OUTLINE:

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

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

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

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

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note on the Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note on Realized Eschatology and the Gospel of John:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three possibilities are suggested:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arrest

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

Peter’s Denial

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

Mocked and Abused

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

Condemned by the Sanhedrin

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Structure of our Text

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

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

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

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

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

Luke’s Account and the Rest of the Gospels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter’s Denial
(22:54-62)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mocked and Abused
(22:63-65)

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

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

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

Condemned by the Sanhedrin
(22:66-71)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Irrational Faith”

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

A Fallen Perspective and Defective Standard

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

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

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

Preconceived Notions

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

Reasonable Faith

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

Unwanted Implications

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

Open Eyes

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

Introduction

Transition of power from one leader to the next is not always easy. Years ago I was a high school teacher in a state prison. I taught there the summer between my first and second year of seminary. At the end of the summer the full-time teacher who was to replace me came to my last class session. Someone must have given him some advice about “taking charge” because he let it be known to those inmates that he was going to be the one “in charge.” As the inmates filed out of class, one of them came up to me and whispered softly, “We’ll see.”

Just this past month, I was in Indonesia during the election of the president and vice president. You may remember that several times in 1998 there was serious rioting in that nation. The year 1998 was a very traumatic time in the history of Indonesia. If the results of the election last month had been different, things could have become very messy again. The fellow I was staying with in Jakarta left for the office the morning of the election with these words, “If you look out that window tonight and see fires burning all over the city, you’ll know that the riots have begun again.”

The section we are dealing with in 2 Kings describes the transition of power from Elijah to Elisha. While there were a number of prophets in Israel, it would seem that Elijah was the “senior prophet” of his time. After his departure, it was necessary that his successor be designated in a way that would make it clear he was the one in whom the spirit of Elijah had come to abide.

It took some doing for Elijah to be recognized and respected as God’s prophet in Israel. At the beginning of his prophetic ministry, it was necessary for him to hide out by the brook Cherith, and then at the home of a Gentile widow and her son who lived in the Sidonian town of Zarephath (1 Kings 17). At the end of his ministry, Elijah was able to travel freely about Israel, without fear of being bothered by wicked men. After all, the nation not only knew that he had called down fire on Mount Carmel, but that he had called down fire upon two groups of soldiers who had been sent to arrest him (2 Kings 1:9-12).

Elisha was with Elijah when he was taken up into heaven, accompanied by a chariot and horses of fire (2 Kings 2:11-12). A guild of prophets looked on from a distance as Elijah and Elisha crossed the Jordan River. They saw Elijah take his robe and strike the waters of the Jordan. They observed the waters of the Jordan parting so that Elijah and Elisha could cross over on dry ground. They did not witness Elijah’s incredible departure, but they realized that he was gone when Elisha returned alone. They watched as Elisha took Elijah’s robe and struck the waters of the Jordan just as Elijah had done, and then cross over on dry ground. They realized that Elisha was somehow energized by the Spirit that once had empowered Elijah.

I am inclined to believe that Elisha did not yet have the full respect that his office deserved. I say this because the prophetic guild who were in Jericho were not yet willing to accept Elisha’s word, unchallenged. They must have seen some evidence of the whirlwind that took Elijah up into heaven because they asked Elisha for permission to send out a search party to look for Elijah’s body. I don’t believe they expected to find Elijah alive. It seems their intention was to recover the prophet’s body if at all possible. They may have reasoned that if he was caught up by a whirlwind, his body must have been deposited somewhere, whether in the hills or in the valley. Elisha knew better, and he told them not to go, but they kept pressing him till he reluctantly granted them permission to conduct a search. Their mission was unsuccessful, as Elisha knew it would be. The very fact that they sought to change Elisha’s mind suggests to me that they did not yet sufficiently appreciate the power and position God had given him as Elijah’s replacement. To truly honor a prophet, one must take his words seriously. When spoken under inspiration, his words were the word of the Lord. It is my opinion that Elisha’s words were not yet taken seriously enough,⁹⁹ and that the three miracles described in our text were divinely designed to accredit Elisha as Elijah’s replacement, who now possessed the office and authority of Elijah.

Elisha Heals the Water at Jericho
(2 Kings 2:19-22)

19 The men of the city said to Elisha, “Look, the city has a good location, as our master can see. But the water is bad and¹⁰⁰ the land doesn’t produce crops.” 20 Elisha said, “Get me a new jar and put some salt in it.” So they got it. 21 He went out to the spring and threw the salt in. Then he said, “This is what the LORD says, ‘I have purified this water. It will no longer cause death or fail to produce crops.” 22 The water has been pure to this very day, just as Elisha prophesied.

