

As we have noted above, it is crucial for a believer to be faithful to the Lord and to his standards so as to live for the Lord, not self. When he does so, rest is available even in the most difficult circumstances. The need for absolute trust and for resting in the sufficiency of God is exemplified in Psalm 77 in which the psalmist points to a crisis in his life:

I will cry (or I cried out, NIV) out to God and call for help!
I will cry out (or I cried out, NIV) to God and he will pay attention to me.
In my time of trouble I sought the Lord
I kept my hand raised in prayer throughout the night.
I refused to be comforted. (Ps. 77:1-2)

Despite his normal practice of calling on God in times of trouble (I cry aloud, HCSB), the psalmist felt that the Lord was not responding to his plea. It was as though God was not responding to his plea. He wondered whether God had abandoned him to his weakness and misery. He felt quite alone in his struggle. One is reminded of the old spiritual, which said,

Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen.
Nobody knows my sorrow.

But then the psalmist said to himself:

I will remember God while I groan;
I will think about him while my strength leaves me.

The Hebrew word translated, “groan” in most versions gives some indication of his troubled condition. 15 The Hebrew root underlying this verb is a deeply descriptive one. It‘s understanding is to be sought in the inner groaning of the soul that often gives rise to excited, perhaps indistinct, sounds of the lips. A sense of confused sound or movement appears to be present wherever the root occurs. Interestingly enough, it can be used to depict the noise made by a bear (Isa. 59:11) or a dog (Ps. 59:6, 14) or the plaintiff mourning of a flitting dove (Ezek. 7:16). It also appears in connection with the roar of the sea (Isa. 51:15) and the din of the city (Isa. 22:2).

This Hebrew root was also used to describe the soliloquy of the soul (Ps.. 42 :5,11; 43:5). Here David speaks of the severe fret of soul that he was experiencing (see NET text note) and the sense of loneliness and despair he was feeling. Even here in his inner questionings, musings, and thoughts he finds hope for his condition:

Why are you depressed, O my soul?
Wait for God!
For I will again give thanks to my God
for his saving intervention. (Ps. 43:5)

This latter idea is in view in Psalm 77. The desperate plight of the psalmist had given rise to an inner anguish that prevented his speaking (v. 4). Overwhelmed by adverse circumstances, he could only groan inaudibly (v. 3) and complain (cf. KJV; lit. “meditate):

I said, I will remember God while I groan;
I will think about him while my strength leaves me. (NET)

As he thought further about the good life he had once enjoyed with the Lord, he struggled to reconcile that with what he was going through now (vv.5-6). Comfortless, his heart was wacked by restlessness and haunting doubt. Could God have cast him off forever? (v.7). Even worse, could it be that God has now retracted or nullified his covenantal favor toward his people? Is God so angry with his people that he has ceased being the merciful and forgiving father of old? (vv.8-9). The psalmist was so upset at this that he said to himself, “I am sickened by the thought that the sovereign one might become inactive” (v.10). At this prospect he was thoroughly perplexed in his soul and in desperate need of divine consolation. As Leupold suggests it appeared to him that,

God is not what he used to be. What was true in regard to Him in the past certainly does not seem to be so now. More particularly, it appears that God either has not the strength that is able to help, or else He does not care to use it if He has it. To be in such a situation brings with it a most anguishing dilemma. The very ground is gone from under a man’s feet.16             

Bearing these truths in mind, it is not surprising to read of the psalmist’s change of direction in his thinking. Indeed, his notion that the Sovereign One (Heb. “Most High”) could become inactive (v.10) moves the psalmist to consider the wondrous and marvelous things that God has done. His description is painted in four-fold fashion in reflecting in his mind who the Lord is and what he has done (vv.11-14). God’s work is described as: “amazing things, deeds, extraordinary deeds, and amazing things.” In the Hebrew text this is expressed in two pairs of synonyms, one pair for “amazing things” and one pair for “deeds.” In each set of synonyms there are different words but words that sound very much alike. The effect is both so vivid and stimulating that the palmist can only exclaim, “What god can compare to our great God?” (cf. Isa. 40:25). The answer to the implied question is of course, “None at all!” Indeed, there is no other God than Yahweh (V.11, Heb., “Yah”).

Moreover, he is a God of essential holiness (v.13) who acts in ways that are essentially pure. This is especially true with regard to Israel. For in revealing his omnipotence in his mighty works among the nations (v. 14), he accomplished the redemption the redemption of his chosen people, “the children of Jacob and Joseph” (v.15). As the Lord displayed his superintending purpose in the affairs of things here on earth, he also displayed his essential holiness. What is done is done through his holy power. As another psalmist expresses it,

The LORD is just in all his actions.
and exhibits love in all he does. (Ps. 145:17)17

Therefore, his redeemed people are likewise to reflect the Lord’s holiness in their conduct and acts. How grievous it must have been for Jeremiah to inform the people of his day of the Lord’s condemnation of them for their moral and spiritual failure, for enemy forces would soon:

“Surround Jerusalem like men guarding a field
because they have rebelled against me,”
says the LORD.
“The way you have lived
and the things you have done
will bring this on you.
This is the punishment you deserve,
and it will be painful indeed.” (Jer. 4: 17-18b)

The psalmist brings his thoughts to a close by focusing on God’s great power as seen in his mighty acts on behalf of his people Israel (vv. 16-20). The most memorable of these is, perhaps, the exodus, which details events from Israel’s departure from Egypt until its entrance into the land of promise. Psalm 77 takes its place the many Old Testament texts recounting this redemptive experience (cf. v.15). This includes two longer poetic accounts (Exod. 15:1-18; Hab. 3: 3-15) as well as many shorter notices. God’s power over the natural world is often portrayed in the Scriptures (cf. Pss. Judges 5:4-5; 18:8-18; 68:8-9; Hab. 3:10-11). Although God’s power in the natural world can be witnessed in the total exodus event, such as in the final crossing of the Jordan River (Ps. 114), here the passing through the Red Sea is particularly in view:

You walked through the sea;
you passed through the surging waters,
but left no footprints. (v. 19; cf. Exod. 14: 18-29)

God was (and ever is) Israel’s deliverer and redeemer, but he is more that that—he was Israel’s protector and provider. The Lord is Israel’s shepherd:

You led your people like a flock of sheep
By the hand of Moses and Aaron. (v.20)

The Lord was to prove to be Israel’s shepherd all along their earthly journey (cf. Ps. 80:1), seeing to the needs of each (cf. 23:1-2) and guiding them (cf. Ezek. 34:12-16; Zech 9:15-16). Too often, however, Israel showed itself to be sheep that strayed (cf. Ezek. 34:17-23).18 The psalmist’s concluding tribute to the Lord as the ultimate Shepherd served both as a corrective to his earlier doubts and fears, and as a reminder that the Lord is the Good Shepherd who is available and eager to assist his sheep in all situations.

Similarly, the psalmist of Psalm 116 tells of a time when he faced such terrible and terrifying trouble and sorrow that he feared for his very life (v. 3). During that time, he turned to the Lord as his only hope and deliverance:

The LORD protects the untrained;
I was in serious trouble and he delivered me.
Yes, Lord, you rescued my life from death,
and kept my feet from stumbling. (vv. 6, 8)

He learned quite readily what the Scriptures plainly teach, that the Lord longs to give relief and rest to his own. When the believer calls upon him in faith believing, he finds full deliverance from his troubles. So it was with the psalmist. Therefore, he could say,

Rest once more, my soul,
For the LORD has vindicated you (v. 7).

Accordingly, the psalmist would therefore, “call on the name of the LORD” (vv.13, 17), “not to ask for deliverance but to thank the Lord and his holy name for his fidelity to his promises.”19

He could as well proclaim to all:

I love the LORD
because he heard my plea for mercy.
and listened to me.
As long as I live,
I will call to him when I need help. (vv. 1-2)20

The faithful believer will find that God longs both to relieve the believer’s burden and to rescue him in time of trouble (Ps. 81: 6-8). With the finished work of Christ full access to the Lord is assured. As Jesus declared, “Come unto me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). To be sure, in context Jesus is rebuking the Jewish people of his day and especially the scribes and Pharisees who weary themselves by their own wisdom instead of placing their faith in their messiah, Jesus Christ (cf. vv. 25-27). But Jesus’ words have a fuller application. Indeed, if one is to find rest, he must welcome Jesus’ invitation and come to him. Here there is both spiritual rest and rest in the midst of life’s challenges. If one desires to be free of the weariness caused by anxieties and worries of mind and body, he should heed Jesus’ added admonition.

Take my yoke on you and learn of me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry. (vv. 29-30)

As those taken into union with Christ believers are “yoked together” with him. It is interesting to note that a yoke bound two animals together to share a load. As “yoked” to Christ, believers readily find that he provides strength and help to bear the burdens of this life. This may not mean a life of ease but, “It is easy and light because it involves union with the gentle, lowly King and produces a new dimension of ‘rest’ in him.”21 Moreover, the believer also learns to partake of Jesus’ character and so become, like Christ, more “gentle and humble in heart.” As did Jesus, the believer is to live not for self, but in full surrender to God so as to enjoy true “rest.”

Although the believer may thus enjoy rest here and now, even in the midst of troublesome times, there is more. An even greater, fuller rest awaits him in the future. This is brought out clearly and forcefully in Hebrews 3:7-4:11. Here the author begins his discussion and teaching by citing the words of the psalmist (Ps. 95:7b-11). As we noted in our earlier discussion, the psalmist was alluding to the people that were disobedient during their wilderness, even after God had so graciously liberated them out of Egypt. Therefore, that generation had forfeited God’s promised blessing of entering into the land and there enjoying God’s promised “rest.” Building upon and expanding on the psalmist words, the author of the book of Hebrews intends for Israel’s experience to serve as a lesson for the people of his day (cf. Ps 95: 6-7a with Heb. 3:12-19; 4:7). That generation failed to be faithful to the Lord, the Good Shepherd (Ps. 95:6-7a); the author of Hebrews (Heb.4:11) wishes for his readers to avoid the same mistake.

But there is more: “If those people ‘because of their unbelief …were not able to enter to enter his rest’ back there in the distant past (3:19), it must follow that ‘God’s promise of entering his rest’ still stands (4:1).22 Indeed, God desired that his people enjoy the same “rest” that he enjoyed after his creative work (Heb. 4:4). Despite the exodus’ generation’s failure to achieve their intended rest, a “rest” remained even after Joshua’s days (Heb. 4:8): “Consequently, a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God” (4:9). Thus the author of Hebrews “wants his readers to be in no doubt that the matter of ‘entering rest’ must be their single most important concern.”23 The Greek word underlying the term “Sabbath rest” occurs only here in the New Testament. As a verbal noun it emphasizes continuing enjoyment of the “Sabbath rest”.

The Christian’s rest is thus not limited to the acknowledgement of God’s promise of spiritual rest in the salvation experience, but demands a genuine, obedient faith that continues. The result is that, like the forerunner (Heb. 6:20) who after his earthly work was accomplished entered into heaven and took his place of “rest beside the Father,” as united to Christ believers enjoy the assured hope of a “Sabbath rest”: “For the one who enters God’s rest has also rested from his works, just as God did from his” (Heb. 4:10). Therefore, people, “Must make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one fail by following the same pattern of disobedience” (v.11). The believer’s “Sabbath rest” has its destination in an eternal heavenly “rest” with the Lord.24 Such is also declared by John in the book of Revelation:

Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this; ‘Blessed are the dead, those who die in the Lord from this moment on!’” Yes,” says the Spirit, “so they can rest from their hard work, because their deeds will follow them there.” (Rev 14:13)

Thus Hughes observes, ‘The labors from which the people of God rest in the heavenly sabbath are the toilings, trials, and tribulations of their present pilgrimage; otherwise the sabbath rest will be for them an eternity of joyful service and unclouded worship performed to the glory of him who is their Creator and their Redeemer.”25


Spiritual restlessness characterized us all until we put our faith and trust in Christ (Eph. 2:1-3). Yet even now how often the Tempter comes to make God’s children question his love and purpose for them (cf. Gen 3:4-5), especially in the troublesome times of life (I Pet. 5:8; Rev. 2:10). During such occasions the believer is in faith humbly to cast himself and his cares upon the Lord (1 Pet. 5:6-7). He must choose to resist the Tempter, and remember that,

Your brothers and sisters throughout the world are enduring the same kind of suffering. And, after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory in Christ will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you To him belongs the power forever (I Pet.5: 9-10).

Doubting nothing (James 1:2-7), the believer should consider the prior claim of God upon his life so as to live in genuine faith in God and in full dedicated surrender to the Lord’s will and standards .As he does so, he may well often recall God’s amazing displays of power, and his love and his availability to help and strengthen even the most feeble of his people (Isa. 40: 25-31). Accordingly, believers should “wait for the LORD’s help,” for herein they will “find renewed strength” (Isa. 40: 31).

As united to Christ the troubled believers can with confidence (Ps. 138:8a) call out to God in distress (Ps.102: 1-2) and expect deliverance (Ps. 20). As Futato declares,

Everything we experience in life produces a benefit. That benefit is not always evident in the midst of the battle, but by faith we know that God is at work in it all for our good and his glory (Rom 8:28).… With hindsight we will see the good and the glory of the past. So with the foresight of faith, we live out the present and fearlessly face the future.26

And as believers do, they may confidently put their hope (Ps. 42:5, 11) and trust in God (Ps. 46:5. Isa. 26:3) who hears both the silent and audible prayers of his own (Pss. 65:5-11; 116:1-2).There is thus strength for the faithful Christian in his spiritual journey and service to the Lord, for he has the assured hope of “rest” in an eternal life of joy in the awesome presence of God. Meanwhile, the believer may echo the sentiment of the hymn writer:

Jesus, I am resting, resting
In the joy of what thou art;
I am finding out the greatness
Of Thy loving heart.
Ever lift Thy face upon me
As I work and wait for Thee;
Resting ’neath Thy smile, Lord Jesus,
Earth’s dark shadows flee.
Brightness of my Father’s glory,
Sunshine of my Father’s face,
Keep me ever trusting, resting,
Fill me with Thy grace.27

1 Edgar Allan Poe, “The City in the Sea.”

2 John N. Oswalt, “nw,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren 5 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 3:58. 

3 Unless otherwise noted, all Scriptural citations are taken from the NET.

4 Martin J. Selman, 1 Chronicles, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D.J. Wiseman (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 215.

5 See further Richard D. Patterson, “Wiser than Solomon,” Biblical Studies Press, 2013.

6 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., A History of Israel (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998), 284, 85.

7 Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus , The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), 701.

8 H. C. Leupold, The Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 679.

9 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah:Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 513.

10 George Herbert as quoted in Alistair Begg, The Hand of God (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 56.

11 John Haynes Holmes, “O God Whose Smile is in the Sky.”

12 Alfred Jepsen, “bāţach,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren 5 vols. (Grand rapids; Eerdmans, 1975) 2: 92.

13 Franz Delitzsch , Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, trans. Francis Bolton 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955) 2: 12.

14 Willem A. Van Gemeren, “Psalms,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland 13 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rev. ed., 2008) 5: 342.

15 N.B., KJV, “I remembered God and was troubled.”

16 Leupold, The Psalms, 557.

17 It is of interest to note that, taken together, the two psalmists have pointed out key elements in the infinite Lord’s perfection: holiness (including justice) and love (including grace and mercy). (Note also Pss. 77: 8-9; 145:7-9).

18 For further details covering the imagery of the shepherd and the sheep, see “Sheep, Shepherd,” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, eds. Leland Ryken, James. C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman III (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 782-85.

19 VanGemeren, “Psalms, 848.

20 See further, Richard D. Patterson, “The Call-Answer Motif,” Biblical Studies Press, 2008.

21 Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 444.

22 J. Ramsey Michaels, “Hebrews,” Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort, 18 vols. (Carol Stream, Il, 2009) 17: 359.

23 R. T. France, “Hebrews, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, eds., Temper Longman III and David E. Garland, 13 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006) 13:67.

24 In an applied sense the Christian Sunday could well serve as an additional reminder of that assured hope of “Sabbath rest.” As John Newton (“Safely Through Another Week”) wrote,

“Day of all the week the best, emblem of eternal rest…
May the fruits of grace abound, bring relief for all complaints;
Thus may all our Sabbaths prove till we join the Church above.”