In America, hardly anyone thinks about the water they drink. My recent trip to Indonesia reminded me of the fact that pure water is a very precious thing. During my stay abroad, I was careful not to drink water from the tap, and not even to brush my teeth with it. I would only drink bottled water in a restaurant, and I was warned to be careful about the ice as well. Although the location of the city of Jericho was ideal, the city had a serious water problem. The city was in the Jordan River valley, approximately five miles west of the Jordan River, and a few miles north of the Dead Sea.¹⁰¹ The land was fertile, but water was needed for drinking and for watering the crops. The city’s water supply spelled the difference between a thriving city and a wasteland. Unfortunately, the waters of the spring at Jericho were “bad” (literally, “evil”). The result was that the water was not drinkable, and the land was barren.

Elisha was told about this problem. He was not exactly asked to do something about it, but it seems those who informed him hoped he might be able to do something about it. I am reminded of the way Mary, the mother of Jesus, informed our Lord that they had run out of wine at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee (see John 2:3). Elisha instructed them to bring him a new jar, in which salt had been placed. He took the jar of salt and went to the spring, where he proceeded to cast this salt upon the “evil” waters. He then spoke these words: “This is what the LORD says, ‘I have purified this water. It will no longer cause death or fail to produce crops” (verse 21). From that time to the day this book was written, the waters of the spring remained pure.

There are those who have sought to identify the precise problem with the water. The author of our text does not even attempt to do so. I am content to leave it at that. Some seek to explain just how the salt healed the waters. I do not think we were intended to know this, either. What we do know is that the water was “bad” and that it could not be drunk, nor could it be used to water their crops. By what appears to be a symbolic gesture (casting salt upon the waters), Elisha heals the waters of the spring. In the final analysis, it is Elisha’s word that purified the waters (literally, the waters were healed “just as Elisha said,” verse 22).

Here was a miracle that lasted, not only in terms of its essence, but in terms of its effect. The writer tells us in verse 22 that the waters remained pure up to the day the account was written. Surely this is an evidence of the hand of God and made it clear that this “healing” was indeed a miracle. I think the miracle endured in a different way. It continued to be a sign as time passed. Let me see if I can illustrate this.

Years ago when our church was newly formed, we did not yet have a building of our own. We met in a school, and later in a hotel. We observe communion every week, and so each Sunday morning Ray, my brother-in-law, would prepare the communion trays. On one particular Sunday, Ray finished preparing one tray and held it out to me to set aside so that he could pour the grape juice into the cups in the next tray. The humidity was especially low that day, which meant there was a great deal of static electricity. I had just walked some distance on the carpet, and so when I reached out to take the tray from Ray, I got a very substantial jolt of static electricity. I jumped and slopped grape juice everywhere. It was a mess, but Ray graciously helped me clean it up. Later on we were celebrating the Lord’s Table, and as communion was being observed, it happened to be Ray who brought the tray of grape juice to the row where I was seated (on the aisle). It was a most solemn moment, and Ray held out the tray, for me to take it. Then, unexpectedly, he withdrew it. He bent down and quietly whispered in my ear, “Steady, now.” Because of the way I spilled the grape juice earlier, Ray wanted to be sure I did not do it again. My earlier action had continuing results.

That is the way it must have been with the water in that spring at Jericho. Can you imagine finding that spring after a long journey, hurrying to it and taking a great gulp of water, only to spit it out in disgust? Having once drunk from these “evil” waters, one would not be so quick to try again. You would be reminded of the previous condition of this spring every time you drank from it in the future. From this day on, every time someone drank from that well, they would be reminded that these waters were once bad. And thus, it would seem to me, one would have to exercise a certain amount of faith every time you drank from this well. Would there not be the lingering thought, “I wonder if the purification of these waters is still in effect.”?

By the healing of these waters, God gave life to an entire city through His prophet, Elisha. And by the healing of these waters God was once again showing His sovereign control over His creation. Did the heathen look to their gods for rain and crops? The God of Israel is God alone. He gives water, and He gives crops, as He does here by the hand of Elisha.

Elijah, the Bears, and the “Bad Boys of Bethel”¹⁰²
(2 Kings 3:23-25)

23 He went up from there to Bethel. As he was traveling up the road, some young boys came out of the city and made fun of him, saying, “Go on up, baldy! Go on up, baldy!” 24 When he turned around and saw them, he called God’s judgment down on them. Two female bears¹⁰³ came out of the woods and ripped 42 of the boys to pieces. 25 From there he traveled to Mount Carmel and then back to Samaria.

It’s a very simple story, really, but one that troubles many. Some people seem to read the story as though it went like this (I caution you to read carefully, forewarned that the following is not what the biblical text says, or what I understand it to mean. What follows is a description of how the critics and skeptics tend to read this text.):

Elisha made his way to Bethel. Outside town, a group of children was playing. Elisha happened to pass by. Innocently (or at least ignorantly) a child took note of the fact that the prophet was bald, and commented about this. The other children took up this theme and chanted or sang it, thinking that Elisha would see the fun in it all. The grumpy prophet did not see anything funny about this at all. Instead, he exploded in anger and pronounced a curse upon these children, so that two bears came on them and they were brutally maimed.