25 Philip Edgecombe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 161-62. A bit different and still more distant perspective is given by Kaiser, who suggests that for the author of Psalm 95 the offer of rest was ultimately tied up with the events of the second advent of the return of Messiah to this earth. Every other rest, apparently, was only an ‘earnest,’ a down payment, on the final Sabbath rest yet to come in the second advent.” Walter C. Kaiser Jr. The Promise-Plan of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 97.

26 Mark D. Futato, “Psalms,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort, 18 vols. (Carol Stream, Il: Tyndale House, 2009) 7:253.

27 Jean S. Pigott, “Jesus, I am Resting, Resting.”

Related Topics: Christian Life, Spiritual Life, Suffering, Trials, Persecution

Where Was God?

Article contributed by Stand To Reason
Visit Stand To Reason website

Related Media

The images are sadly familiar. Buildings ripped from their foundations. Corpses mingled with debris. Parents and friends grieving for lost loved ones. Flowers and candles and makeshift memorials. New Orleans, Newtown, New York, Littleton.

In one sense tragedies like these will never be old news. And when new disasters inevitably arrive, the question on the lips of so many is an age old query: “Where was God?”

One Wrong Answer

One answer is not going to work: the picture of a broken-hearted God, victimized, agonizing over events that are out of His control.

This “finite God” view is Rabbi Harold Kushner’s answer in Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People? Evil is bigger than God whose hands are tied by the laws of nature and the will of man. Limited in power, He weeps with us at a world out of control.

According to Kushner, this should bring us comfort. “God, who neither causes nor prevents tragedies, helps by inspiring people to help,” he writes.1

Clearly, the God Rabbi Kushner has in mind is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the One who brought the universe into existence with a single thought. This is not the God of the Exodus or the empty tomb. A God equally victimized by the march of evil may commiserate with other victims, but He cannot inspire or rescue. He is not worthy of praise, prayer, or trust. Nor is there any real comfort to be gained from one so impotent.

Another Wrong Answer

But what alternative is there? How can anyone believe in God in the face of mind-numbing tragedy? The great 20th century British philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell wondered how anyone could talk about God while kneeling at the bed of a dying child.

It is a powerful image. Like the three-word sound byte, “Where was God?,” it strikes many Christians dumb. How can anyone cling to the hope of a benevolent, powerful sovereign in the face of such tragedy?

They might consider Christian philosopher William Lane Craig’s response: What is the atheist Bertrand Russell going to say at the bed of that dying child—or, for that matter, at the funerals of thousands of dead in Katrina’s wake, or to the parents of 20 dead school children in Newtown, Connecticut, or to the families of 2,977 dead on 9/11? Too bad? Tough luck? That’s the way it goes? No happy ending, no silver lining, nothing but devastating, tragic, senseless evil?

No, that also won’t work for an important reason. In a world bereft of God, there are many ways to characterize hurricanes, tsunamis, terrorist attacks, or malicious bloodletting: unpleasant, sad, painful, even ghastly.

Yet if God doesn’t exist, the one thing we can never do is call such human destruction “evil” or wanton murder “wicked.” If in virtue of these tragedies one concludes God doesn’t exist, then the carnage ceases to be morally tragic at all, if by that word we mean a genuine breach of goodness.

Judgments like these require some transcendent reference point, some way of keeping score. Words like “evil” or “tragic” are parasitic on a standard of moral perfection. C.S. Lewis pointed out that a portrait is a good or bad likeness depending on how it compares with the “perfect” original. But if there is no standard, then there is no “good” or “bad.”

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust,” Lewis reasoned. “But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”2

Evil is spoiled goodness. That’s Lewis’s point. We already know this. Note the words we use to describe it: unrighteousness, immorality, impurity. Evil depends on the good. Where does such goodness come from, though?

This point was explored in the movie, “The Quarrel.”3 The main characters, Hersh and Chaim, were boyhood friends who separated in a dispute over God and evil. Then came the Holocaust. Each thought the other had perished. After the war, they reunite by chance and immediately become embroiled once again in their boyhood quarrel.

Hersh, now a rabbi, offers this challenge to the secularist Chaim:

If there’s nothing in the universe that’s higher than human beings, then what’s morality? Well, it’s a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who’s to say which is better?

Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there is no Master of the universe, then who’s to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and kids did nothing wrong.

If there is no God, it’s hard to even begin making sense of the notions of evil or moral tragedy in an objective sense.4 The events that trouble us are reduced to mere “stuff” that happens. There are different kinds of “stuff,” to be sure, some we like (Mother Teresa), and some we don’t (Newtown), but in a universe bereft of God it’s all reduced to “stuff” in the end.

We know better, though. Words like “wicked,” “tragic,” and “evil” are on the lips of everyone constantly. We cannot describe our daily experience of the world without them.

Yet the questions remain: Why doesn’t God intervene? Why is He inactive—apparently impotent—when He could restrain both wayward winds and wicked people? This protest rings hollow, though, because we don’t really want God to end evil, not all of it.

Picking and Choosing Our Moral Tragedies

Why does this question about God only come up with magnum tragedies—like a hurricane or a schoolyard massacre—or when we are personally stunned by deadly disease or financial ruin? What about the mass of evil that slips by us every day unnoticed and unlamented because we are the perpetrators of the evil, not its victims?

On December 14, 2012—the same day 26 were murdered, most of them children, at Sandy Hook elementary school—I wonder how many Americans were committing adultery around the country? What of the cumulative effect of the personal pain and destruction that resulted from all those individual acts of sin? What of the unplanned pregnancies (and subsequent abortions), the sexually transmitted diseases, the shame and embarrassment?

On August 30, 2005 a day when Katrina left so many homeless in the Gulf states, what of the children whose homes were broken through marriages destroyed by infidelity? What of the severed trust, the emotional wounding, the sting of betrayal, the shattered families? What of the traumatized children cast adrift emotionally, destined as adults to act out the anguish of these disloyalties?

One careless act of unfaithfulness leaves in its wake decades of pain and destruction and often generations of brokenness. And—to be sure—this evil was multiplied thousands of times over around the country on the same day the levees broke in Louisiana or when disaster struck in Connecticut.

I saw no outcry, though, no moral indignation in the local papers or national news because God permitted this evil. Why not? Because we don’t complain when evil makes us feel better, only when it makes us feel bad.

If the truth were known, we do not judge disasters based on unprejudiced moral assessment, but rather on what is painful, awkward, or inconvenient to us. We don’t ask, “Where is God?” when another’s pain brings us profit instead of loss.

Why? Because we don’t want God sniffing around the dark recesses of our own evil conduct. Instead, we fight intervention. We don’t really want Him stopping us from hurting others. We only cry “foul” when He doesn’t stop others from hurting us.

The problem of evil is much bigger than hundreds of drowned people or thousands of homeless. It includes all the ordinary corruptions that please us, the hundreds of small vices you and I approve of every day. It entails not only what offends us, but what offends God.

The answer to the question “Why doesn’t God stop the evil?” is the same answer to the question “Why doesn’t God stop me every time I do wrong?” There is a virtuous quality to human moral choice that both dignifies us and makes serious evil possible.

The rules God applies to a serial killer are the same rules He applies to you. If you want God to clean up evil, He might just say, “Okay, let’s start with you.” If you want Him to stop murderers, then you have to be just as willing to let Him stop you every time you do what is evil by His standards. And that covers a lot of ground. Most people won’t sit still for that.

Sometimes the consequences of our evil actions are long-lived. It’s hard to know how much has been spoiled by man’s initial rebellion. However, the prophecy that Adam would now encounter thorns and thistles is suggestive (Genesis 3:18). Ever since man has ventured forth from Eden, the world has been a dangerous place. All the forces of nature are wonderful things in their right place, but ominous foes in a world twisted by sin.

What Should God Do?

When people ask “Where was God?” I ask “What precisely do you expect God to do? If you were in His place, what would you do?” If you would use your power to stop evil, would you punish it or prevent it? Either choice presents you with problems.

One reason God doesn’t wipe out all evil immediately is that the alternative would be worse for us. This becomes evident by asking a simple question: If God heard your prayer to eliminate evil and destroyed it all at midnight tonight, where would you be at 12:01?

The discomfiting reality is that evil deeds can never be isolated from the evil doer. Our prints are on the smoking gun. Each one of us is guilty in some capacity, and we know it. That’s the problem.

While reading on the Littleton shooting several years ago, I stumbled upon a refreshing bit of honesty and moral clarity by John Hewitt in a piece entitled “Seeking to Make Sense Where There Is None.” Hewitt wrote:

We would rather think of bad acts as the unfortunate consequences of discoverable and remedial social and personal conditions. Yet it is precisely the account we do not wish to believe that may best capture what happened in Littleton. The two dead members of the “Trenchcoat Mafia,” together with their fellows, may simply have chosen evil in circumstances where others choose to play football or to crave membership in the National Honor Society.5 [emphasis added]

Simply put, humans—you and I—make choices that cause evil. Consequently, any judicial action God might take today would pin us all under the gavel. When God wipes out evil, He’s going to do a complete job. C.S. Lewis soberly observed, “I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realize what it will be like when He does....When the author walks on the stage the play is over.”6

No, God hasn’t banished evil from His kingdom—not yet. The Bible describes a future time when God will wipe away every tear and repair the effects of evil on the world. Men will no longer endure the ravages of wickedness or be victimized by bouts with nature. And no one will ever ask the question, “Where was God?”

Until then, though, God has chosen a different strategy, a better plan, one that’s moral on a higher level. It’s a plan that ultimately deals with evil, but allows room for mercy as well. It’s called forgiveness.

The Patience of God

God is waiting. Patience, not lack of goodness or lack of ability, stays God’s hand from writing the last chapter of human history. “The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness,” Peter reminds us, “but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). God is patiently waiting for people to turn to Him.

Suffering, tragedy, and profligate evil now function as warning signals. Like the ache of a limb out of joint, the pain of living in a broken world tells us that something is amiss. If God took away the pain, we’d never deal with the disease. And the disease will kill us, sooner or later.

Why doesn’t God do something about evil? God has done something, the most profound thing imaginable. He has sent His Son to die for evil men. Because we are ultimately the source of evil, God would be entirely justified in punishing us. Yet He chose instead to offer mercy. He took the punishment due you and I and poured it out on His Son Jesus so He could make forgiveness available to anyone who asks.

God is not the author of evil. Neither is He incapable of responding nor unwilling to act. But His remedy for evil is not capricious. He doesn’t obliterate us, the offenders, with one angry blow. Instead He waits.

Bertrand Russell had nothing to say while kneeling at the bed of a dying child. He could have spoken of the patience and mercy of God. He ought to have mentioned the future perfection that awaits all who trust in Christ and experience God’s forgiveness. He might have remembered that a redemptive God “causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28). He may have considered the Gospel, the only source of hope for a broken world.

But Russell could not. As an atheist he had surrendered those resources. We can do better.

Our dilemma should not be why God allows evil. Instead, our wonder should be why He would pay such an incredible price to rescue us at all when we have rebelled so completely against Him.

When this reality grabs our hearts, we will get down on our knees and ask forgiveness instead of criticizing God for not doing enough.

Putting Your Knowledge into Action

  • First, be sympathetic to this problem. It hits all of us sooner or later, and sometimes with great force in very personal ways.
  • Second, don’t let others leverage the problem of evil into an argument against God. It doesn’t work. Ask them how they would answer for evil if there were no God. Further, how would they answer the problem of good?
  • Remember the Bertrand Russell challenge and William Lane Craig’s powerful response. It takes a liability and turns it into an asset.
  • When someone asks “How does Christianity explain tragedy?” say “Christianity doesn’t explain it; Christianity predicts it. This is exactly what you’d expect to see if the Christian worldview is true.”
  • Explain that God’s answer to evil at the moment is not to destroy those who perpetrate evil—each one of us—but to patiently extend an offer of clemency, forgiveness through His Son.

Quick Summary

  • When tragedy strikes it’s understandable to ask, “Where was God?” This question deserves an answer, but some responses are not helpful.
  • An impotent God victimized as we are by evil is not the God of the Bible.
  • Atheism fares no better. A world without God reduces wickedness and tragedy to tough luck. Real evil requires a real God, not a universe without Him.
  • Most of us do not want God to deal with all evil because we are its perpetrators, not just its victims. Our prints are on the smoking gun.
  • God has done something about evil. He’s sent His Son to die for evil men. Patience and mercy stay His hand, not lack of goodness or ability.

1Rabbi Harold Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People (New York:  Schocken, 1981), 140, quoted in Norman Geisler and William Watkins, Worlds Apart (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1989), 203.

2 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York:  Macmillan, 1952), 31.

3 “The Quarrel,” directed by Eli Cohen, released 1991.

4Of course, relativistic morality—grounded in personal preference or cultural convention—fares just fine because it’s not a true moral system, but rather a denial of universal moral obligations.

5John P. Hewitt, “Seeking to Make Sense Where There Is None,” Los Angeles Times, April 23, 1999.

6Lewis, 66.

Related Topics: Apologetics, Character of God, Cultural Issues, Equip, Suffering, Trials, Persecution, Terrorism

Lesson 45: Caught in the Act (John 7:53-8:11)

Related Media

February 23, 2014

Our text is a difficult portion of John, not because it is hard to understand, but because it is hard to know whether this incident should be included in John’s Gospel as an authentic part of inspired Scripture. Many versions put these verses in brackets, with a note explaining that it is not included in the earliest manuscripts of John. So I must give you a mini-lecture on textual criticism.

As you probably know, we do not possess any of the original copies of the New Testament books. Our New Testament is based on the translation of thousands of Greek manuscripts that are, for the most part, remarkably close in their readings. When there are variations between the manuscripts, they are usually only of minor significance. For example, in our text last week in 7:40, some manuscripts read, “when they heard these words.” Others read, “these words of His” or “His word,” or, “the word,” or, “this word.” Obviously, it doesn’t make much difference which reading is adopted.

Textual criticism is the discipline where scholars evaluate both external and internal evidence to try to determine which reading is most likely the original. External evidence refers to weighing the various manuscripts in light of their age, how widespread is their distribution, and what text type they represent. Internal evidence refers to evaluating the probabilities of what a scribe might have done, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to result in the various readings. Both internal and external evidence have to be compared and evaluated.

There are two longer texts where the manuscript evidence is so varied and late that many scholars question their authenticity: Mark 16:9-20 and here, in John 7:53-8:11. Let me add that there are no major doctrines at stake in these or in any other textual variants. With rare exceptions, we can be sure that what we read is what the original authors wrote.

The problem is that John 7:53-8:11 is not found in any of the earliest manuscripts or versions (translations into other languages). The earliest manuscript to contain it is from the fifth century A.D. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative in their commentaries on John, moving from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father before the tenth century cites the text. Many later manuscripts that include the passage mark it off to show that it’s of doubtful authority. Among those that include it, there are many textual variants. And some manuscripts put it at other places in John (after 7:44; 7:36; 21:25) or after Luke 21:38. Also, although it should not be regarded with as much weight as the external evidence, most scholars argue that the style, Greek constructions, and vocabulary of the story differ significantly from the rest of the Gospel of John. And, they assert that the story interrupts the flow of the narrative from John 7:52 to 8:12. (This paragraph taken from D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John [Apollos/Eerdmans], p. 333; and Andreas Kostenberger, John [Baker], pp. 245-247.)

These reasons cause many reputable evangelical scholars to conclude that this story is not a part of John’s original Gospel. Among these are: Leon Morris, Merrill Tenney, D. A. Carson, Ed Blum, Andreas Kostenberger, Colin Kruse, John Piper, R. C. Lenski, R. V. G. Tasker, B. F. Westcott, Alfred Edersheim, Frederic Godet, G. Campbell Morgan, and A. T. Robertson. However, these scholars generally hold that it reports an authentic historical event that is true to the character of Jesus.

Some scholars, however, argue that in spite of the weak textual support, this story should be included in John’s Gospel and treated as inspired Scripture, based largely on internal evidence: R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, James Boice, William Hendriksen, A. W. Pink, J. C. Ryle, David Brown (in Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown) and John Calvin. They argue that the story fits the flow of John’s Gospel at this point and the pattern that John follows of a story setting the stage for the theme to follow. They also point out that both Augustine and Ambrose in the late fourth and early fifth centuries believed that the story may have been omitted because it seems to suggest that Jesus condoned adultery. So, there are solid men on both sides of this issue.