It was, indeed, a long, hot twenty-five mile trek from Jericho (some 1300 feet below sea level) to Bethel (which was 2,000 feet above sea level). Bethel was not just any Israelite city, either. Bethel was one of two cities that Jeroboam had designated as places of worship for the northern kingdom of Israel when Solomon’s kingdom was divided between his son Rehoboam and his enemy, Jeroboam. Jeroboam feared that these two kingdoms might be tempted to re-unite because of the one central place of worship (Jerusalem) which was located in Judah. And so Jeroboam made a bold move—he established two places of counterfeit worship in Israel. One was in Dan, at the northern edge of Israel. The other was in Bethel, at the southern edge of Israel, a mere 12 miles from Jerusalem. One of the golden calves Jeroboam had provided for Israel to worship was placed in Bethel (see 1 Kings 12). This was a very pagan place, where God and His Word were no longer revered. The disrespect which Elisha received by these young Bethel boys was typical of the attitude of the general population in Bethel toward any true prophet of God.

The term used by our author to refer to these young men is one that is quite flexible. It is used of a young child, but it can also refer to what we would call a “young man.” It is apparent to me that these are not “little boys” who accost Elisha, but “young men.” My junior high school teacher, Chet Dombroski (I can remember some things), used to call fellows like this “local toughs.” This was not a group of little boys; it was a gang of young trouble-makers. Remember, we know that 42 were injured. That means that the smallest number for this “gang” was 42, and there could have been others who were fortunate enough to escape from the bears. This could have been a very intimidating confrontation for Elisha. The “bad boys of Bethel” got what they deserved. Would they try to bully Elisha? Then let them face two mother bears and see what real intimidation feels like.

There are various explanations of the words these young men spoke to Elisha, but I think we can be certain of several things. First, these young men were both hostile and insulting to the prophet. The expression “bald head” is no compliment, but rather a most offensive insult. We do not know for sure what they meant by the words, “Go up,” either. Were they challenging Elisha to do what Elijah had just done (“Go up” into heaven?)? It’s possible, but I rather doubt it. After all, even the prophets who looked on from a distance were inclined to think that Elijah was “taken up” by a windstorm. I think the essence of what these boys were chanting was something like this: “Keep on going up that road!” In more contemporary terms, these young men were shouting for Elisha to “Get out of town!” These young men, like the rest of those who lived in Bethel, did not want Elisha around. They did not want to hear “the word of the Lord.”

Let me remind you that Elisha did not personally harm any one of these trouble-makers. Elisha pronounced a curse on them, but in and of itself, that is not an act of violence. By pronouncing a curse, he left judgment where it should be—in the hands of God. We are intended to conclude that the two she bears attacked the young men simply because Elisha pronounced a curse on them. This is true, but we must also see that it was God who brought about the judgment these young men deserved. If we do not like the judgment that was executed here, then we have a problem with God. I believe that God “tried these young men as adults” (in today’s legal language) and found them guilty. Thus He carried out their rightly-deserved punishment by means of the bears.

Before anyone gets too worked up about this incident, they should seriously consider several other biblical texts in relation to what is reported in our text:

In the Law, God warned His people that if they refused to obey Him, He would send wild animals against them, and their children:

21 “‘If you walk in hostility against me and are not willing to obey me, I will increase your affliction seven times according to your sins. 22 I will send against you the animal of the field and it will bereave you of your children, annihilate your cattle, and diminish your population, and your roads will become deserted”(Leviticus 26:21-22, emphasis mine).

Later on, God’s judgment came upon His people because they rejected and ridiculed His prophets:

15 The LORD God of their ancestors continually warned them through his messengers, for he felt compassion for his people and his dwelling place. 16 But they mocked God’s messengers, despised his warnings, and ridiculed his prophets. Finally the LORD got angry at his people and there was no one who could prevent his judgment (2 Chronicles 36:15-16).

Do we really think that God indiscriminately pours out his wrath on “innocent little children”? It was Jonah who lacked compassion toward the innocent, and God who refused to punish those who were not yet accountable for their actions (who “did not know their right hand from their left”):

10 The LORD said, “You have compassion for the plant, something that you have not worked over nor made to grow, a thing that lasted a night and perished after a night. 11 Now should not I have compassion for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than one hundred twenty thousand people who do not know their right from their left, besides many animals?” (Jonah 4:10-11, emphasis mine).

For me, the most forceful and relevant Old Testament text is this one, recorded in the first chapter of the Book of Proverbs:

8 Listen, my child, to the training of your father and do not forsake the teaching of your mother. 9 For they will be a garland of grace for your head and a pendant for your neck. 10 My child, if sinners entice you do not consent. 11 If they say, “Come with us; we are going to lie in wait for blood we are going to lie in hiding for an innocent person for no reason. 12 We will swallow them alive, like the grave, and whole, like those going down to the pit. 13 We will get all kinds of precious wealth, we will fill our houses with plunder. 14 Throw your lot in with us, and we will all have a common purse.” 15 My child, do not go in the way with them, withhold your foot from their path; 16 for their feet run to evil, and they hasten to shed blood; 17 for it is futile to spread a net in front of all the birds! 18 But these men lie in wait for their own blood, they lie in hiding for their own lives. 19 Thus is the end of all who unjustly gain profit; it takes away the life of those who get it. 20 Wisdom calls out in the street, she lifts up her voice in the plazas; 21 at the head of the noisy streets she calls, in the entrances of the gates in the city she makes her speech: 22 “How long will you simpletons love simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery, and fools hate knowledge? 23 If only you will respond to my rebuke, then I will pour out my spirit to you, and I will make my thoughts known to you. 4 Since I called but you refused me, I stretched out my hand but no one paid attention, 25 and you neglected all my advice and did not comply with my rebuke, 26 then I will laugh at your disaster, I will mock when what you dread comes, 27 when what you dread comes like a whirlwind, and your disaster comes like a storm, when distress and trouble come upon you. 28 Then they will call to me, but I will not answer; they will look to me, but they will not find me. 29 Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD, 30 they did not comply with my advice, they spurned all my rebuke, 31 then they will eat from the fruit of their way and from their counsel they will be satisfied. 32 For the turning away of the simple will kill them, and the careless ease of fools will destroy them. 33 But the one who listens to me will live in security and be at ease from the dread of harm (Proverbs 1:8-33).

These were not innocent little boys, naively teasing a prophet in an inappropriate fashion. Elisha was not needlessly harsh, nor was God. God’s judgment was poured out on those who rebelled against God, who disobeyed His Word, and who mocked His servants, the prophets. If there was one lesson that the people of Bethel learned that day, it was that they must reverence God and His spokesmen.

We Three Kings
(2 Kings 3:1-27)

1 In the eighteenth year of King Jehoshaphat’s reign over Judah, Ahab’s son Jehoram became king over Israel in Samaria; he ruled for 12 years. 2 He did evil before the LORD, but not to the same degree as his father and mother. He did remove the sacred pillar of Baal that his father had made. 3 Yet he persisted in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who encouraged Israel to sin; he did not turn from them.

4 Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep-breeder. He would send as tribute to the king of Israel 100,000 male lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. 5 When Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6 At that time King Jehoram left Samaria and assembled all Israel for war. 7 He sent this message to Jehoshaphat king of Judah: “The king of Moab has rebelled against me. Will you fight with me against Moab?” Jehoshaphat replied, “I will join you in the campaign; my army and horses are at your disposal.” 8 He then asked, “Which invasion route are we going to take?” Jehoram answered, “By the road through the Desert of Edom.” 9 So the kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom set out together. They wandered around on the road for seven days and finally ran out of water for the men and animals they had with them. 10 The king of Israel said, “Oh no! Certainly the LORD has summoned these three kings so that he can hand them over to the king of Moab!” 11 Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there no prophet of the LORD here that we might seek the LORD’s direction?” One of the servants of the king of Israel answered, “Elisha son of Shapat is here; he used to be Elijah’s servant.” 12 Jehoshaphat said, “The LORD speaks through him.” So the king of Israel, Jehoshaphat, and the king of Edom went down to visit him.

13 Elisha said to the king of Israel, “Why are you here? Go to your father’s prophets or your mother’s prophets!” The king of Israel replied to him, “No, for the LORD is the one who summoned these three kings so that he can hand them over to Moab.” 14 Elisha said, “As certainly as the sovereign LORD lives (whom I serve), if I did not respect Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not pay attention to you or acknowledge you.” 15 But now, get me a musician.” When the musician played, the LORD energized him, 16 and he said, “This is what the LORD says, ‘Make many cisterns in this valley,’ 17 for this is what the LORD says, ‘You will not feel any wind or see any rain, but this valley will be full of water and you and your cattle and animals will drink.’ 18 This is an easy task for the LORD; he will also hand Moab over to you. 19 You will defeat every fortified and every important city. You must chop down every productive tree, stop up all the springs, and cover all the cultivated land with stones.”

20 Sure enough, the next morning, at the time of the morning sacrifice, water came flowing down from Edom and filled the land. 21 Now all Moab had heard that the kings were attacking, so everyone old enough to fight was mustered and placed at the border. 22 When they got up early the next morning, the sun was shining on the water. To the Moabites, who were some distance away, the water looked red like blood. 23 The Moabites said, “It’s blood! The kings are totally destroyed. They have struck one another down. Now, Moab, grab the plunder!” 24 When they approached the Israelite camp, the Israelites rose up and struck down the Moabites, who then ran from them. The Israelites thoroughly defeated Moab. 25 They tore down the cities and each man threw a stone into every cultivated field until they were covered. They stopped up every spring and chopped down every productive tree. Only Kir Hareseth was left intact, but the slingers surrounded it and attacked it. 26 When the king of Moab realized he was losing the battle, he and 700 swordsmen tried to break through and attack the king of Edom, but they failed. 27 So he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him up as a burnt sacrifice on the wall. There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland.

There are several things we need to review before we consider the “three kings” of 2 Kings 3. We need to remember that we are now in the period of the divided kingdom. The “Israel” over which Saul, David, and Solomon reigned is now two nations: the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah. Israel will be carried off to captivity by the Assyrians; later, Judah will be carried off to Babylon by the Babylonians. Both Elijah and Elisha were prophets to the northern kingdom of Israel. At this point in Elisha’s ministry, Israel continues to be ruled by the house of Omri, or more specifically at this point in time, by Ahab’s son, Jehoram.¹⁰⁴ Judah is still ruled by Jehoshaphat.

The story of the “three kings” is all the more perplexing in the light of 1 Kings 22:1-40. On this earlier occasion, Ahab wanted to go to war against the king of Syria in order to regain possession of Ramoth Gilead. Ahab asked Jehoshaphat to join him in this battle, and the king of Judah agreed, with almost the same words that we find in 2 Kings 3:7:

“I will support you; my army and horses are at your disposal” (1 Kings 22:4b).

“I will join you in the campaign; my army and horses are at your disposal” (2 Kings 3:7b).

In this earlier alliance with a king of Israel, Jehoshaphat is clearly set up by Ahab, who disguises himself and sends the king of Judah out to battle in his royal attire—something which nearly costs Jehoshaphat his life. God providentially intervened, however, sparing Jehoshaphat’s life, and bringing about the death of Ahab by what seemed to be a random shot (1 Kings 22:29-38).

One has to marvel that Jehoshaphat would so readily join with Jehoram, king of Israel, especially after this stinging rebuke for going into battle with Ahab:

1 When Jehoshaphat king of Judah returned home safely to Jerusalem, 2 the prophet Jehu son of Hanani confronted him and said to King Jehoshaphat: “Is it right to help the wicked and be an ally of those who oppose the LORD? Because you have done this the LORD is angry with you. 3 Nevertheless you have done some good things; you removed the Asherah poles from the land and you were determined to follow the LORD” (2 Chronicles 19:1-3).

I am inclined to wonder if the words of 2 Kings 3:1-3 may not have been a factor in Jehoshaphat’s decision to go with Jehoram:

1 In the eighteenth year of King Jehoshaphat’s reign over Judah, Ahab’s son Jehoram became king over Israel in Samaria; he ruled for 12 years. 2 He did evil before the LORD, but not to the same degree as his father and mother. He did remove the sacred pillar of Baal that his father had made. 3 Yet he persisted in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who encouraged Israel to sin; he did not turn from them.

We are told that Jehoram, Ahab’s son, became king (after the death of Ahaziah) and reigned for 12 years. Like Ahab his father, Jehoram was also evil. But he was not as evil as his father or his mother (Jezebel) had been. It may be that Jehoshaphat reasoned that while Jehoram was not the man he should have been, he was not as bad as he could have been, and he was surely not as bad as Ahab or Jezebel. Perhaps, then, Jehoshaphat reasoned that Jehoram was a good enough king to form an alliance with him in a time of war. After all, many of those who are our allies in a time of war are not our close associates in a time of peace. Perhaps this is why the author gives us this evaluation of Jehoram at the beginning of this account.

Ahab, king of Israel, has died, and Jehoram his son now reigns in his place. When Ahab was king, he prevailed over the surrounding nations, collecting tribute from them. Moab (located on the eastern side of the Dead Sea), ruled by king Mesha at the time, paid tribute in the form of 100,000 male lambs and the wool of (100,000) male rams. When Ahab died and Jehoram took his place, Mesha saw this as his opportunity to break away from Israelite domination and to avoid further payments of tribute.

Jehoram was not inclined to let Mesha get away with this rebellion. Not only would Israel lose the tribute Moab paid them, but other subject nations might also try to break away from Israel’s domination. And so Jehoram appealed to Jehoshaphat for help against a common enemy. Jehoram’s strategy was brilliant, or so it seemed. Now, two nations were going to join him in his battle against the Moabites. It hardly seems coincidental that Edom is also an ally of Israel and Judah in this war. I understand that Edom was subject to Judah at this time, and thus when Jehoshaphat committed Judah to this battle, he was as good as committing Edom also. How could the king of Edom say “No”?

The route of their attack further entangled Edom in this alliance. Edom and Moab were neighbors. Moab was on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, and Edom was located at the southern end of the Dead Sea, just below Moab. Rather than attack Moab by crossing the Jordan River and marching south (thereby attacking Moab’s northern border), Jehoram planned to march south, down the western side of the Dead Sea. Then the three kings and their armies would pass through Edom and attack Moab at their southern border, which was perhaps not as heavily armed. This was all Jehoram’s plan, a plan that Jehoshaphat did not devise or propose. It is a plan to which Jehoshaphat rather foolishly submitted himself, his army, and Edom as well.

It really did seem like a clever plan, and at first it appeared to be working well. The three kings and their armies marched down the western coast of the Dead Sea, intending to pass around the end of the Dead Sea, passing through the Desert of Edom. This is where things really began to go wrong. The text seems to describe their journey as though these three armies were “wandering around,” as though they had lost their way (2 Kings 3:9). We are then told that they ran out of water while still in the desert. As someone has said, “This does not bode well.” The king of Israel was one of the first to figure out that they were all in very serious trouble. He saw this as the judgment of God—the God of Israel—Who was intent upon bringing about the destruction of all three kings and their armies. How interesting that this polytheist would see these events as coming from the hand of God.

Jehoshaphat was not willing to accept Jehoram’s assessment of the situation. It was certainly a bit late, but Jehoshaphat decided it was time to seek divine guidance. He wanted this guidance from a true prophet, a “prophet of the LORD” (2 Kings 3:11). Jehoram has no one to recommend, but one of his servants does. He reports to Jehoram that Elisha, the one who formerly served Elijah, was living nearby. Jehoshaphat was certain that this prophet was one through whom the LORD spoke (3:12).

The three kings then made their way (literally “went down”) to where Elisha was staying. Elisha immediately rebuked Jehoram, asking why he had come, and instructing him to go and consult the prophets of his father (Ahab) and mother (Jezebel). This meeting is probably as distasteful to Jehoram as it is to Elisha. He would prefer to consult other prophets, except for one fact—Jehoram was convinced that Yahweh, the God of Israel, was behind this disaster, and that He alone could save them. Unpleasant as it might be, he had no alternative.

This would not have been enough to convince Elisha to come to his aid. Elisha made it very clear to Jehoram that his help would be for Jehoshaphat’s sake. The kings of Israel and Edom would be spared, but only on account of Jehoshaphat. I am reminded of the principle which Paul set down in 1 Corinthians 7:12-14:

12 To the rest I say—I, not the Lord—if a brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is happy to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is happy to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified because of the wife, and the unbelieving wife because of her husband. Otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy (1 Corinthians 7:12-14).

This text encourages the Christian spouse not to divorce their unbelieving mate and to live with their unbelieving partner so long as they are willing to do so. The reason Paul gives is that, in some sense, the children of this marriage are “sanctified” or “set apart.” I would suggest to you that our text in 2 Kings 3 sheds some light on Paul’s words. Neither the king of Edom nor the king of Israel were saints, but in spite of this they were “blessed” because of their association with Jehoshaphat. In the same way, I believe, the unbelieving spouse and children of a “mixed marriage” (spiritually speaking) benefit from living in association with the parent who is a believer. “Second-handedly,” they experience God’s blessings on the believer, with whom they are associated.

Having decided to seek divine guidance on behalf of Jehoshaphat and his associates, Elisha asks for a musician, perhaps a harpist like David.¹⁰⁵ While this was not the norm, music sometimes played an influential role in the realm of the spirit. This is most apparent in the life and times of David. For example, Samuel informed Saul that he would be overcome by the Spirit of God, which would indicate to others that God had empowered him to serve as their king:

3 “You should continue on from there, coming to the tall tree of Tabor. At that point three men who are going up to God at Bethel will encounter you. One of them will be carrying three kids, one of them will be carrying three round loaves of bread, and one of them will be carrying a flask of wine. 4 They will ask you how you’re doing and will give you two loaves of bread. You will accept them. 5 Afterwards you will go to Gibeah of God, where there are Philistine deputies. When you enter the city, you will meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place. They will have harps, tambourines, flutes, and lyres, and they will be prophesying. 6 Then the spirit of the LORD will rush over you, and you will prophesy with them. You will become a different person. 7 “When these signs have taken place, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God will be with you. 8 You will go down to Gilgal before me. I will come down to you to offer burnt offerings and to make peace sacrifices. You should wait for seven days, until I come to you and inform you of what you should do.” 9 As he turned to leave Samuel, God changed his thinking. All these signs happened on that very day. 10 When they arrived at Gibeah, a company of prophets was coming out to meet him. Then the spirit of God rushed on him, and he prophesied in their midst. 11 When everyone who had known him previously saw that he was prophesying with the prophets, the people all asked one another, “What on earth has happened to the son of Kish? Does even Saul belong with the prophets?” 12 A man who was from there replied, “And who is their father?” Therefore this became a proverb: “Is even Saul among the prophets?” 13 Then when he had finished prophesying, he went to the high place” (1 Samuel 10:5-13, emphasis mine).

We are also told that when Saul was troubled by an evil spirit, David’s music seemed to calm him:

And so it was that whenever the spirit from God would come on Saul, David would take his lyre and would play it with his hand. This would bring relief to Saul, and things would improve for him. The evil spirit would depart from him (1 Samuel 16:23).

The musician came as Elisha requested, and as he (or she) played, the Spirit of God [literally, the “hand of the LORD”] came upon Elisha. Elisha spoke the word of the LORD to them. They were to create cisterns or ditches in the valley where they were. This “valley” would be what we in Texas might call a “wash.” Here, it is not a constantly flowing, year-round stream or river; it is a dry river bed, where the waters would gather to run off when it rained sufficiently to produce a stream (or, in some cases, a torrent). God is assuring Jehoshaphat and the other kings that He will fill the “wash” with water, so they are to dig out small reservoirs which will contain some of the water, and thus obtain water for themselves and their animals to drink.

In some ways, it sounds as though God is saying, “Get ready, it’s going to rain!” But Elisha makes it clear that God is going to do something unusual. He is going to fill the “wash” or valley with water, but in such a way that they will not see the source of the water which God provides. They will not observe the phenomena which are normally associated with rain. They will see neither wind nor rain. Usually, if water were to be found in this wash, it would be because a storm had brought rain. This water will seemingly come from nowhere.

I believe there are several reasons for this unusual provision of water. First, I believe that God does not allow Himself to be “put in a box,” as some are inclined to do with God. Why is it that we so often try to find human explanations for His actions? When we read in the Book of Jonah that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, and then escaped, we seem to find great comfort and assurance in reading stories about others who have been swallowed by fish and have survived. Why is this? Do we believe only the believable? I believe that whether or not anyone ever survived being swallowed by a fish before or after, Jonah did. After all, God prepared this fish. God did not wish to provide water in a normal fashion, but He chose to do it in a most unusual way. Because He is God, this is no problem to Him. God is not restricted to man’s ways, or even to man’s imaginations (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Second, God provided water for these three kings and their armies in a very unusual way in order to emphasize His ability to give them the victory over their enemies, the Moabites. That is what these words seem to mean:

“‘You will not feel any wind or see any rain, but this valley will be full of water and you and your cattle and animals will drink.’ 18 This is an easy task for the LORD; he will also hand Moab over to you. 19 You will defeat every fortified and every important city” (2 Kings 3:17b-19a).

The God who provided water “out of nowhere” is the God who will give them the victory, when there seems to be “no way” that can happen. He is the God of the impossible.

Third, the water is provided in an unusual way because it is not only the instrument of salvation for these three kings and their armies, but it is also God’s instrument of destruction for the Moabites. If the water had come from the rains, the Moabites would probably have seen this. The text would indicate that when the Moabites looked out and saw the water, they assumed that it was blood. They seem to have no idea that this could be water, because they had not observed any rainfall. They expected any water in that wash to come about normally, but God provided the water in an unusual way, a way undetected by the Moabites. Supposing that this divinely-provided water was the blood of their enemies, the Moabites reasoned that these three approaching armies had turned against one another. If this was the case, they did not need to come prepared to have a fight; they needed to come prepared for hauling freight. I can almost see them laying aside their swords and their shields to lighten the load of their chariots, or to leave their arms free to carry off the spoils. And so with this very unusual provision of water for the three kings and their armies, God put their enemies at a tremendous disadvantage. They left their fortifications and came out into the open, not fully armed (it would seem) but largely unarmed, because they wrongly supposed that their enemies were already dead.

God had made it clear that when he gave Jehoshaphat and his colleagues success, they were to totally devastate the land. They were to capture and destroy the major cities, to chop down the trees of value, to cover the land with stones, and to stop up every spring (2 Kings 3:19). In so doing, they would virtually cripple the nation of Moab for years to come. The Moabites would think twice before they made an enemy of God’s people again.

From the outset of the fighting, it was apparent that the Moabites were losing. The allied army did just as God had commanded throughout the land of Moab. Only the capital city of Moab remained, and here is where the battle got ugly. Kir Hareseth was under attack by the “slingers.” It was not just David who was highly skilled with the sling, but a number of Benjamites, and perhaps others (see Judges 20:16). I think the present day equivalent would be the “sharpshooters” who are used in very specialized situations. They were attempting to “pick off” those Moabites who made the mistake of giving these sharpshooters any target at all.

The king of Moab seemed to realize that it would only be a matter of time before the city fell. He assembled 700 of his swordsmen and made a desperate attempt to break through and attack the king of Edom—who seemed to be the weakest link in the allied army’s defenses. This did not work, and so in one final act of desperation, the king of Moab offered up his son as a burnt sacrifice on the wall of the city, in the sight of all. This seems to be an act of appeasement to his god, Chemosh, with the hope that his god would save the Moabites. The result was an outbreak of anger against Israel. There is a great deal of discussion about this anger. Was it God’s anger against Israel? Was it anger on the part of the Moabites? I cannot say for certain. But it is safe to say that this “anger” caused the allied armies to give up their fight and go home. I think we can also conclude that the war accomplished the goal of delivering Jehoshaphat and those with him and of dealing a devastating blow to the Moabites. At the same time, the way this war ended did not allow anyone to feel really good about it. We must remember Elisha’s words to the king of Israel, which indicated that he had little concern for saving this idolater, but only concern for Jehoshaphat. A foolish alliance—and perhaps a foolish war—was concluded safely, but without the usual thrill of victory.

Conclusion

Let us conclude this message by considering what these miracles accomplished then, and what they have to teach us now.

First of all, these miracles served to accredit Elisha as the successor of Elijah. Moses parted the Red Sea, and Joshua the Jordan river. So, too, both Elijah and Elisha parted the Jordan River. As Moses “healed” the waters of Marah (Exodus 15:22-26), so Elisha healed the waters of the spring at Jericho. Elisha is one of a line of men whom God used to save His people. It was through Elisha that God spared Jehoshaphat and the kings of Israel and Edom, along with their armies. We hear it from the lips of the servant of Jehoram, as well as from the king of Judah—“the Word of the LORD is with Elisha” (2 Kings 3:11-12).

Second, God is a saving God. God “healed” the waters of the spring at Jericho, and He provided “streams in the desert” which spared the lives of Jehoshaphat and those with him. His salvation is gracious; it is unmerited. He saved the Edomites and the Israelites, along with their kings, only because they were associated with Jehoshaphat. God saved Jehoshaphat, in spite of his foolish decision to enter into an alliance with pagans. I am reminded of this verse from the Psalms: “Yahweh looks after the simple, when I was brought low he gave me strength” (Psalm 116:6, NJB).

How grateful I am that God not only saves, but that He saves the simple! How often God has saved me from my own folly.

Third, God is a God who saves, but He is also the God who judges sin. We see God’s saving hand in our text, but we dare not overlook the incident with the “Bad boys of Bethel” and the bears, or the defeat of the Moabites. Those who reject God and who reject His Word are those who place themselves in harm’s way. God may delay His wrath, but He will not overlook sin indefinitely. The God who saves is also the God who judges.

I am reminded of Paul’s words here, calling our attention to the “kindness and harshness of God”: “Notice therefore the kindness and harshness of God—harshness toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off” (Romans 11:22).

God was gracious to Jehoshaphat, even though he had done something foolish. In spite of his folly, Jehoshaphat was a man who trusted in God, and thus God was kind toward him. Those who mocked Elisha also mocked his God, and because of this God dealt with them severely.

My friend, how will God deal with you? Will He deal with you severely, or with kindness? The answer to this question is determined by your response to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Your relationship to Jesus Christ determines whether you spend eternity in heaven with God, or an eternity in hell, separated from God. You and I are saved, not by any good works or merit of our own, but on the basis of our relationship to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the cross of Calvary, bearing the guilt and the penalty for our sins. Those who acknowledge their sin and who trust in Jesus Christ are promised the forgiveness of their sins and the assurance of eternal life.

When our Lord Jesus came to this earth, He came as God’s final messenger, exposing our sin, suffering its guilt and punishment, and offering eternal life to those who trust in Him. If God dealt severely with those young men who mocked Elisha (as God’s messenger), how do you think He will deal with those who reject Jesus Christ as His final messenger?

33 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a fence around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a watchtower. Then he rented it to tenant farmers and went on a journey. 34 When the harvest time was near, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his portion of the crop. 35 But the tenants seized his slaves, beat one, killed another and stoned another. 36 Then he sent other slaves, more than the first, and they treated them the same way. 37 Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and get his inheritance!’ 39 So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. 40 Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41 They said to him, “He will put those evil men to a miserable death, and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants who will give him his portion at the harvest.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 For this reason I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit. 44 The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them. 46 They wanted to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.

1 Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2 For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, 3 how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first communicated through the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard him, 4 while God confirmed their witness with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will (Hebrews 2:1-4).

It is my hope and prayer that you have given heed to our Lord and to His message. If you have trusted in Him, then you can rest assured that He will save you, and show His kindness to you.

99 Remember, too, that Elisha had served as Elijah’s servant for some period of time (2 Kings 3:11). It would take a little doing for people to think of Elisha as the “father” of the prophets, rather than as the servant of Elijah.

100 In my opinion, the “and” has the force of “so that.” It was the bad water of this spring which caused the land to be unproductive. When the waters were healed, the land became productive.

101 Modern-day Jericho is about a mile or so east of the site where ancient Jericho was located, and is almost a desert oasis, since this area gets little rain.

102 I came across a scholarly article that referred to the “Bethel boys” as the “Bad boys of Bethel,” and I liked this designation so well that I borrowed it.

103 It was also near Bethel that the “young prophet” was killed by a lion (see 1 Kings 13).

104 There are actually two Jehoram’s (see 2 Kings 8:16): Jehoram, son of Ahab (sometimes also called Joram), and Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat. This can obviously be confusing. It is the first Jehoram (king of Israel) with whom we are dealing in our text.

105 In the NET Bible, the translator’s note on 2 Kings 3:15 reads: “The term used refers to one who plays a stringed instrument, perhaps a harp.” The NIV renders it, “bring me a harpist.”