So, how should we view this story? I can’t dodge the weight of the textual evidence. Bruce Metzger, who edited A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament ([United Bible Societies], 2nd ed., p. 187), wrote, “The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.” Leon Morris agrees (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1971], p. 882): “The textual evidence makes it impossible to hold that this section is an authentic part of the Gospel.” But Morris adds (p. 883),

But if we cannot feel that this is part of John’s Gospel we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It rings true. It speaks to our condition. It is thus worth our while to study it, though not as an authentic part of John’s writing.

So while I cannot agree with John MacArthur that the story is original to John’s Gospel, I appreciate some questions that he asks of this story (on

Question number one, do these verses teach truth that violates other Scripture? The answer is no, they do not. Question two, do they in fact corroborate other Scripture and substantiate it? The answer is yes they do.

So I will proceed by showing some lessons that this text gives us, which can be supported by other undisputed texts, on how God deals with sinners who have been caught in the very act of sin. In case you’re half-asleep by now, that means all of us, because God knows every sin of thought, word, and deed that we have ever done! The overall lesson is:

God deals with guilty sinners on the basis of the grace and truth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In other words, this story beautifully illustrates John 1:17, “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.” The scribes and Pharisees judged this woman according to the Law, which clearly condemned her. Jesus showed her both grace and truth.

1. All of us, like this woman, have been caught in the act of sin and stand condemned by God’s holy law.

To catch someone in the act of adultery so that it would hold up in a Jewish trial for execution was no small feat. The witnesses actually had to have seen the couple going through physical movements that could be capable of no other explanation (Morris, p. 885, note 12). Compromising circumstances, such as seeing a couple coming from a room where they had been alone, or even seeing them lying on the same bed, were not sufficient. The witnesses had to have seen the same acts at the same time in the presence of each other for their testimony to hold up in a Jewish court.

So it’s very likely that the scribes and Pharisees had set a trap to catch this woman so they could trap Jesus on the horns of a dilemma and accuse Him. Either He would agree that the woman must be stoned, thereby undermining His reputation as the Savior of sinners and probably getting Him into trouble with the Roman authorities, who didn’t give the Jews the right of capital punishment; or, He would show her mercy, thus proving that He did not uphold the Law of Moses and was soft on sin. That this was a deliberate trap is also seen by the fact that they only brought one sinner to Jesus. You don’t commit adultery all alone! So where was the man? Probably he was on their side in the trap and thus was allowed to escape. But, note that, like this woman…

A. We’ve all been caught in the act of sin.

We’ve all had the humiliating experience of getting caught doing something that we knew was wrong. Maybe you were checking out the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue on your phone or I-pad when another believer looked over your shoulder to say hello. Or perhaps on a summer day with the windows and doors open you and your spouse were in a loud argument when the doorbell rang and it was someone from church. No matter what the sin, it’s always embarrassing.

In this story, the woman had not only been caught in the act of adultery, but then she was dragged (probably barely clothed) by the religious authorities into the temple where there were always crowds of people, many of whom would have known her. To make matters worse, they accused her before the godly religious teacher, Jesus of Nazareth. And her accusers were pushing for the ultimate penalty of execution. It was both humiliating and frightening!

But even if we manage to keep our sin hidden from fellow Christians or from public view, every single sin that we have ever committed is open and laid bare to the eyes of the living God (Heb. 4:13). He knows every sinful thought that we secretly entertain. He knows every swear word that we mutter under our breath. He knows the hatred that simmers in our hearts towards those who have wronged us. He knows every deceptive word that we have ever spoken to try to cover our tracks. He knows the sins that we commit when we’re alone or when we’re away in another city where we don’t know a soul. Like this woman, we’ve all been caught in the act of sin.

B. Religious people are just as guilty of sin as openly immoral people are.

We tend to look on the woman in this story as the great sinner, while overlooking the fact that the scribes and Pharisees were just as evil, if not more so, in God’s sight. They were callously sinning against this woman. We can’t say for certain, but probably she was a young girl. In the Law of Moses, the penalty for adultery was death for both partners, without stipulating the means of death. But if the girl was engaged to be married, the penalty was specifically stoning to death (Deut. 22:22-24). Since Jewish girls were often engaged as young as 13 or 14, this girl may have been a frightened teenager. Clearly, they didn’t care about her at all. If they had cared about her, they could have held her in private custody until they brought formal charges against her. But they didn’t care about her feelings or about humiliating her in public. She was just a pawn for them to use and discard in their attempt to trap Jesus.

But, even more seriously than sinning against this woman, these religious leaders were also sinning against the sinless Son of God. Their aim was to destroy Jesus and they were using both this woman and the Scriptures to do it! They weren’t concerned about God’s honor or about holiness among God’s people. It just so happened that the Law gave them ammunition to use against this woman and against Jesus. They were using Scripture to judge others, but not to judge themselves.

That’s very common in Christian circles. People use the Bible for their own selfish ends, to judge others or to bring down their enemies. But they never apply it to themselves. And so it is often religious people—those professing to know Christ—who are just as guilty of sin as openly immoral people are.

C. God’s holy law condemns us all because of our sin.

Paul builds this case in Romans 1-3, where he shows that both pagan Gentiles and religious Jews are guilty of sin. His conclusion is (Rom. 3:23), “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” So whether we fit more with the immoral woman or with the self-righteous, unloving Pharisees, who used the Bible for their own sinful purposes, we need to see ourselves in this story. It convicts us all of our sin and guilt before God.

This story sets up an important question: If God is full of love and grace, how can He show mercy to sinners and yet uphold His holiness and justice?

2. God’s grace and love do not negate His truth or justice.

Nowhere in this story does Jesus excuse this woman’s sin or condone what she had done. And yet He showed her grace.

A. Jesus deals with sinners first by applying God’s Law and truth to them.

The scribes and Pharisees came armed with the Law as a weapon to use against this woman, but as the text says, mostly to use against Jesus (8:5): “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” But they were saying this to test Him. Jesus responded by stooping down and writing on the ground with His finger. This is the only instance in the Gospels where Jesus wrote anything, but the big question that you’re all wondering is, “What did He write?” Here’s the answer: Nobody knows! Some have said that He was stalling for time so that He could think of what to say, but that demeans our all-wise Lord. Some say that He was writing the Pharisees’ sins in the dust, like people today write, “Wash me” in the dust of a dirty car. Others say that He was writing the Ten Commandments, which God wrote with His finger on the tablets of stone. Calvin (Calvin’s Commentaries [Baker], pp. 319-320) suggested that He was shaming His enemies by ignoring them, showing that they were unworthy to be heard. But, the bottom line is, the text doesn’t tell us and so everyone is just guessing.

Jesus may have been giving these hypocritical accusers enough rope to hang themselves, because the next verse (8:7) says that when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Jesus wasn’t saying that human judges in a court of law have to be sinlessly perfect before they can judge others, because then no law could ever be upheld. Rather, Jesus was applying what He taught in Matthew 7:1-5 to them:

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

In other words, these hypocrites had a huge log in their own eyes: They were sinfully using this woman and using Scripture to try to trap Jesus. They came to condemn her and accuse Jesus; but they ended up being accused and condemned. The Law is like a boomerang: You aim it at others and it comes back and conks you on the head. The starting place for receiving God’s mercy is to be convicted by God’s holy law that you are the chief of sinners.

But, rather than falling at Jesus’ feet and asking for mercy, they left Him and went out. Perhaps the oldest left first because they had the most sins of which to feel guilty. But none of them repented, because as a group they kept pressing for Jesus’ death until they finally succeeded. But, maybe you’re wondering, “Why didn’t Jesus apply the Law to this guilty woman?”

B. Jesus gives the Law to the self-righteous, but offers grace to broken sinners who repent.

The Law can reveal your sin (Rom. 3:20), but it can’t offer grace and forgiveness. But Jesus came to reveal both grace and truth (John 1:14, 17). Throughout the Gospels, Jesus confronted the self-righteous with their own sins, but He showed mercy to those who were convicted of their sins and were repentant. Granted, in this story there is no direct statement that the woman was repentant, but I think we can infer that by Jesus’ gracious words to her. He knew what was in every heart and He was always quick to offer grace to the broken. By not stating that she was repentant, the story illustrates the truth that God first revealed to Moses (Exod. 33:19b, cited in Rom. 9:15), “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” It is God’s privilege and His delight to show grace to undeserving sinners.

But it isn’t cheap grace. God’s justice must be upheld. He can be both gracious to sinners and yet uphold His justice because Jesus came to this earth to offer Himself as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin that God’s justice demanded. As Romans 3:26 states, God’s righteousness is displayed in that He is both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus,” whose death satisfied God’s wrath against our sin. Or (2 Cor. 5:21), “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” The only sinless person in the temple that day who legitimately could have thrown a stone at the adulteress showed her mercy. And if you are heavy with your load of sin and guilt, come to Jesus and cry out for mercy and He will not condemn you. Like the publican in Jesus’ parable (Luke 18:14), you will go to your house justified, declared righteous before God!

3. God’s grace is the basis for a holy life.

Jesus said to this guilty woman (John 8:11), “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” He did not say, “Go your way and sin no more and then I will not condemn you.” Her pardon was not dependent on her behavior. Rather, her pardon was the motivation to change her behavior. If forgiveness depends on having a perfect track record, no one could obtain it, because we all sin. So God grants forgiveness as a free gift to all who put their trust in what Christ did in dying on the cross for their sins. His free grace then becomes the motive to live in holiness to please the one who gave Himself for us.

As Paul says (Rom. 6:1-2), “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Or (Titus 2:11-12), “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age ….” God’s amazing grace is the motivation to life a holy life.


I’ve shared this with you before, but it has stuck with me all of my life and God has used it to help me walk in holiness before Him. When I was in high school, like any high school student, I was tempted by many sins. I knew many guys who were involved sexually with girls, which tempted me to do the same. Also, many of my friends would get drunk at parties and I had many opportunities to join them. I think that I was a Christian at that time, but I wasn’t walking closely with the Lord. But, in spite of my weak spiritual life, I never got involved in those sins.

Why not? I distinctly remember thinking on many occasions when those temptations came along, “I can’t do that because it would hurt Dad and Mom if I did it.” I knew that my parents loved me and trusted me. I didn’t want to violate their love and trust. Their love motivated me to want to please them.

That’s how God’s grace should work in our hearts. Like this adulterous woman, I was guilty and condemned before Him. But rather than condemning me, because of His sovereign grace He loved me enough to die in my place and offer me a full pardon. And since it cost Him so much, I can’t take His grace cheaply. I can’t sin and shrug it off by saying, “I’m under grace.” I want to please the one who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal. 2:20). That same grace is available to every sinner who has been caught in the act! Receive it and then go and sin no more.

Application Questions

  1. Why does the evangelical church tend to overlook the sins of hypocrisy, legalism, gossip, and pride, but judge sins like drunkenness, immorality, homosexuality, etc.?
  2. What can we learn about witnessing from Jesus’ pattern of giving the Law to the self-righteous, but offering grace to sinners?
  3. An unbeliever asks you, “Why can’t God just forgive sins? Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?” Your answer?
  4. Why does a true understanding of God’s grace never lead to licentious living? Can we emphasize His grace too much?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2014, All Rights Reserved.

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

Related Topics: Grace, Hamartiology (Sin), Soteriology (Salvation)

Lesson 46: Jesus: Light of the World (John 8:12-20)

Related Media

March 2, 2014

One summer day in 1969 I was sitting on the lawn at U.C.L.A. reading my Bible when a barefoot young man came up and began to talk to me. I eventually asked what his name was and he said, “Thomas.” That’s a common enough name, of course. But with all sincerity, this fellow informed me that he was none other than the apostle Thomas, the one who had at first doubted Christ’s resurrection! He said further that Christ had sent him on a mission to proclaim, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” So, without money, sandals, or staff, he was going around U.C.L.A., walking up to Jewish-looking “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and announcing, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Then he would walk away.

Having grown up in California, I knew that it was “the land of fruits and nuts,” and it didn’t take extraordinary discernment to figure out that this guy was a true native! I assure you that I did not, even for a fleeting second, wonder, “Could this really be the apostle Thomas?” I shrugged him off as a nut case, as I’m sure everyone else did.

What if a man proclaimed (John 8:12), “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life”? Would you believe him? What if this same man had already proclaimed (6:35), “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall not thirst”? He also said (7:37-38), “If any man is thirsty, let Him come unto Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” Would you not have to conclude, either, “This guy is a deluded religious nut”; or, “This is no mere man; this is God in human flesh”? Jesus’ bold claims to deity demand a response!

Note that in John 6, Jesus is the manna in the wilderness who provides for His people’s hunger. In John 7, Jesus is the water from the rock in the wilderness, providing for their thirst. In John 8, Jesus is the pillar of fire in the wilderness, providing protection and guidance by His presence with them. Thus Jesus is the all-sufficient Savior, providing for His people’s every need, even when they are traveling through a barren wilderness on their way to the Promised Land.

Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world demands that you respond by following Him.

Background: Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles. During that feast, as we’ve seen, the Jews performed a ceremony where a priest went to the Pool of Siloam, drew water in a golden pitcher, and returned in procession to the temple, where he poured it out at the base of the altar. It commemorated God’s provision of water from the rock that sustained Israel in the wilderness. It was in connection with that ceremony that Jesus proclaimed whoever drank of Him would have rivers of living water flowing from his innermost being.

At that same feast, the Jews performed another ceremony where they lit four huge candelabras or torches in the Court of the Women in the temple, commemorating the fact that the Lord had been a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night to protect and guide Israel in that desolate desert for 40 years. That cloud appeared on the day when Israel left Egypt, standing as a barrier between them and Pharaoh’s armies on the night before they crossed the Red Sea. Then as it went with them in that wilderness, it was a graphic symbol of the fact that the Lord God was with His people.

If, as we saw last week, the story of the woman caught in adultery (7:53-8:11) was not a part of John’s original Gospel, then the incident before us, where Jesus claims to be the Light of the world, took place either during or just after the Feast of Tabernacles, when the spectacle of these huge torches being lit in the temple would still be fresh in people’s minds. John 8:20 tells us that Jesus spoke these words in the treasury, as He taught in the temple. The treasury was the place, in the Court of the Women, where people could put their offerings into some trumpet-like receptacles. So, in the same courtyard where the torches were lit, Jesus boldly proclaimed, “I am the Light of the world.” How would you have reacted if you had been a Jew listening there? How should you respond to this astounding claim today?

1. Jesus makes an astounding claim: “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (8:12).

Note four things about this remarkable claim:

A. Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world is a claim to be God.

I had a letter last week from a Jehovah’s Witness man in Georgia who said that he has enjoyed my sermons and that they have helped him understand the Word in preparing for his teaching assignments in his congregation. He claimed that Jesus is his Lord and Savior, but then proceeded to try to convince me that Jesus is not God. He felt that my lumping his group with the cults and accusing them of heresy is unkind. He views the Jehovah’s Witnesses as the true remnant and the rest of Christendom, which affirms Jesus’ deity, as being deceived by Satan!

Well, of course, I beg to differ vigorously! The whole point of the Gospel of John, is that we all would join Thomas in proclaiming the risen Savior as “my Lord and my God” (20:28). Contrary to the explanation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Thomas was not swearing! Jesus would have rebuked him for that. Instead, Jesus commended him for believing the truth.

As I said, in the Old Testament, the Jews recognized the pillar and the cloud as the Lord (Exod. 13:21; 14:19-25). Furthermore, light is often used as a metaphor for God. Psalm 27:1 proclaims, “The Lord is my light and my salvation ….” In a prophecy about Jesus Christ (Matt. 4:16), Isaiah 9:2 predicts, “The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them.” In Isaiah 42:6 & 49:6, the Lord tells His Servant, the Messiah, that He has appointed Him to be “a light to the nations” (or, “world,” in John 8:12).

In Isaiah 60:19-20, God says to His people, “No longer will you have the sun for light by day, nor for brightness will the moon give you light; but you will have the Lord for an everlasting light, and your God for your glory. Your sun will no longer set, nor will your moon wane; for you will have the Lord for an everlasting light.” This is fulfilled in Revelation 21:23-24, where instead of the sun and moon, the nations have the Lamb as their lamp, and that Lamb is identified as “the Lord God” (22:5). Also, 1 John 1:5 tells us, “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” This reveals that God is absolutely pure and holy. Since Jesus is the light, He is without any sin (John 8:46; Heb. 7:26). Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world is a claim to be the Lord God in human flesh.

B. Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world means that He reveals the truth about God to us.

As Jesus states (John 8:14), He has come from the Father and He is returning to the Father. As He will further reveal, He and the Father are one (10:30). The one who has seen Him has seen the Father (14:9). John 1:18 put it, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” Thus Jesus uniquely reveals to us the truth of who the Father is and what He is like. If you have trouble getting your brain around the fact that God is invisible and that He “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16), then look to Jesus. He reveals the truth about God to us. We can only know the Father through the Son (Luke 10:22).

C. Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world means that He reveals the truth about us to us.

As we saw in John 2:24-25, Jesus knew all men and He knew what was in man. The fact is, apart from Jesus Christ, we don’t even know ourselves. The fallen human heart is deceptive and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). When we do not know God, we call evil good and good evil, substituting darkness for light and light for darkness. We are wise in our own sight (Isa. 5:20-21). Jesus says here that if we do not follow Him, we walk in the darkness. We think we know where we’re going, but we’re wrong. We deceive ourselves and end up ruining our lives and the lives of those around us.

Jesus also implies here the truth that other Scriptures plainly state, that apart from Him we’re dead in our sins (Eph. 2:1, 4). Paul combines the imagery both of darkness and spiritual death when he says (Eph. 4:18) that unbelievers are “darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” Jesus states it positively, if we follow Him we “will have the Light of life.” This means the Light that imparts life (see 1:4).

When you’re spiritually dead, you need God’s resurrection power to impart new life to your soul. Exhortations on how to improve your morals are of no use to a corpse. He needs life! Jesus promises that if you follow Him, you will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light that gives life.

D. Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world means that He reveals the truth about God to all people.

Jesus is not just the light of the Jews, but of the world. And He is the only light of the world. Other religions claim to enlighten and give spiritual insight, but they don’t deliver. Philosophers speculate about the great questions of life, but they can’t offer any true insights, because they’re in the dark. Paul says (Col. 2:3) that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. That wisdom and knowledge applies to all people, whether to primitive, illiterate tribes or to highly educated intellectuals.

When Jesus says that He is the light of the world, He does not mean that all people innately have enough light to respond to Him. Apart from Him, people are in spiritual darkness. Neither does He mean that people can figure out spiritual truth apart from His followers taking the gospel to them. As you know, just before He ascended, the risen Savior gave the Great Commission, telling us to make disciples of all nations. As Paul said (Rom. 10:14-15a), people can’t believe unless we go and tell them the good news. But when we go with the gospel and pray that God will open spiritually blind eyes, He does so as He reveals the glory of Christ (2 Cor. 4:4, 6).

The Bible says that we who know Christ shine as lights in the world (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15; Eph. 5:8), but only Christ is the true light. We just reflect Him. He’s like the sun; we’re like the moon. He is the source of light; we only shine as we reflect His image. As people see Christ reflected in us, we can point them to Him.

So Jesus makes this astounding claim: “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.” That claim inherently calls for a response:

2. The right response to Jesus’ claim is to follow Him as the Light of the world (8:12).

First, we need to understand what it means to follow Jesus:

A. To follow Jesus means to trust Him as Savior and obey Him as Lord.

You won’t follow someone you don’t trust. Suppose that we’re hiking in the woods and there are many trails going in different directions. I say to you, “Follow me; I know the way out of here.” The key issue is, do you trust me? Do you trust that I know what I’m talking about? If I have a track record of getting lost or of getting confused about directions, you’re not going to follow me. But if I’ve been in these woods many times and have guided people out of them successfully every time, and you know my reputation, you’ll follow me. If you say that you’re following me, but wander off in another direction, you’re not really following me. To follow someone means to trust him and to obey him.

So do you trust Jesus and obey Him? Do you trust His many claims about Himself? Do you trust the apostolic witness to Jesus? Do you trust that He died for your sins and was raised from the dead? Do you trust His promise to come again in power and glory and to judge the living and the dead? And does your trust translate into obedience to His commands?

When you trust in Jesus as your Savior and obey Him as your Lord, there are many benefits:

B. When we follow Jesus as the Light, we have the promise of His presence, His protection, and His guidance.

If I listed all the benefits of following Jesus, we’d be here all week. But limiting myself to the picture of the pillar of fire and cloud that’s behind Jesus’ claim here, we see these three benefits: His presence, His protection, and His guidance.

Exodus 13:21 states, “The Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night.” Throughout the time that Israel was in the wilderness, the cloud hovered over the tabernacle and symbolized God’s presence with His people.

In the same way, Jesus promised us His presence, especially as we take the gospel to the ends of the earth (Matt. 28:19-20). The Bible tells us that we’re in Christ, but also that He is in us. Jesus promises (John 14:28), “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” He also promises (Heb. 13:5), “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”

Also, the cloud and the fire protected Israel both from Pharaoh’s advancing army and later from the fierce desert sun by day and the dark and cold at night. In the same way, Jesus is our protection. He shelters us from the wrath of God that is coming on unbelievers. He protects us from the spiritual enemies that wage war against our souls. Just as He protected Jesus here, even though His enemies wanted to seize Him (8:20), so He protects His children until it’s our time to be with Him.

Also, the cloud guided Israel through that harsh, untracked wilderness. When the cloud moved, the people followed (Num. 9:17-23). He guided them to springs of water. He charted their course to the Promised Land. And, the Lord guides us through His Word, His Spirit, and the wise counsel of mature believers. He gives us wisdom in trials as we ask Him in prayer (James 1:3-5).

I wish I could end the message here and we could all go our way basking in the goodness of the Lord toward those who follow Jesus as the Light. But our text (in fact the major part of it!) shows us that the right response to Jesus isn’t the only option.

3. The wrong response to Jesus’ claim is to reject Him based on superficial reasons (8:13-20).

The Pharisees retorted to Jesus’ astounding claim (8:13), “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true.” They were ignoring Jesus’ many miracles, His amazing teaching, the witness of John the Baptist, and the many Old Testament prophecies that pointed to Jesus and rejecting Him based on the superficial reason that the law stipulated that to be valid in court, a claim had to be backed by two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15). I can only skim these verses, but note two things:

A. People who do not want to follow Jesus come up with all sorts of superficial reasons for rejecting Him.

The Pharisees are going back to Jesus’ statement in John 5:31, “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.” The translators have added alone; Jesus actually said “If I testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.” In the context, He meant that if He acted independently of the Father, His witness would be invalid. But in that same context, He showed that the Father testified of Him through the witness of John the Baptist, Jesus’ works (miracles), and God’s Word. But here, the Pharisees are not raising honest questions. Rejecting the witness that they had been given, they were desperately looking for any excuse they could find to reject Jesus’ claims. Jesus replies (8:14-18),

“Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone. But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.”

Jesus came from heaven and He was returning to heaven. That’s why He can claim to be the Light of the world. But the Pharisees were in the dark. They judged Jesus outwardly, according to the flesh. He did not judge people that way. When He judged people, He did it in truth because He depended on the Father who sent Him. Conceding their point about two witnesses, Jesus claims that He has not only His own witness, but also that of the Father.

Then the Pharisees retorted (8:19), “Where is Your Father?” They were probably thinking of Jesus’ human father, and may have been questioning His paternity based on rumors of His mother’s pregnancy before she was married (8:41). But Jesus answers (8:19), “You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.” The only way anyone can know the Father is through the Son (Luke 10:22). By refusing to follow Jesus, these religious leaders remained in spiritual darkness. But in their minds, they had “biblical reasons”! Unbelievers always come up with “reasons” why they don’t follow Jesus. Sometimes, as in the case of the Jehovah’s Witness who wrote to me, they’re even “biblical” reasons. But they’re always superficial excuses, not valid reasons.

B. The root reason that people reject Jesus is that they are in spiritual darkness and they love it because their deeds are evil.

As we saw in John 3:19, “men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.” Those who do not follow Jesus are living in spiritual and moral darkness. The evidence of spiritual darkness is that you want to get rid of Jesus from your life (8:20). But eliminating Christ from your life does not eliminate God as the sovereign of the world. He is sovereign over all things, including the timing of the death of His Son (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). One day every knee will bow before Jesus, either for rewards or for condemnation (Phil. 2:9-11). The root reason that people reject Jesus is that they love their sin. They don’t want the Light to expose their evil deeds.


So Jesus’ astounding claim (8:12), “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life,” draws a line and asks, “Which side are you on?” With the Pharisees, will you reject Jesus’ claim for some superficial reason because you don’t want the Light exposing your sin? Or, will you follow Him by trusting Him as your Savior and obeying Him as your Lord? He is either a religious crackpot or He is who He claimed to be. There is ample evidence that His witness is true, which means that you should follow Him.

Application Questions

  1. Why do the claims of Christ eliminate the common idea that He was a good religious teacher, but He is not God?
  2. Can a person (e.g. a Jehovah’s Witness) who professes Jesus as his Savior and Lord, but denies His deity, be truly saved?
  3. Some argue that God has done all that He can do to save people and now it is up to their response. How do the following verses refute this: 2 Cor. 4:4, 6; Eph. 2:1-5; John 6:44, 64; 8:43?
  4. What superficial reasons for rejecting Christ have you heard when you’ve shared the gospel? How can you best answer these excuses?

Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2014, All Rights Reserved.

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

Related Topics: Christology, Discipleship, Soteriology (Salvation)

11. God Conquers Spiritual Complacency (Judges 14:1-15:17, Samson)

Related Media

Judges: A Drifting People, A Delivering God (part eleven)

Have you ever been diagnosed with spiritual complacency? This disease seems especially to prey on modern Christians. Several conditions can result from spiritual complacency, and none of them are good. When Christians coast we become more vulnerable to temptation and sin. We experience discord in our relationships with others. We settle for far less than God's ideal for our lives. When considered in this light, it quickly becomes apparent that there is no such thing as coasting in the faith: we're always moving either forward or backward. Which direction are you heading?

Related Topics: Christian Life, Discipleship, Sanctification, Spiritual Life

12. God Conquers Selfish Indulgence (Judges 16:4-31, Samson)

Related Media

Judges: A Drifting People, A Delivering God (part twelve)

Are you known for your selfishness or your sacrifice? Sometimes God has to take things away from us so that we'll recognize our tendency toward selfish indulgence. Such was the case for Samson. God had to "prime the pump" by removing something precious to him. Only then could Samson offer a willing sacrifice. Christians should strive for God's pleasure rather than our own, willingly offering ourselves for the good of others and the glory of God. As we prepare through Lent to celebrate the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus this Easter, may we learn what it means to sacrifice for God and others.

Related Topics: Christian Life, Sacrifice, Spiritual Life

An Urgent Call to Shepherd God’s Flock — Peter’s Instruction to Shepherds (1 Peter 5)

Biblical Eldership Resources is dedicated to helping believers understand: 1. What biblical eldership is (Teaching) 2. How to implement biblical eldership in your local church (Implementation) 3. How to become more effective in the pastoral care that elders exercise over the local church (Effectiveness). Learn more at

Related Media
Download all audio

This six part series contains an urgent call to the leaders of the church to shepherd the people of God. Based on an exposition of 1 Peter 5, Alex Strauch challenges leaders to take seriously their responsibility. In this series Alex explains in detail how Peter writes as an elder to fellow elders, how he gives a specific charge to elders, how he calls them to shepherd God's flock in God's Way, how he shares a promise of future rewards for elders, and how he reminds them of the importance of the shepherd's presence among the flock.

Each of these six lessons is a 15 minute video presentation (audio is also available), and has a detailed outline to accompany it. For the official introduction to the series listen above to the short audio introduction by Chuck Gianotti.

Related Topics: Discipleship, Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors

1. An Urgent Call to Shepherd God’s Flock

Biblical Eldership Resources is dedicated to helping believers understand: 1. What biblical eldership is (Teaching) 2. How to implement biblical eldership in your local church (Implementation) 3. How to become more effective in the pastoral care that elders exercise over the local church (Effectiveness). Learn more at

Related Media

Detailed Outline
Part 1 of 5

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight.” (1 Peter 5:1-2a ESV)


A. So often, Peter is over-shadowed by Paul. We don’t even think of Peter’s instruction to the elders.

1. But may I remind you that the first church was held together, taught, and protected by Peter and the eleven other apostles? Peter was a great man and a gifted teacher and leader.

2. If we want to understand eldership as God intends, we need Peter as much as we need Paul. And we need Luke’s teaching in Acts, and the teaching of James, who was also an apostle.

B. Background

1. Up until this point in the letter, Peter has been addressing the suffering, persecuted churches. He has told them how they are to handle suffering and persecution in a hostile world. Now he turns to the leaders of all the congregations. They are usually the first to suffer persecution or be targeted by the opposition.

2. Peter is writing to many churches throughout northern Asia Minor. He assumes there is a body of elders in each church. This is the consistent pattern throughout the NT – a body of elders in each congregation.

3. When believers are suffering and under pressure, the leaders of the church make all the difference. In times of persecution or trouble, leaders are most needed to keep the flock united, encouraged, rested, and growing.

I. Peter — an Elder — to Fellow Elders (v. 1)

A. A Fellow Elder

1. By identifying himself as a “fellow elder,” Peter establishes a special bond of affection with the church elders. He creates a sense of colleagueship and mutual regard.

a) At one time Peter was a local church elder. He served with eleven other men during turbulent times in the church in Jerusalem.

b) At the time he wrote 1 Peter, Peter was an active shepherd caring for many churches. Hence, Peter has every right to call himself a “fellow elder.”

2. As a fellow elder, Peter sympathizes with the problems and dangers the Asian elders face.

a) He knows spiritual warfare and the practical problems of shepherding a church.

b) He serves daily on the front lines of battle. He knows how difficult the work is and is well-acquainted with the many pitfalls, abuses, and temptations of leadership.

c) He, too, feels the daily pressures and strains of pastoral responsibility.

B. A Witness of the Sufferings of Christ

1. The “sufferings of Christ” to which Peter testifies are the sufferings common to all believers as a result of confessing Christ and living in a Christ-like manner in an unjust, sinful world.

2. It is similar to 2 Corinthians 1:5, where Paul talks of sharing in Christ’s sufferings. Peter himself will face death soon, so he is a fellow sufferer.

3. This phrase could mean, however, that Peter witnessed the many sufferings of Christ over a period of two years from his opponents and ending at the cross.

C. A Partaker in the Glory to be Revealed

1. The future glory that Peter shares with the Asian elders is the joyous anticipation of the glory that will be revealed when Christ returns.

2. In the same way they have shared in Christ’s sufferings, so, too, they will share in the glory to come. This is a very encouraging promise (1 Peter 1:7, 11; 4:13).

II. Peter’s Charge to the Elders (v. 2)

A. Do all that a shepherd should do.

“Shepherd the flock of God that is among you.” Peter exhorts the elders to be what good shepherds should be, or, as one commentator says, “do everything that shepherding requires.” Peter’s charge encompasses the full shepherding responsibility of feeding, folding, protecting, and leading.

1. Peter knows people and the common temptations leaders face. He knows how often leaders:

a) Fail to be alert,

b) Do not push themselves to grow and change,

c) Get preoccupied with self-interests,

d) Are passive in their work,

e) Are minimalists,

f) Fail to be the kind of leaders that connect with the people,

g) Are not hands-on shepherds.

2. Reality is sad.

a) The Galatian elders and the Ephesian elders all failed to guard the church. False teachers entered in with minimal resistance.

b) The religious leaders of Jesus’ day failed the people. In Mark 6, when Jesus saw the people, He said they were like sheep without a shepherd. And He began to teach them. The problem was, the religious leaders had failed to shepherd the people with good teaching.

3. What Peter said needs to be said today. There is always this problem of elders not doing their job as they should. Do the job. Be effective. Be diligent. Be skilled. Know what you are doing.

a) On the authority of the apostle Peter, I say to you: Be everything that a shepherd should be to the people. Be like the Chief Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. When he saw the people, he felt compassion and taught them many things (Matt. 14).

b) These are the words of our Lord to Peter 35 years before: “Shepherd my sheep,” and “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-19).

c) Lord loved the church and gave himself for her (Eph. 5:25).

Related Topics: Discipleship, Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors