Least of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 15:8-9)
“And last of all, as to one who is stillborn, he was seen [by me]. For I, myself am the least of the apostles, not worthy to be called an apostle, for I persecuted the church of God.” (1 Corinthians 15:8-9)
Though Paul understood that he had been forgiven, he never forgot the life that God had redeemed him from. Paul, then known as Saul, had been a great persecutor of the Christian church and had been zealous to see this fledgling church destroyed. He was even present at the execution of Stephen, holding the cloaks of those who were stoning him to death. And though Paul turned his zeal toward preaching the gospel, he never forgot the evils that he had committed.
The term that Paul uses of himself is e¡ktrwma (ektroma), which can refer to a premature birth, a stillborn child, a miscarriage, or even an aborted baby. The language that Paul is using expresses the idea that he was one who was not supposed to live, yet Christ, in his mercy, revealed himself to Paul anyway, giving him life. Paul, probably the greatest missionary preacher of all time, understood that he brought nothing of his own to the table—the only good in him was God in him.
While there are many Christians who have a difficulty remembering a time when they were not trusting in Jesus Christ for redemption, there are many of us also that do remember with great grief the days of our rebellion, before God brought us to salvation. As I reflect on the years of my own rebellion, it shames me to think upon some of the things that I did. At the same time, those dark days make God’s gift of salvation very sweet to me. As I read this passage, I think that I have a sense of the joy and gratitude that Paul had in serving Jesus. Jesus has given we, the redeemed, so much and has assured us of so much more—and there is not an ounce of that blessing that we are deserving of. He pours it out freely according to his grace.
And God uses us to minister to others as well! When we read these letters that Paul wrote, sometimes we forget that the purpose behind them was to correct problems that were going on in a church—ministering from a distance. And if God is willing to use a sinner like Paul, and even a sinner like me—He is willing to use you in his work. What a remarkable thing that God would use us—broken and frail vessels as we are—and use us successfully for his glory.
Friends, if you are a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, you have been given a great and wonderful gift. But never forget that that gift comes with responsibilities. When God calls a person to himself he does so with a purpose—which means that you have a calling in life. For some of us that calling means preaching the Gospel from the pulpit. For others, it means preaching the gospel by the way you live your life in the workplace—by the way you farm, by the way you fix automobiles, by the way you work as a secretary or as an accountant, or in whatever you do—do so as for the Lord (Colossians 3:23). Do so not to earn your grace, for it is freely given; rather, do so as a way of expressing your gratitude and obedience to God.
James and the Apostles (1 Corinthians 15:7)
“Then he was seen by James, next by all of the apostles.” (1 Corinthians 15:7)
There is some discussion amongst scholars as to just who these other “apostles” are, given that Paul has already made mention of “the twelve” (verse 5). It is fairly clear that the James mentioned here is James the half-brother of our Lord (see context in Galatians 1, for example) who wrote the letter that bears his name. But, if the “twelve” have already been mentioned, who are these apostles and is James one of them? Oceans of ink have been spilled debating this subject.
The term ajpo/vstoloß (apostolos), from which we get the term “apostle,” refers to someone who is an emissary or an envoy of another. The apostle is given the authority to speak and act with the authority of the one who sent them. It was a commonly used term in ancient times and is found throughout extra-Biblical as well as Biblical literature.
Yet, Jesus seemed to have appropriated this term in a special way. He called the original twelve disciples to himself and renamed them “apostles” (Mark 3:14). We also know that the office of Apostle was never meant to be a continuing office, given that by the time we reach the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), we see elders and apostles discussing together the issues of the church. Also, much later on, by the time we reach 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder.”
So, what is going on here? I want to suggest two uses of the term “apostle”—one with a capital “A” and one with a lower case “a.” The “Apostles” were the 11 original ones which Jesus called and commissioned (Judas not included), plus Paul. Matthias replaced Judas, but was not called personally by Christ for the task of Apostle. Paul was called by Christ and sent by Christ as well. These Apostles are those who were sent out on the direct authority of Christ to build his church. The “apostles,” then were those commissioned by the Church for her work. They carry the direct authority of the church, not of Christ. Though there are many in modern scholarship who would disagree with this distinction, assuming this is an accurate definition of the term, “apostles,” than Paul is speaking in this passage of those who have been sent specifically by the church.
Either way, what should we learn from this passage? Once again, God is consistent in witnessing his glory to mankind. Jesus appeared to these men to encourage them and to proclaim his resurrection to them. Jesus could have limited his appearance to only the twelve, but Jesus interacted with over 500 people to offer them concrete proof that he was who he said he was—even in appearing before his half-brother who was not a follower of Christ until after his death and resurrection.
Friends, we may not have the benefit of a personal visitation from the risen Lord to anchor our faith, but we do have scripture, which was attested to by those who saw Jesus for themselves. And the testimony we are given in scripture is not limited to the witness of a handful, but it is built on the witness of hundreds. Loved ones, cling to the scriptures, do not compromise them, and study them as you would study any other history book—in fact, study them more than a history book, for they are God’s words spoken through inspired writers—they are truth and life—and those who knew Jesus more clearly than you or I have blessed us with them.
Sleeping in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:6c)
“yet some have fallen asleep.” (1 Corinthians 15:6c)
There is a theology that is circulating within evangelical circles that spawns from passages like this. The argument is that when a believer dies, his body and soul “sleep” in the grave until the second coming of Christ. They argue that when you sleep, you don’t notice time passing, so in essence, the body and soul go into a holding pattern while they await Christ’s return. Sadly, this interpretation is simply a result of bad Biblical interpretation.
First of all, the term that Paul uses here (and in other passages) is the term, koima/w (koimao), which literally means “to sleep.” Yet, in ancient cultures, it is regularly used as an idiom for death. We can find this being used all over the Bible (Acts 13:36, 1 Corinthians 7:39, 2 Peter 3:4, etc… [note that it is also used in the same way in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament]). Jesus himself used it of the death of Lazarus (John 11:11), and it is clear from the context of the dialogues that he has in this chapter, that Lazarus had not fallen into some kind of spiritual sleep, but was legitimately dead.
Second of all, the scriptures regularly speak of the soul going immediately into the presence of the Lord upon death (Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 5:8, Revelation 6:9, etc…). Certainly, when Saul has the necromancer of Endor conjure up the spirit of Samuel, Samuel was not in some kind of soul-sleep, for he knew what was going on (1 Samuel 28: 15-19).
In a very real sense, after death, there is a middle state that fills the time between death and resurrection. When a believer dies, his body goes into the ground (still united with Christ) and experiences decay. The soul, though, goes to be with Christ and to enjoy his presence. This is the middle stage, enjoying Christ’s presence but separated from our bodies. When the great day of Christ’s return comes, our bodies will be raised up from the graves, transformed into glorified bodies, and our souls will be reunited with flesh, that we might enjoy Christ in the fullness of our being.
Regardless whether you have heard this concept of “soul sleep” being argued or not, there is something that you can gain from this discussion. God created the physical as well as the spiritual, and he has promised to restore the spiritual and the physical in the end times. Mankind was meant to be flesh and blood—but in paradise, not this fallen world. There will come a time, though, that paradise will be restored, and we will be reunited with our fleshly bodies in a glorified manner, free from sin and the effects thereof, that we may enjoy perfect fellowship with our Lord and Savior for eternity. Friends, if this is not a promise that you can get excited about, I don’t know what is. May you keep your eyes focused on this great promise, not simply that when you die your spirit will be with Christ, but that in God’s proper time, you will be resurrected to a new and glorified body. Praise be to God!
More Appearances (1 Corinthians 15:6)
“Then, he was seen by over five-hundred brethren at one time, of whom, many still remain even now, yet some have fallen asleep.” (1 Corinthians 15:6)
The Apostle John begins to bring his gospel to a close with the statement that Jesus did many other things that were not recorded in his book (John 20:30); here we have Paul relating one of those things to us. At the time of Pentecost, there were 120 who had gathered together in fellowship and devoted themselves to prayer. Of course, after Pentecost, the church exploded in its size rapidly. Thus, the instance that Paul is referring to had to have taken place some time after the time of Pentecost (for there were not yet 500 brethren), but the specific details are uncertain.
The fact is, though, that Jesus did appear to this group of more than 500 believers—note that the word Paul uses here is a˙delfoi/ß (adelphois), which literally means “brothers,” but when used in this context, Paul consistently uses this term to refer to the fellowship of believers—though we also do not know the exact reason why Jesus chose to make this appearance. Regardless, the emphasis that Paul is making here is once again on the reliability of Jesus’ resurrection. Paul is saying, don’t take my word for it, look, he appeared to Peter and the twelve and he has appeared to more than 500 people—most of whom are still alive. Go ask them!
One thing that amazes me about our culture is its amazing demand for proof when it comes to matters of the Christian religion. Thousands will flock to shrines where supposedly some tribal deity made its appearance, and do so only on the testimony of one or two people (usually who were under the influence of hallucinatory drugs at the time). Millions of Muslims flock to Mecca each year to kiss a rock that was supposedly sent by Allah. Millions of Roman Catholics will flock to various churches where one or two people supposedly witnessed a statue cry blood or to touch something that is supposed to be the finger bone of one of the saints. Yet, these same people, when confronted with the Gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection, will reserve judgment. Paul was reminding the Corinthians of all of the proof that was out there.
If we look back through church history, it would seem that two of the earliest heresies of the church were heresies surrounding the denial of Jesus’ return (see 2 Peter 3:4) and the denial of Jesus’ death and resurrection (see 1 John 4:2). How quickly people fall into those age-old traps over and over again. If a lawyer were to bring 500 reliable witnesses through a courtroom today, the judge would have no choice but to admit that their testimony was true and reliable—why is it that so many people are so quick to discredit the many witnesses to the truth? Loved ones, stand upon the truth of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection—it is a fact, and you can have complete confidence in it. And then, by the way you live, proclaim to those around you that Jesus Christ is alive and at work in the lives of his people.
Appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5)
“and he was seen by Cephas, then the Twelve.” (1 Corinthians 15:5)
Paul goes on to point out that not only was Jesus raised from the dead, but there are many people who are witnesses to the fact that he rose. What is interesting is the way he organizes and lists the groups of folks who witnessed Jesus. He begins in this verse by speaking of “Cephas” and “the Twelve.” Cephas, of course, is better known by his Greek name, Peter, and the Twelve refer to the close fellowship of Apostles that followed Jesus during his earthly ministry. Yet, we need to look a little more closely to see what is going on in this statement.
It is worth noting two difficulties that people sometimes have with the mention of Peter, here. First, Peter is one of the Twelve, and is not his separate mention being redundant? Second, was it not Mary Magdalene who first saw Jesus risen (John 20:11-18)? Yes, both of these questions are accurate, but they miss the intent of what Paul is doing. Peter, or Cephas, was a prominent leader in the church, and his name would have been familiar to the Corinthians. But more importantly, Peter is the one who had denied Jesus three times (and later been reinstated three times as well).
On the first Easter morning, when the women had gone up to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body, they found it empty! And on that morning, two angels appeared to them, one giving them instructions. And the instructions were to go tell “the disciples and Peter” (Mark 16:7). When people are guilty of great misdeeds against those they love, oftentimes they make themselves outcasts from the fellowship that they have failed. Peter was probably at about the lowest point that a human being could be on that Easter morning. The message of the angel was to say, “And make sure that Peter knows what has happened!” Oh, what a day that must have been! There is nothing so sweet as the promise of forgiveness.
Paul brings this out for the purpose of highlighting that Peter was not only reinstated to fellowship, but also to leadership. Throughout this letter, Paul has written some fairly harsh words toward the Corinthian church. They had become divided, were spiritually immature, and were emphasizing flashy gifts (even at the point of faking those gifts) instead of love. Yet, Paul is reminding them that there is redemption in Jesus’ name. Just as Peter turned from his sin and sought forgiveness, so too, the Corinthians can do the same.
The second point of contention is that it was Mary Magdalene who first interacted with the risen Lord. Paul never says that Jesus appeared to Peter before anyone else; rather Paul simply jumps to the point in time where Jesus appears to Peter and the rest of the Twelve. Secondly, a woman’s testimony was not allowed in Roman courts of law (or Jewish). Paul is not degrading women by not including Mary here, but he is making a case to the Corinthians for the reality of Christ’s resurrection, and he does not want to compromise his case before those in Corinth who may yet be questioning the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. Because of this, Mary is not mentioned.
Paul is pointing out to the Corinthians that they can place their trust in the doctrine of Jesus’ resurrection because of the faithful witness of others. In the following verses, Paul will go on to say that there are more than 500 who witnessed the resurrected Christ. Friends, how many witnesses do we need? On the word of one or two, we may reserve judgment, but on the word of the witness of 500, if we still reserve judgment, we have moved from being prudent to just being stubborn. Friends, you too are presented with this witness to the resurrection of Christ; will you accept their witness as corroborating evidence that Jesus Christ did rise? Then live with confidence that if you are in him, you, too will rise on the last day.
And He was Raised! (1 Corinthians 15:4)
“and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day, according to the scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:4)
There should be no sweeter words in the Christian’s ears than, “and he was raised…” For it is the raising of Christ that assures our hope. Had Jesus not risen, there would be no afterlife, there would be no promise of the resurrection, and there would be no assurance of our justification before God. Were that the case, we would be a sorry fellowship indeed. But he was raised! Jesus is alive! And he has promised us that on the last day he will raise us up with him! Oh, what a glorious day that will be!
And all of this happened according to the scriptures. The prophesies of the Old Testament which speak of the Messiah all point to the person of Christ. There was nothing that he did that was outside of the scope of God’s plan, and there was nothing in God’s plan that was meant to be a total surprise. It is all laid out in the Old Testament scriptures. The reason that it was such a surprise is that the people of Jesus’ day were not putting the puzzle pieces together properly—they were trying to force pieces together that did not belong together to make the puzzle turn out their way. Of course, this is not how God works.
Yet, are we not guilty ourselves of trying to put God in a box or to make his puzzle pieces fit like we think they ought, rather than how God designed them? Do we not have a tendency to tell God how he “ought” to do things? Oftentimes we are just as guilty of interpreting scripture according to our own preferences.
In the end, Paul is driving the Corinthians to remember the first things, or primary doctrines, of the faith. Yet, in doing so, he deliberately ties it all to scripture. It would do us well to keep that principle before us at all times. God’s word is our only rule for faith and practice; it is the only guide that will keep us on a straight path. As a people, we must affirm the things that God’s word affirms and deny the things that it denies—of course, to be able to do this, we must constantly have God’s word before us so that we know what it affirms and denies! But, if we would be faithful to make God’s word our foundation in all things, we would fall into much less error in the doctrines that we hold.
First Importance (1 Corinthians 15:3)
“For I delivered to you of first importance that which I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;” (1 Corinthians 15:3)
Paul now is about to lay out for the Corinthians once again the essentials of the faith. Please note, these things that he lays down are what he calls things of “first importance.” As you read through the writings of Paul, you will find other doctrines that are of high importance for a Christian to hold to, but the doctrine of Christ’s death and resurrection is the first and most important of all doctrines. Regardless of what other things you may or may not hold to, if you do not hold to this doctrine you cannot call yourself a Christian. It is of first importance.
Through the history of the church, there have been those who have tried to deny this doctrine. Even in our own day, there are those who would teach that there was no historical Jesus. Friends, these people are heretics and blasphemers and we should never allow ourselves to be swayed by their arguments; rather, we need to call them to repentance.
Why is this doctrine so important? To understand the doctrine’s importance you need to unpackage what Paul is saying. In this verse, Paul lays before us one half of the doctrine; namely, that Christ died for our sins. There are three elements that come out of this statement.
The first element is that Christ died. To die, Christ had to be fully human. Were Christ some kind of legendary Greek god-man or demi-god, being part human and part God, there would have been no real death, for an immortal God cannot die. Christ did die, and that means he had to be fully human by definition. Were Christ not fully human he could not have identified with us, he could not have suffered like we do, and no sacrifice would have been made. For atonement to be made, blood needed to be shed; this is the purpose of all of the Old Testament sacrifices. Jesus offered himself up as the sacrificial lamb, which means his blood needed to be shed for our sins.
The Apostle John would later write that Christ is our propitiation (1 John 2:2). Though sometimes this word is translated as “atonement,” there is a difference between atonement and propitiation. Atonement is the bringing of two parties back into harmony after they have been separated. Christ certainly did just that, becoming a bridge to cross the gap between a sinful mankind and a Holy God. But, propitiation is the act which brings atonement. Jesus’ act of propitiation was his death on the cross, where he took the just punishment for the sins of the elect upon his own head. This required his sacrifice, which required his death, which requires that he be fully human.
Secondly, the sacrifice is for our sins. The only one who had the ability to make a perfect sacrifice for sinful man was God himself. Because of the fall, sin tainted all that we are and all that we do. We are not capable of satisfying God’s righteous judgment. This is why God sent his son, that those who believe in as their Lord and Savior would be saved. That means that Jesus, by definition, was also fully divine. He had to be fully human to make the sacrifice, but he had to be fully divine for that sacrifice to be effective. Oh, the heresies of the church that would have been avoided had people listened to the Apostle Paul’s words!
Thirdly, all this happened in accordance with the scriptures. God had proclaimed in his word the promise of a coming redeemer. He did so as far back as the fall (see Genesis 3:15). And, throughout the scriptures, particularly as you read the prophetic writings, there is a clear hand that is always pointing to Christ. And Christ fulfilled all of the prophesies that point toward him. This is an amazing fact. This means two things for us. First, it means that God is in complete control of all of human history. Were God just influencing things as they went along (making good guesses as the “Open Theists” would say) then some of the prophetic statements would have necessarily fallen through the cracks—none did. The only way that hundreds of statements about Christ could have been fulfilled in Christ was if God had intimately controlled history, and indeed, he wrote the book. Second, it also tells us that the entirety of the Old Testament is about Jesus. Jesus is directly or indirectly the subject of all of scripture! What an amazing statement that is, dear friend.
And these things only represent one half of the doctrine of first importance. Paul is essentially telling the Corinthians that until they get this doctrine right, they will never make any sense of the other doctrines of the church. As I said earlier, this is not the only essential doctrine of the Christian faith, but this is the doctrine that will provide the foundation for the other doctrines clearly taught in scripture. Friends, grasp a hold of this doctrine and cling to it. It is the foundation of your hope. Without Christ’s shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins, and as we will soon see, without his resurrection, there is no hope of life beyond the grave. Be encouraged by all God offers to you in Christ.
Sanctification (1 Corinthians 15:2)
“and through which you are being saved. if you hold to the words which I preached to you—assuming you did not believe in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:2)
There are two things in particular that I want to highlight about this verse. The first thing is the word sw/◊zesqe (sozesthe), which is the passive form of the verb sw/◊zw (sozo). The verb means “to save” or “to deliver.” Yet, Paul very clearly uses this verb in the passive form which then means “to be saved.” Why do I make an issue about this? It is simply because salvation is something that is worked by God, not us. It is God’s grace and God’s grace alone. Too often we like to think that we bring something to the table in the work of salvation—even if we limit it to our own choice of God, but we must not do so, for were we to contribute to our own salvation, to use the words of Paul, grace would no longer be grace (Romans 11:6).
At the same time, given that this verb is in the present tense, the implication is that the saving is ongoing. This is one of the thematic things that you will see not only in Paul but throughout the New Testament. We often speak of this as “the already and the not yet.” Jesus sometimes speaks of the Kingdom of God being here (Mark 1:15) and sometimes speaks of it as yet to come (Luke 17:20ff). This verse is another example of this theme; at times scripture talks of us being saved (Ephesians 2:8 ) and at times, as in this verse, the scripture speaks of being saved as if it is an ongoing process.
Jesus, through his life and death on the cross, inaugurated the end times. Things were begun in the sacrifice of Christ, yet will not come to consummation until his return. Why is that? God is still gathering the elect from the nations through history. God’s patience, as Peter puts it, means salvation for all of the elect (2 Peter 3:8-10). In other words, the kingdom is here in the church right now, but until Christ returns in glory, the fullness of God’s kingdom will not be revealed.
On a scaled down level, the same thing can be applied to our own salvation, and for this we have two important Biblical terms: justification and sanctification. Justification is the already. When God brings us to faith, he declares us justified because of the work of Christ. In justification, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (note the language of “impute”—Jesus’ righteousness is not imparted to us for we do not own it, rather it is imputed to us in a declarative way—we stand before God’s judgment seat in the robes of another). Sanctification is the not yet because it is ongoing. It is the language that Peter uses when he speaks of working to “make your election sure” (2 Peter 1:10) and Paul speaks of “working out your salvation” (Philippians 2:12).
Sanctification is ongoing and will not be complete until we are glorified with Christ. God is still doing the work on us in sanctification, just as a potter works a lump of clay into a beautiful vessel, but at the same time, we participate in the process (or seek to resist it). How do we participate? First of all, we seek to grow in our lifestyle, putting to death the sinful habits of our life. Second of all, we seek to learn more and more about God through his word. That word will reveal more and more about our life that we need to clean out or change for the glory of God, so that we might be able to better enjoy him in this world. And third, as these things are an ongoing practice, we do so as part of a believing community, being exposed to the means of grace, we rejoice and suffer in fellowship with others. Lastly, we grow through trial and testing. This strengthens us in our faith often so that we might assist others better in their sanctification.
Never lose sight of the fact that God has begun a work in you and he will not rest until that work is completed—which means he will not allow you to rest in your own sanctification. Paul closes this verse with an interesting statement. What he is implying is that if you are not growing in your faith and sanctification, you may have believed in vain. Does this mean that you can lose your salvation? Certainly not! It does mean, though, that your belief was not genuine to begin with. Remember the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20). There are some seeds that do sprout, even though they fall on rocky or weedy ground. There are some people who will look as if they had a genuine conversion experience for a time, yet, will fall away. These are those that Paul is referring to. In a sense, he is pointedly asking the Corinthians whether they are people of stony or weedy soil.
Does this mean that we stop preaching to those whose soil is rocky, that have given evidence of salvation and then fallen away? Certainly not! We have been given the task of scattering seed; it is the Holy Spirit who works the tiller in the soil. Though the soil may be unproductive at one point, we do not know whether, in the providence of God, that the Holy Spirit will later strip the soil of its rocks and weeds so that the world will find a place to sink deep and productive roots. We are given the joy of participating in the process by scattering seed; we must trust that the Holy Spirit is sovereign in his preparation of the soil.
Reminders (1 Corinthians 15:1)
“Now I reveal to you, brothers, the gospel which I preached to you, and which you received, and in which you have stood,” (1 Corinthians 15:1)
As Paul is bringing this letter to a close, he closes by putting before the Corinthian church both the hope that they have (resurrection) and the reason for that hope (the resurrection of Christ). Do understand that when Paul says that he is “revealing” these things, or making them known, that this is no new information for the Corinthians. The death and resurrection of Christ is the single-most important aspect of the gospel and was at the heart of Paul’s preaching. Yet, in light of the church’s problems, it is very appropriate for him to remind them of these things—reminding them to put first things first.
One of the things that you will find in the New Testament model for preaching and teaching is that when there are problems within churches, the Apostles taught doctrine. How doctrinal teaching is lacking in our churches today! People often think of doctrine as something that is dull and lifeless, and that impression could not be further from the truth. Doctrine is rich with truth and it is doctrine that allows us to live out our lives faithfully in this world. Doctrine is the rudder of the church, without it we will drift to and fro without direction. Doctrine keeps us from drifting into the shallow reefs of error.
Thus it is important that we always keep these things before us, but more importantly, it is important that we stand upon these things. Paul reminds the Corinthians that they did stand on those teachings at one point, but given that they have drifted into problems, the implication is that they are no longer standing firmly on the doctrines, which Paul preached.
And this doctrine, which Paul is reminding them of, is the heart of all doctrines. Apart from the death and resurrection of Christ, we can have no hope. There would be nothing for us but sin and condemnation. In Christ, there is life and hope. Loved ones, keep this doctrine before you and ground your hope in it. In Christ, there is life. Keep that before you always.
His Majesty Covers the Heavens (Habakkuk 3:3)
“God entered from Teman and the Holy One from Mount Paran—Selah!
His majesty covers the heavens and his praise fills the earth.”
(Habakkuk 3:3)
From here on out, there is a shift of focus from God’s coming judgment on Israel to God’s judgment on the Babylonians for coming to destroy Israel. Teman and Paran are both areas that are part of the territory ruled by the Edomites (the descendents of Esau). The language of God “entering from” this area is not so much language meant to suggest that God is not with his people, but instead meant to depict the God of Glory who knows no national boundaries executing judgment on his enemies even as he moves to redeem his people. It is worth noting that while the Edomites were not the invading force that overthrew Judah and their capitol city, Jerusalem, they did assist the Babylonians by helping to round up the Israelites that sought to escape from the region. For this action, God uses the harshest language of judgment. Thus, God judges without, but also brings strict discipline upon his people within the covenant.
Mid verse (not at the end like some of our translations render it) there is a “Selah,” a liturgical term of which no one really knows the meaning. Some have suggested that it is related to the term ll;s’ (salal), which means “to raise up,” suggesting that it is an instruction to singers to raise their voices at this section of music. Others suggest that it is derived from the verb hl;s’ (salah), which means “to discard” or “to throw away,” suggesting this is where voices were to drop off. Simply speaking, we just do not know, though the context of this passage at least would suggest a crescendo, not a decrescendo.
Either way, Habakkuk moves from the focus on geography to the God who transcends Geography and enters into a wonderful description of God on high in this and the following verses. To begin with, Habakkuk speaks of God’s majesty covering the heavens. The word that Habakkuk uses here is dAh (hod), which speaks of the power, the splendor, or the majesty of God. It is similar in use to the word dAbK’ (kavod), which means “weighty” and is used to speak of God’s glory. The bottom line is that God’s majesty, his glory, his honor, his splendor, his wonder, etc…—all of these attributes—are too big and glorious for the world to contain. Like a weighty blanket, God’s glory is spread across the earth.
And, as a result of God’s majesty spread across the earth, the earth resounds with God’s praise. The word employed here is hL’hiT. (tehillah), which typically speaks of songs of praise. This is worth noting initially because the Hebrew language contains numerous words to describe the praise of God’s people as they enter into his presence. The second reason to point this out is because in the Hebrew culture, singing was a very important part of life and worship and I wonder sometimes whether we have lost some of that in our modern culture—the idea of singing God’s praises both inside and outside of the sanctuary—singing God’s praises even as a form of our outward testimony of God’s grace. And when I am speaking, I don’t so much have in mind the professionals, but the average person like you or me—do the events of God’s grace and splendor all around us in life move us to sing his praises as we go through life? They do for Habakkuk as you will see at the end of this chapter.
The final reason that this language of praise needs to be pointed out is that the earth is described as being filled with God’s praises. Indeed, in the heavenly presentation of worship, all of creation sings its praises to God (Revelation 5:13) and if mankind does not sing, nature will take his place (Luke 19:40). Part of the Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28-30) is to do just what Habakkuk is talking about—fill the earth with praise. We are to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations (Matthew 28:19-20) and make disciples so that the earth will be filled with the praises of God. The question we must always be asking ourselves is what are we doing to fulfill that mandate? Are we going to the ends of the world ourselves? Are we sharing the gospel with our neighbors so that our communities will be filled with the praises of God? Are we equipping others to fulfill this mandate? Are our churches doing the same? Beloved, this is our call—to fill the earth with the praises of those who love our Great and Majestic King, Jesus Christ.
We’ve a story to tell to the nations,
That shall turn their hearts to the right;
A story of truth and mercy,
A story of peace and light,
A story of peace and light.
For the darkness shall turn to dawning,
And the dawning to noon-day bright;
For Christ’s great kingdom shall come to the earth,
The kingdom of love and light.
-Ernest Nichol
The Scribe’s Comment (Mark 12:32-33)
“And the scribe said to him, ‘Very good, teacher, you speak truthfully that He is one and that there is not another besides him. And to love Him with the whole heart, with the whole understanding, with all strength, and to love a neighbor as ourselves is far greater than all of the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
(Mark 12:32-33)
It is obvious that the scribe is pleased with Jesus’ response, and this sets up an interesting dynamic, for Jesus will commend (at least on one level) the scribe as well. This makes for one of the more unusual interactions that Jesus has during this week. Prior to this question, Jesus has been bombarded by challenges to his authority and traps to try and trick him into siding with this group or that. Here, as we discussed above, is at least an underlying question again as to who Jesus will side with in his interpretation of the law. Some have made the suggestion that this comment by the scribe is rather insincere, but that seems rather odd given the context of Jesus’ statement in response. So how are we to understand this dialogue and how are we going to understand the variation between what Jesus taught immediately before and how this scribe paraphrases his statement?
To begin with, we see the scribe giving the briefest summary of the Shema. Jesus has quoted it verbatim and the scribe is giving his own interpretation of what Jesus said, tying in Deuteronomy 4:35 to support his answer. This was a common rhetorical technique amongst the Jewish Rabbis. Theology was done in the form of dialogue, so one might begin with a question, and the discussion that ensued would be in the form of more questions, answers, and interpretations in the hopes of arriving at a better understanding of the question at hand. We should not see the Scribe as being incompetent and unable to quote the Shema back to Jesus, but that he is interpreting Jesus’ statement in the context of the discussion. With this in mind, it sets the stage for the second part of the scribe’s statement. The scribe misses the language of yuch/ (psuche), or life, altogether and he replaces Jesus’ language of dia/noia (dianoia), or understanding, with the language of su/nesiß (sunesis), or intelligence. In addition, the scribe ties in passages like Hosea 6:6 and 1 Samuel 15:22, to speak of our loving obedience to God is far better than the ritual sacrifices of the temple. Again, what we find is that the scribe is responding to Jesus’ statement by offering an interpretation of it, and Jesus will respond favorably.
One of the major issues that Jesus battled with during his earthly ministry was the issue of people missing the intent behind the law in their pursuit of the letter of the law. The Pharisees, especially, were guilty of this. In their zeal for obedience, they had allowed the law to be understood in a legalistic way and had become blinded to the truth behind what God was commanding. God demands love and obedience from his people in every aspect and area of their lives. As Abraham Kuyper commented, “There is not an inch of this whole life that Jesus, as Lord of creation, does not put his finger on and declare, ‘Mine!’” And in the case of this scribe, it seems that he got it. He understood the intent of the law and demonstrated that understanding by the way he tied in other passages of scripture that spoke of similar things. So, beloved, what should we be reminded of from our scribe’s answer? We should be reminded that in all that we do, in whatever capacity that we serve the church, we are to be wholly committed to the Lord Jesus Christ. This commitment must never take the form of a list of “dos” and “don’ts” apart from what scripture commands to be a “do” or a “don’t,” but instead, we are to pursue God and his righteousness in service to our fellow man. This is our calling, to share the gospel with all and to make disciples by baptizing and teaching people to obey all that Jesus taught. Beloved, what a task we have before us; pray that the Holy Spirit will bless that task and empower it in such a way that God is glorified in all we do.
Not Far from the Kingdom of God (Mark 12:34)
“And Jesus saw that he answered thoughtfully, and said to him, ‘You are not far from the Kingdom of God.’ And no one was bold enough to question him any longer.”
(Mark 12:34)
And Jesus saw that the man had answered thoughtfully, or, as in many of our English translations, “wisely,” though the word sofi/a (sophia) is not used, which is the normal word that means “wisdom” as we understand it. The term that is used here is nounecwvß (nounechos), which is derived from the term nouvß (nous), which refers to one’s intellect. Thus, the response that the scribe gave to Jesus was one of thoughtfulness, though it was not necessarily one of wisdom. Sometimes we forget that there is a difference between intellect and wisdom in our culture. We think that wisdom is a result of great intelligence, and that is not necessarily true. Intellectual knowledge deals more with what you know and wisdom deals more with what you understand. Intellect is developed through education; wisdom is developed through Godly experience.
So what are we to make of Jesus’ statement that the scribe was not far from the Kingdom? Is that to suggest that the Scribe understood the gospel? I am not sure that the text gives us enough information about this scribe to go quite that far in our assumption, though the scribe was on the right path. Note, that Jesus does not tell the scribe that the Kingdom is his, but rather he is not far from it. For the scribe to have come into the kingdom, he would have had to become a follower of Jesus Christ and the text remains silent about this particular scribe from hereon out. What we do know, though, from this interaction is that there were some scribes that had not fallen into the legalism of the Pharisaical school, though who still had a high regard for the law. Sometimes, when we read the Biblical accounts, we automatically group all of the Jewish teachers and officials in the same category of legalism. While many did fall into this error, there were some that were faithful in seeking out the intent behind the law that God gave—instructions for holiness, not a license for legalism.
The second thing that we learn from this final statement of the interaction is that this is the last time during the Passion Week that the Jewish authorities question Jesus in this way. As the text records, they were no longer bold enough to challenge Jesus any longer. Was this due to Jesus’ fine answers? Probably not. The fact is that these Jewish authorities had been hounding Jesus with questions trying to trap him for the past 3 years—you would think that they would have gotten it by now and repented, following Christ as Lord and Savior—if they trusted the wisdom of his answers. It is most likely because they realized that Jesus had quite a bit of popular support from the crowd. Jesus’ enemies knew that they needed to arrest him and convict him at night where the crowds could not intervene. This event took place on Tuesday of Jesus’ last week, by Thursday evening, Jesus would be arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane. That time is coming, but for the moment, it is not quite there yet. Oh, beloved, one of the great difficulties of the study of this week is that we know the horrors that await our Lord. We rejoice that he would sacrifice himself for us so, but oh, how we agonize over the price that Christ had to pay for our sin. Beloved, in the shadow of the cross, remember this teaching of Christ—we are to love God with all of our being—every inch of our soul—and we are to love others as Christ loved us. Oh, how different our lives might be if we were able to faithfully live that commission out in all that we do.
The Scribe’s Comment (Mark 12:32-33)
“And the scribe said to him, ‘Very good, teacher, you speak truthfully that He is one and that there is not another besides him. And to love Him with the whole heart, with the whole understanding, with all strength, and to love a neighbor as ourselves is far greater than all of the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
(Mark 12:32-33)
It is obvious that the scribe is pleased with Jesus’ response, and this sets up an interesting dynamic, for Jesus will commend (at least on one level) the scribe as well. This makes for one of the more unusual interactions that Jesus has during this week. Prior to this question, Jesus has been bombarded by challenges to his authority and traps to try and trick him into siding with this group or that. Here, as we discussed above, is at least an underlying question again as to who Jesus will side with in his interpretation of the law. Some have made the suggestion that this comment by the scribe is rather insincere, but that seems rather odd given the context of Jesus’ statement in response. So how are we to understand this dialogue and how are we going to understand the variation between what Jesus taught immediately before and how this scribe paraphrases his statement?
To begin with, we see the scribe giving the briefest summary of the Shema. Jesus has quoted it verbatim and the scribe is giving his own interpretation of what Jesus said, tying in Deuteronomy 4:35 to support his answer. This was a common rhetorical technique amongst the Jewish Rabbis. Theology was done in the form of dialogue, so one might begin with a question, and the discussion that ensued would be in the form of more questions, answers, and interpretations in the hopes of arriving at a better understanding of the question at hand. We should not see the Scribe as being incompetent and unable to quote the Shema back to Jesus, but that he is interpreting Jesus’ statement in the context of the discussion. With this in mind, it sets the stage for the second part of the scribe’s statement. The scribe misses the language of yuch/ (psuche), or life, altogether and he replaces Jesus’ language of dia/noia (dianoia), or understanding, with the language of su/nesiß (sunesis), or intelligence. In addition, the scribe ties in passages like Hosea 6:6 and 1 Samuel 15:22, to speak of our loving obedience to God is far better than the ritual sacrifices of the temple. Again, what we find is that the scribe is responding to Jesus’ statement by offering an interpretation of it, and Jesus will respond favorably.
One of the major issues that Jesus battled with during his earthly ministry was the issue of people missing the intent behind the law in their pursuit of the letter of the law. The Pharisees, especially, were guilty of this. In their zeal for obedience, they had allowed the law to be understood in a legalistic way and had become blinded to the truth behind what God was commanding. God demands love and obedience from his people in every aspect and area of their lives. As Abraham Kuyper commented, “There is not an inch of this whole life that Jesus, as Lord of creation, does not put his finger on and declare, ‘Mine!’” And in the case of this scribe, it seems that he got it. He understood the intent of the law and demonstrated that understanding by the way he tied in other passages of scripture that spoke of similar things. So, beloved, what should we be reminded of from our scribe’s answer? We should be reminded that in all that we do, in whatever capacity that we serve the church, we are to be wholly committed to the Lord Jesus Christ. This commitment must never take the form of a list of “dos” and “don’ts” apart from what scripture commands to be a “do” or a “don’t,” but instead, we are to pursue God and his righteousness in service to our fellow man. This is our calling, to share the gospel with all and to make disciples by baptizing and teaching people to obey all that Jesus taught. Beloved, what a task we have before us; pray that the Holy Spirit will bless that task and empower it in such a way that God is glorified in all we do.
The Whole Law Hangs (Matthew 22:40)
“On these two commandments the whole law hangs—and the prophets.”
(Matthew 22:40)
While Mark gives us a fuller description of the events surrounding this discourse, Matthew does include one statement from Jesus that is important to mention. As Jesus closes his explanation of what the greatest commandment is, he says that upon these two commandments, love of God and love of neighbor, all of the law and the prophets finds its rest and fulfillment. In the context of what we discussed earlier about the Pharisaical principle of giving more or less weight to this commandment or that commandment, one of the important things that we see Jesus doing is treating the law of God as one united whole, not a bunch of separate, legalistic principles. Jesus’ half-brother, James, would later build on this principle when he wrote that when you are guilty of breaking a portion of the law, you are guilty of breaking the whole (James 2:10).
In other words, what Jesus, and later James, is bringing out is the unity of God’s demands on his people for holiness. The law of God reflects God’s holy character and God has called us as his people to be holy as he is holy (Leviticus 11:45, 1 Peter 1:16). Since God’s character cannot be divided—God is perfectly consistent in himself—how is it that we think that we can divide up God’s law, obeying part of it and not the whole? Of course, this drives home another vital point—on our own strength, we cannot even obey part of God’s law, but instead are guilty of having broken the whole. We are incapable of earning God’s favor and are thus in need of a redeemer to do so on our behalf. Indeed, that, too, is one of the great purposes of the law—to point us to our need for Jesus.
Yet, Jesus unifies the law for us with two statements. Love God with every fiber of your being and love your neighbor in the same way as you love yourself. It is a simple principle to understand, but overwhelming to try and live out. Indeed, while we will never be able to fully live this great law out, what a wonderful way to strive to live! Jesus is showing us the intent behind the law as a whole and the writings of the prophets (which were largely covenantal lawsuits made by God against his people for their disobedience). In other words, the purpose of the law is not meant to bind us to an oppressive, legalistic system as the Pharisees interpreted the law, but it was meant to enable us to fully and properly love God with all of our heart, life, and abundance. Beloved, let us seek to do the same—no, we won’t be fully successful and no, we will rarely be very successful of doing this well, yet, how else will we reflect God’s love and character to the world unless we reflect it to one another in our lifestyles? Upon this rests the whole of the law and of the prophets.
Love your Neighbor as Yourself (Mark 12:31)
“Second is this: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”
(Mark 12:31)
Jesus now adds to the first command about loving God with the second—that we are to love our neighbors. This is a direct quote from the Greek LXX of Leviticus 19:18, but the difference is found in the application. In the passage from Leviticus, God is specifically giving this command in the context of dealing with other Jews. Specifically, the passage speaks of how the Jews were forbidden from stealing from one another and that they were not to be partial to the rich or do injustice to the poor. Finally, the passage states that they are forbidden to hold grudges against one another and to take out vengeance against the sons of Israel, but were to love their neighbor as themselves. In the context of Jesus’ teaching, though the same word for neighbor is used, we find a far broader application of the concept. No longer should neighbor be understood only as other Jews, but also as gentiles as well. When Luke records Jesus as using similar words in an earlier context, Jesus applies the principle of the neighbor to a Samaritan, hated half-breeds from the region north of Judea. No other statement could have been more poignant to the Jewish people at that time; they were show grace and mercy and indeed love to even those they despised the most. In fact, such a commandment no longer allowed them to despise their gentile or Samaritan neighbor, but required them to reach out and minister to their needs.
How radical a thought that this is, that we are to serve those around us regardless of race, creed, likeability, looks, or preference. That we are to not hold grudges based on what someone might have done to us in the past—did not Paul plead with Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother and not as a runaway slave to be punished? Oh, loved ones, what a radical call to rethinking the way we live! Sometimes we take a great deal of comfort in holding on to the grudges that we have. These grudges make us feel justified in grumbling about someone or speaking poorly of them. Let us repent of these things and seek to live out the commandment of God in every aspect of our lives! Let us seek to love even those we might despise like the Jews despised Samaritans (and visa versa) that the glory of God might flow through our lives and actions. Oh, beloved, what a call to service we have been assigned, to work to care for and minister to even the un-lovely of our society and of our world.
The question then that we are left with is that of whether or not Jesus is redefining the law. Some would say that he is, but I would say that he is simply clarifying the intention of the commandment that God gave to his people through Moses. Indeed, the immediate context of Leviticus 19 is that of God’s people dealing with one another, but the broader context of God’s covenant with his people is one of blessing to the nations. God’s promise to Abraham is that through his seed the people of the world will receive God’s blessing (Genesis 12:2-3). How are the nations to be blessed if they never enjoy the grace of God’s people in their lives? How will they be blessed if God’s people hold a grudge of anger over their heads? Oh, loved ones, let us recognize this not as a new law or a redefinition of the old law, but as a clarification of what the old law was always meant to be: God blessing his people so that his people would be a blessing to the nations; or, to rephrase it in a slightly different way: God blessing his people so that through his people the gospel would go out and men and women from every tribe, tongue, and nation would proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord because of the way God’s people live their lives. In many ways, this is a call to evangelism, let us order our lives in such a way that we might live it out.
Love God with All (Mark 12:30)
“And you will love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your life, and with all of your understanding, and with all of your strength.”
(Mark 12:30)
Jesus continues the passage with an explanation of what it means to be committed to God as Wnyheloa/ (Elohinu), or “our God.” And Jesus says that the way we live this out is by fully committing ourselves to God’s adoration and service. The first section of this passage is a direct quote of the LXX, the Greek Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, yet, it would seem, at the initial onset, that Jesus has added to the text as we move to the latter half of what Jesus is teaching, but we will address that as we get to that section.
Jesus begins with the command from Deuteronomy 6:5 to love the Lord our God with all of our heart. In the modern, Greek, mindset (remembering that our way of thinking is predominantly influenced by Greek thought, not Hebrew thought), the heart is the seat of the emotions or passions. Thus, when many of us read this line initially, we immediately assume Jesus to be commanding us to love Yahweh with all of our passion. While Jesus certainly does command us to love Yahweh with our passions, that is not what he means by heart. In the Hebrew mindset, the heart was the seat of one’s personality and reason. If a Hebrew person wanted to speak of one’s passions alone, he would talk about something as being from our bowels (I can’t figure out why Hallmark hasn’t picked up on that idea—I can just see the Valentine’s Day cards now; I love you with all of my bowels, dear…). Thus, the command that is being given is that everything that makes you a reasoning human being—the whole of your personality, if you will—is to be dedicated to the love of God. This would include, then, not only your reason and intellect, but also those little quirks that make you who you are. Beloved, have you ever considered the fact that you are to love God with your idiosyncrasies? They are part of your very makeup, thus, they are designed to be used by you to the glory of God!
Jesus continues with the command that we are to love God with all of our life. This is the Greek term yuch/ (psuche), which is the word from which our English word “psyche” comes. Many of our English translations will translate this word as “soul,” but I have opted to translate this as “life” out of deference to the Hebrew word that yuch/ (psuche) is being used to translate in this case. The Hebrew term is the word vp,n< (nephesh), which refers to all that which gives life to and animates the body. It is variously translated as life, breath, and even soul, but it is distinct from the word x;Wr (ruach), which means “spirit.” In modern English, we don’t normally distinguish between the idea of a soul and of a spirit, so to preserve the Hebrew distinction, I have opted to translate this as life. In Hebrew, the spirit is understood much in the same way as we understand a spirit today, but the soul was intimately bound to giving your physical body life, and hence our translation. Thus, the idea being communicated in this first half of Jesus’ statement is not a dichotomy between the passions of man and the soul of man, but a united image of how we are to love God with our personality and with all that gives us life and breath in this world. We are to be wholly committed to Yahweh, our God.
Now, as we look back to Deuteronomy 6:5, from which Jesus is quoting, we find a peculiar difference. The Hebrew concludes with a third command, that we are to love God with all of our daom. (meod), or, literally, all of our “veriness.” The idea expressed, by making the adverb “very” into a noun, is that of applying all of your abundance, all of your blessings, and all of the external things that God has put into your life toward the worship of God. All of the rich blessings that have come to you in this world, as they have come from God, are to be used and applied toward the love of God. That raises an important question for all of us—how are we using those blessings? How do we use our vacation time; how do we use our savings; how do we use the finances that we have been afforded; and how do we use the retirements that God has given to us? Beloved, we are often guilty of applying these things—these things that make up our “veriness”—toward our own ends and not for the love of God. How we need to regularly look at our lives and see just how we are using the blessings that God has afforded us.
Yet, Jesus does not use this language, nor is he quoting from the Greek LXX, which reads, all of our du/namiß (dunamis)—or might (dunamis is the word from which we get the English word, “dynamite”). Instead, Jesus breaks this final command into two separate parts: dia/noia (dianoia) or understanding and ijscuß (ischus) or strength. My initial response was that maybe Jesus was breaking up the language of vp,n< (nephesh), or life, as yuch/ (psuche) and dia/noia (dianoia) and replacing du/namiß (dunamis) with ijscuß (ischus). Thus, the idea of life would be expressed by both life and mind or soul and mind and power would be changed to reflect the idea of strength. The problem with this interpretation is two-fold. First of all, it seems odd that Jesus would add the word dia/noia (dianoia) to yuch/ (psuche) when yuch/ (psuche) is a direct quote of the Greek LXX. Secondly, given that Matthew does not record Jesus as saying ijscuß (ischus) at all, but ends with dia/noia (dianoia). Matthew, being a good Jew, would have been intimately familiar with the text and importance of Deuteronomy 6:5 and it would have been very unlikely that he would neglect to record an element therein.
That leads us with one other reasonable alterative, and that is to understand Jesus as expanding on the idea of our loving God with all of our daom. (meod), or veriness. Instead of using the LXX translation, then, we see Jesus giving his own translation of daom. (meod) into Greek by using two terms: dia/noia (dianoia) and ijscuß (ischus). In other words, Jesus is saying that for us to worship God with all of our abundance, or veriness, requires us to do so with our mental capacity, or dia/noia (dianoia), and our physical capacity, or ijscuß (ischus). In other words, all of the energy we might expend, to accomplish all that we do in this life, we are called upon to use to love God. We are to think about God, reason about God, meditate about God, and then the work of our hands—as mighty as that work may be, must too be done for the glory and love of God. Indeed, this translation would capture the idea of the abundance that God has given us (as that abundance so often comes through the labors of our hands and/or our minds).
Thus, Jesus, in quoting Moses here, leaves no stone unturned when being asked the question of how we are to express our love and adoration for God on high—every inch of our life is to be devoted to God’s glory regardless of our career, trade, or background. Does this mean that all should be preachers and missionaries? Certainly not! Yet, this does mean that whatever you do, whether hobby, curiosity, or career, should be done to the glory of God. Dear friends, I wonder, can we say this about our own lives? Can we say that the way we have ordered our career or the way we have spent our leisure time is designed to glorify God? Oh, beloved, how we should look deeply at our hearts, our lives, and our efforts and ask ourselves, “how is God glorified in this.” And then, when an answer is shown, work diligently to change how we live our days so as to submit ourselves to the challenge of Jesus’ words. May our lives be lived all for the glory and honor of God alone.
Shema! (Mark 12:29)
“Jesus answered, ‘The first is: ‘Hear, O’ Israel, the Lord, your God, the Lord is one!’’”
(Mark 12:29)
To answer this question, Jesus quotes what is known in Hebrew as the “Shema” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Shema is easily the single-most important text in the Hebrew Bible; it defines the Hebrews as a people and perpetually reminds them of their place in relationship to God. Many scholars have argued that the book of Deuteronomy itself is essentially a constitution for the Israelite nation when they enter into the promised land, and if this is the case, the Shema is the Preamble to that constitution. It is the first prayer that a Jew prays in the morning when he awakens and the last prayer that he prays before bed; in times of distress, like during the oppression of the Jews in Nazi Germany, it was the Shema that was used as a means to identify oneself as a Jew to the Jewish community in hiding. It is also the first prayer that is prayed (normally sung or chanted) at the beginning of a typical synagogue service. And here, Jesus uses this prayer, this statement of faith, to sum up what it means to obey the law.
The Shema begins with an imperative statement: “Hear!” The word in Hebrew that this is derived from is the term [m;v. (shema), which is where it gets its name. More importantly, though, the term [m;v. (shema) does not simply mean “to listen,” but it also carries the connotations of obedience and submission to what follows. It is a command to the people to hear the words that are being said, to internalize them, to submit to their authority, and then to live in obedience to what is being commanded of the listener. There is no room for ambiguity in this command—you must hear is the idea that this command is conveying.
The second word that is found in the prayer tells us to whom the prayer is addressed: Israel. We, as Christian believers, must be reminded here that the name Israel applies to us today. Paul reminds us in Romans 9:6-8 that one is not a member of Israel simply because of genealogical descent, but through the promise of God—through faith. In Galatians 3:29, Paul also reminds us that we are counted as Abraham’s offspring—heirs according to the promise and members of true Israel—through faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, this command of “hear, O Israel,” is a command that is set before our very ears today and must be laid upon our own hearts as well.
Yet, what is significant about this language of “Israel” is not simply that we are part of the promise (though that is a great and a wonderful thing), but it is a reminder that we are bound together as one people in Jesus Christ and we have been given a name. Israel was not a name that Jacob chose for himself, but it is a name that was given to him after he wrestled with the Angel of the Lord (Genesis 32:28). The name means, “One who has striven with God.” Now, we usually think of striving as a totally negative thing, yet let us never forget that while striving against God is not an act of submission, it does mean that God’s hand is upon your life. The reprobate and pagan who has rejected the things of God does not need to worry about striving with God in his or her life—Paul reminds us that God has given them up to their sinful ways—allowed them to pursue the sinful things that will destroy them (Romans 1:24-25). God’s hand is only upon his people, rebuking us when we sin, drawing us toward himself in righteousness. In our sin we strive against God; we wrestle with his calling upon us, yet his calling is upon us; his hand is in our lives. Israel is a name given to us as God’s people to set us apart from the rest of the world, to remind us of our corporate unity as God’s people, to remind us that it is a name given to us by our God (only the Master has the authority to give a name to those in his service), and it is a reminder that God’s hand is upon our lives. It is a reminder that we should rejoice in as gentiles, for once we were not a people, but now we are God’s people—once we had received no mercy, and in Christ Jesus we have received mercy (1 Peter 2:10—a fulfillment of Hosea 1:23).
The next words that are pronounced are, “the Lord,” or kurio/ß (kurios) in Greek. In Hebrew, this would be pronounced, “Adonai,” which means “Lord of Lords.” Yet, Adonai is not the Hebrew word that is used in Deuteronomy 6:4, hwhy (Yahweh) is. Yet, out of reverence for God’s covenantal name, the Hebrew people developed a practice of never pronouncing it and saying “Adonai” instead. That practice carried over into the Greek writing, and thus, kurio/ß (kurios), or “Lord,” was used instead. What is important about this language is that this is the covenantal name of God that he gave to Moses in Exodus 3:14, which is a statement of his eternality and uniqueness. “I am who I am,” is how we often translate this name into English; that God is, he always has been, and he always will be. God is eternal and there never was a time when God was not—nor will there ever be a time when God will cease to be. All things that are had a beginning and this beginning is found in the creative work of our God. Yet, this God, as great and mighty as he is, chose to condescend to fallen man and have a relationship with them, and in doing so, has given us his name that we might know him by that name for all generations (Exodus 3:15). He is a God that is knowable, and is ultimately knowable in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, who is answering the scribe in this case.
Jesus continues his quote of the Shema with the words “our God.” In the Hebrew, this is one word, Wnyheloa/ (Elohinu), which is the Hebrew word, “Elohim” with the first person plural pronoun as an ending, thus, it does not read, “the Lord God,” but it reads, “the Lord, our God.” This is important on a number of levels. First of all, we must remember that these words were recited by the Hebrew people at least twice daily. Thus, every day men and women were professing that this Yahweh was their God, personally and individually. To call Yahweh, “our God” is also a reminder that we are bound as part of a covenantal community and not isolated, “Lone Ranger,” believers. We are in a covenantal relationship as the church with one another and with God himself, and these words form a concise reminder of that fact.
In addition, the name, “Elohim” carries with it a variety of connotations. We must remember that there are many names for God used in the Old Testament, and these names all are designed to reflect different aspects of his character. The name Elohim reflects two ideas: God as creator and God as lawgiver. To speak of God in this way, then, reflects the idea that the people are confessing God to be their creator and their lawgiver. A creator has ownership over that which he has created and a lawgiver has the right to establish the rules and guidelines that his creations must live by. These are words that remind God’s people of our submission to his authority and to his laws. It is God who defines who we are and sets up the parameters as to how we go about doing what we do.
Finally, the Shema ends with the language, “The Lord is one.” This reflects not only that God is one, monotheistic, God, but that he is alone in his Godhead. God has no rivals, he is unique and infinitely wonderful. Nothing in creation even comes close to his perfection. This reflects the immutability of God’s perfections, and as the great and wonderful God, he is the source of all true wisdom and knowledge. This language also reflects the language of the first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” God is God alone in our lives; he will not share his authority or place with any other. There is no room for idols of any kind (even modern ones like our careers, wealth, status, etc…) in the lives of God’s people. God is God alone.
And this is how the Shema closes, although the language of the larger passage explicates how the believer is to go about living this out. Jesus will touch on this as he continues, but let us not overlook the importance of this first statement. It is the credo, if you will, of God’s people; it establishes our identity and reminds us of our proper relationship with God. In fact, in most traditional editions of the Hebrew Old Testament, the last letter of the first and last words are written in bold case and a larger font. These two letters spell the Hebrew word d[e (ed), which means testimony or witness. How often we are guilty of seeking to distort that relationship. How often we are guilty of trying to set ourselves up as lawgiver in our own lives. Oh, beloved, we are men and women in submission, but we are in submission to a good and wonderful God; let us live happily in submission to God’s laws and God’s providence in our lives, and let these words always remind us that we are God’s people and he is our covenantal God.
Which Commandment is First? (Mark 12:28)
“And one of the scribes approached, hearing them disputing, and seeing that he replied well to them, put a question to him: “which commandment is first in the whole?”
(Mark 12:28)
Matthew and Mark both include this dialogue between Jesus and the Scribe/teacher of the Law with very few variations. Luke relates a similar account, but the context and the question were entirely different. In Luke 10:27, Jesus is being asked what one must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus’ response is to give the same answer that he does in this passage, but also to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate who one’s neighbor happens to be. In addition, Luke then records the event with Jesus at Mary and Martha’s house to help illustrate (through Mary’s actions) what it looks like when you love the Lord God with all of your heart, strength, and mind.
In this context, we find Jesus during his last week of earthly ministry, often referred to as Jesus’ Passion Week. Jesus has entered into Jerusalem during this time and has been publicly teaching and facing the challenges of the Jewish authorities. In terms of the immediate context, this dialogue most likely takes place that Tuesday, two days before his arrest, and he is facing a string of legal and philosophical questions that are designed to trap Jesus into siding with one religious party or another—a trap that Jesus refuses to fall into. Hence, unlike the account in Luke, there is no genuine interchange of ideas nor does Jesus tell any parables to illustrate his point; he is being challenged and the statements that come out of the mouth of our Lord are made with emphasis and with clarity.
Earlier this day, the Sadducees had sent a group to question Jesus’ authority to preach in the temple and to clear it of those who were selling in the courtyard. After the Sadducees leave the Pharisees step in only to be followed by the Sadducees once again. Historically, the Pharisees and the Sadducees were at odds with one another. The Sadducees were the remnant of the elite priestly ruling class that went back to the Hasmonean Dynasty, which had begun in Judea roughly 170 years earlier. When Judah Maccabees and his brothers overthrew the Seleucids, who controlled the area at the time, his brother Simon would end up ruling over the then free Jewish state (Judah had died). Simon combined the office of King with that of the High Priest, making the priestly office one of privilege and reputation and not one of Levitical service. These “Royal Priests” would become known as the Sadducees. During this era, two reform groups emerged: the Pharisees and the Essines. The Essines were a radical group that withdrew from the cities into what were essentially fortified monasteries. They studied and trained to become the army of the Messiah when he would come. The Pharisees were a less radical group, but one that pushed personal piety and who challenged the hypocrisy of the ruling order. Sadly, by Jesus’ day, the Pharisees had reduced themselves into a legalistic view of what it meant to be a believer and had become very hypocritical themselves, obeying the law (as they nuanced it) but missing entirely the purpose behind the law. With this history in mind, it is easy to see not only the tension between the two classes (Pharisees and Sadducees), but also the way each group was looking to try and get Jesus to take sides so that they could discredit him.
Thus a scribe approaches Jesus and puts him to the test—which commandment would Jesus say was first amongst the whole of the law, or, as we usually put it into language today, which is the greatest commandment? Our idiomatic English translation does us a little bit of an injustice, though, given our mindset. When someone poses the question to us of which commandment or which law is the greatest, we think back, and in our minds, treat the commandments of God as separate commands that can be isolated from one another. As westerners, we are accustomed to compartmentalizing everything, and while on some level this is useful for acquiring and applying knowledge, it also creates a perception that the commandments of God are not intimately interrelated—or more specifically, are a unified whole. One of the great points that James makes is that if you break one of the commands in the Ten Commandments, you are guilty of breaking the whole law because the whole law is one (James 2:10). It should not surprise us, then, that Jesus answers this question by summing up the spirit of the law in two categories rather than elevating one aspect of the whole. Which is first in the whole, Jesus is asked? “Love God” is his answer. Which is second? “Love man.”
While many of us who have grown up in the Protestant traditions are accustomed to this kind of language, essentially dividing the Law of God (the 10 Commandments) into two sections, or two tables, one being our obligations toward God and the second being our obligations toward man, we must not assume that such is the same way the ancient minds approached the Law. In fact, there were and continue to be many schools of thought amongst Jewish and Christian thinkers as to how the Decalogue should be divided up. Some have suggested that there are five and five, drawing thematic parallels between the first and the sixth, the second and the seventh, and so forth. For example, the line of thinking is that the first commandment (no other gods) is connected with the sixth (not kill) because when you take the life of another you put yourself into God’s place, essentially making yourself to be a god and breaking the first commandment as well as the sixth. Though Jesus does not divide up the law in this way, it does help illustrate the inter-connectedness and unity of the Ten Commandments of God.
In Jesus’ day, gematria had become a popular way of looking at the Law. Gematria is a means by which the numerical value of words or phrases was calculated (remembering that letters in ancient times represented the numerical system, so “a” would be equal to 1 and “b” would be equal to 2, etc…). Then, the laws which represented the highest numerical value was considered to be most important. Another way that was popular was to look at the penalty that was connected to disobeying the law. The harsher the judgment against the sin, the more important that rule was considered to be. This concept was later picked up by the Roman Catholic church and provided some of the foundation for their division of mortal and venal sins along with isolated passages like 1 John 5:16-17 and Hebrews 10:26). By Jesus’ day, the rabbis had extended this debate outside of the Ten Commandments to reflect the whole council of God’s command. They had identified (in what we refer to as the Old Testament scriptures) 613 commandments of God (248 positive commands and 365 negative commands). Others weighted commands more heavily depending on how far back in the scriptures that they were recorded as having been given, thus emphasizing the Sabbath command or the Circumcision. Yet, once everything was said and done, they missed the purpose of the law—to demonstrate to us the holiness of God and to make us painfully aware that based on human efforts alone, we cannot come close to that holiness—or, in other words, to drive us to our knees in the midst of our sins and make us realize how desperately we need a redeemer. The Law was not designed to be parsed and made into a checklist; it was meant to drive us to Christ!
With this now before us, we have a far better picture of what the religious authorities were trying to do with Jesus. They were trying to put him into a box or a category, and then once defined by men’s terms, they could give him a label. Once labeled, they could have worked to discredit him in the people’s eyes. This scribe is essentially seeing where Jesus is going to fall in this matter, but our Lord does not allow himself to be put into a box. Our Lord never allows himself to be put into a box, but oh, how we so often try. We want to define God on our terms and according to our own understanding of how we believe God should think and behave, but God refuses to be dealt with on human terms. Beloved, how we must always endeavor to submit ourselves to God’s terms. Let God define our theology and our ideas according to his word, do not try to make God work to support your pet preference. This way of thinking and living is a harder road to travel, but it is the only road that honors God with your heart, mind, and whole life.
Outline of Judges
Book of Judges Outline
I. The Crisis and Conquest after Joshua’s Death (1:1-36)
a. Who shall go up to fight for us? (1:1-2)
b. Judah and Simeon go up & defeat the Canaanites (1:3-7)
c. Judah fights and takes the city of Jerusalem (1:8-10)
d. Continued conquest (1:11-20)
e. Benjamin fails to drive out the Jebusites (1:21)
f. Joseph takes Bethel (1:22-26)
g. Manasseh) fails to drive out Canaanites (1:27-28)
h. Ephraim fails to drive out Canaanites (1:29)
i. Zebulun fails to drive out Canaanites (1:30)
j. Asher fails to drive out Canaanites (1:31-32)
k. Naphtali fails to drive out Canaanites (1:33)
l. Dan pushed back by the Amorites (1:34)
m. Joseph halts Amorite advance (1:35-36)
II. First cycle of Sin
a. The Angel of the Lord pronounces judgment for not breaking down pagan altars (2:1-5)
b. The people return to their homes under Joshua’s leadership and lived in peace all of the days of Joshua’s life and of the lives of those who knew him (2:6-10)
c. The people did “The Evil” (2:11-13)
d. God gives them up to their enemies (2:14-15)
e. The Summary of the Book (2:16-3:6)
III. Second Cycle of Sin
a. The people did “The Evil” (3:7)
b. The people served the Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia for 8 years (3:8)
c. God raised up Othniel as a deliverer (3:9-10)
d. The land had “rest” 40 years (3:11)
IV. Third cycle of Sin
a. The people did “The Evil” (3:12)
b. The people served the Eglon, king of Moab for 18 years (3:12-14)
i. Possible setting for the book of Ruth?
c. God raised up Ehud as a deliverer (3:15-29)
d. The land had “rest” for 80 years (3:30)
e. God raised up Shamgar as deliverer against the Philistines (3:31)
V. Fourth cycle of Sin
a. The people did “The Evil” (4:1)
b. Jabin, King of Canaan & Sisera conquered for 20 years (4:2-3)
c. God raised up Deborah as deliverer (4:4-24)
d. The Song of Deborah (5:1-31)
e. The land had rest for 40 years (5:31)
VI. Fifth cycle of Sin
a. The people did “The Evil” (6:1)
b. Midian conquered for 7 years (6:2-6)
c. God sends a prophet to speak warning to the people (6:7-10)
d. God raises up Gideon as deliverer (6:11-8:21)
e. The people seek to make Gideon king (8:22-27)
f. The land had rest for 40 years (8:28)
VII. Interlude: Abimelech’s reign
a. The people enter into idolatry (8:29-35)
b. The rise of Abimelech to power (9:1-6)
c. The Parable of the Trees (9:7-15)
d. The Judgment of Jotham (9:16-21)
e. Abimelech reigns for 3 years (9:22)
f. The fall of Abimelech (9:23-57)
g. God raised up Tola as judge for 23 years (10:1-2)
h. God raised up Jair as judge for 22 years (10:3-5)
VIII. Sixth Cycle of Sin
a. The people did “The Evil” (10:6)
b. The Philistines conquered for 18 years (10:7-9)
c. The people repent and the Lord rebukes them (10:10-16)
d. Who will go up for us? (10:17-18)
e. God raises up Jephthah as deliverer (11:1-33)
f. The result of Jephthah’s hasty vow (11:34-40)
g. Jephthah leads the people of Gilead against the people of Ephraim (12:1-6)
h. Jepthah judged Israel for 6 years (12:7)
i. God raised up Ibzan as judge for 7 years (12:8-10)
j. God raised up Elon as judge for 10 years (12:11-12)
k. God raised up Abdon as judge for 8 years (12:13-15)
IX. Seventh Cycle of Sin
a. The people did “The Evil” (13:1)
b. The Philistines conquered for 40 years (13:1)
c. God raises up Samson as deliverer (13:2-15:19)
d. Samson judges Israel for 20 years (15:20)
e. Samson and Delilah (16:1-22)
f. Samson’s Faithful Death (16:23-31)
X. Interlude: Micah, two Levites, the Tribe of Dan, and the Concubine
a. Micah and the Levite (17:1-13)
b. Micah’s Idol and Levite taken by the Tribe of Dan (18:1-31)
c. The Levite and his Concubine (19:1-30)
d. The people of Israel avenge the Levite against Benjamin (20:1-48)
e. Wives for the men of the tribe of Benjamin (21:1-24)
XI. Close of the Book
a. “There was no king in Israel and everyone did what is right in their own eyes”
Why Doesn’t God Just Obliterate the Devil and thus Get Rid of Evil?
Why doesn’t God just obliterate the Devil?
One of the projects that we engage in at Rocky Bayou Christian School is that of helping to train students how to defend their faith when it is challenged. One of the ways in which we do so is to pose questions to the student body that challenge the faith and then challenge them to write out a response for a prize. Each of these questions are drawn from atheistic websites, blogs, books, or movies to ensure that the questions we use are ones actually being presented by unbelievers.
This month’s question is, “Why doesn’t God just obliterate the Devil and thus get rid of evil—and if he can, what is he waiting for?” The question itself comes from the trailer for Bill Mayer’s new movie, “Religulous.” The movie is presented as a documentary—more a “mock-u-mentary,” designed to poke fun at religious people. In his interview on Larry King Live this past August, Mayer gives the motivation for asking this question. Mayer states that religion is “the ultimate hustle,” that Christian leaders “need” the Devil, “because if God got rid of the devil—and he could because he is all-powerful—then there is no fear, there is no reason to come to church, there is no reason to pass the plate, we are all out of a job…” This statement falls on the heels of the comment, “at some point, mankind is going to have to shed this skin (Religion) if he is going to move forward. I do have a serious intellectual problem with it, and on another level, it just ticks me off…”
It is worth making one more comment about the interview on an indirectly related note: when speaking about the afterlife and the Christian’s view that we know what will happen to us after we die, Mayer makes a wonderfully true comment. Mayer states, “unless a God told you personally what happens to you when you die, it all came from another person with no more mental powers than you.” And that is exactly the point. God did come and tell us what will happen to us when we die, and he tells us the way that leads to eternal life, which is through a relationship with Jesus Christ, and the way that leads to death, which is the way that Mayer seems to have chosen to pursue—to reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. And we have these words of God recorded for us in the Bible.
How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God and not the writings of men, as I would presume Mayer would assert? While my point here is not to present a full defense for the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures (as others have written excellent volumes on just that subject), let me set forth several basic points.
The first thing that we must present is that the Bible itself claims to be God’s word. Now, your initial response very well may be to assert that a statement like this is circular reasoning. And on some level, it is. But let us pose the question, what might be true about the Bible if this statement about it being God’s word is true? We would expect, were it written by God, that all of the facts that it contains are true. And indeed, while evolutionists would assert that the creation story is untrue, evolution is a theory based on a speculation of the order of events. The “mountains” of evidence that so many evolutionists point toward are illusory, and Creation Scientists can present interpretations of the evidence that are arguably more compelling than the evolutionary models, and which are consistent with Scripture. If you doubt this, try getting a college Biology professor to agree to debate with a Creation Scientist—you will find it to be a rather challenging task. The Creation Scientists are willing, but the evolutionists are not—basic logic should tell you that they are hiding something if they are unwilling to engage in such debates.
But let us look at events that are clearly documented in history. What we find when we examine the archaeological evidence is that there is nothing to contradict the historical Biblical account. In addition, when we compare Biblical records of historical events with extra-Biblical documents of the same age, we find once again that there are no contradictions. There are more textual accounts, for example, to the life of Jesus than there are for example to the life of Julius Caesar, but no-one doubts that Julius Caesar lived, nor do they doubt the historicity of his writings.
In addition, we might not only expect that the history that the Bible records is accurate, but we might also expect that the things that it foretells is also accurate. Now, certainly all of the things that the Bible foretells have not yet come to pass, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of prophesies that the Bible did foretell that did come to pass. For example, Isaiah prophesied that the man who would be used of God to return the exiles to Jerusalem would be named Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), a prophesy that was given roughly 200 years before the event took place. There are numerous prophesies that are given about the coming Messiah as well—that he was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that a forerunner would be sent (Malachi 3:1), that he would be rejected by his people (Psalm 118:22-23), numbered with transgressors (Isaiah 53:12), that the soldiers would divide Jesus’ garments (Psalm 22:18), and that in his death his bones would not be broken, but his side pierced (Exodus 12:46, Zechariah 12:10). We could go on, as there are many more, but as a friend of mine who used to be in the meat packing industry regularly says, “If the sample is true and free from bacteria, the whole lot is likely true and free from bacteria.” In other words, to prove that a tree has roots you don’t need to dig up every tree, but only a representative sample. Time after time, it can be documented that Biblical prophesies have come to pass. By every scientific measure, then, one must accept the validity of the whole.
One might also suggest that if the Bible were written by God himself, it would be true and without contradictions. And indeed, that is exactly the case. It is granted that there are some people who would point out that the Bible does seem to contradict itself on occasion, but in each of these cases, the contradictions are only apparent ones noted from a surface reading of the text. Reasonable explanations can be given for each of these apparent contradictions. One thing that we have learned from the discipline of forensic science is that in crimes, oftentimes very unusual events take place. And while a crime may at first seem to have taken place in one way, when all of the evidence is examined, rational explanations can be given for why the initial assumptions were wrong. If one is going to seek to say that the Bible contradicts itself, all of the evidence, both internal and external, must be examined before any rational conclusions can be reached. I suggest that once that examination is made, the Scriptures will be recognized to be internally consistent.
Though I don’t mean to belabor the point, but I want to make several more practical observations about the Bible that only seek to affirm that it is God’s word. First of all, one of the things that separate the Bible from mythic and religious writings of the ancient times is that it gives accurate names as well as detailed historical as well as geographical information. Most ancient religious documents are rather vague when it comes to such details so that they cannot be refuted. The Bible presents this kind of information, and as noted above, it is not found in error when challenged. Secondly, the Bible has had a greater impact on the events of worldwide history in a way that no other book can claim. Nations have risen and fallen around the contents and teachings of this book. Philosophies have emerged with the contents of this book as their foundations. The bible is the most widely-read book in history and even non-believers have benefited from its insights and wisdom into human nature. In addition, people have been willing to die for the veracity of this book in a way that no other book can claim in history. And finally, on a very pastoral note, the Bible has the ability to bring peace to a dying person’s heart unlike any other book in human history. When folks are on their deathbeds, they typically do not ask for someone to read from Shakespeare’s sonnets, but regularly ask to have some of the Psalms read to them. This again is a sign that the words of this book transcend humanity and are found to be of divine origin. No other book, religious or secular, can claim the authority that the Bible claims for itself, and it is irrational to ask for a higher authority to attest to the divinity of the Bible than God himself because God himself is the highest authority—and He claims thousands of times in the scriptures that these words are his own. If you doubt that this book is truly God’s word, I challenge you to sit down and give the Bible an honest read from cover to cover, examining the evidence for and against, before you seek to challenge its authority.
Now, as to answering Mayer’s specific question about why God does not destroy the Devil and thus rid the world of evil? To answer this question well, there are several things we need to take into account. First of all, there is an important distinction that needs to be made between the Devil and evil in the sense that even if the Devil were to cease to exist tomorrow, there would still be evil in the world. The name “Devil” comes from the Greek term, dia/boloß (diabolos), which literally refers to one who engages in slander against another (certainly something that Mayer is guilty of when it comes to God). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, dia/boloß (diabolos) is typically used to translate !j’f’ (Satan), which means, “accuser.” Satan is described as the accuser of the faithful (Zechariah 3:1-2; Job 1) and one who incites to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1). The Devil, in turn, is described as tempter (Matthew 4:1), enemy of God (Matthew 13:39), betrayer (John 6:70), murderer and Father of Lies (John 8:44), oppressor of God’s people (Acts 10:38), enemy of righteousness (Acts 13:10), the one who sets snares for God’s people (1 Timothy 3:7), and the father of those who make a practice of sinning (1 John 3:7-10). Ultimately it will be the devil and those who serve him who will be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented eternally (Revelation 20:10,15). Thus, in a sense, part of Meyer’s answer is answered. God has promised that he will destroy the devil, but such will not take place until all of God’s elect have been brought to faith (arguably Christ’s return is keyed to the death of the last martyr [Revelation 7:11]).
Before I address the question of evil and it being taken out of the world, I want to address the follow-up question that Meyer posed—what is God waiting for? In other words, the question can be rephrased—why doesn’t God just get on with it? In a sense, the answer was given just above—God is waiting for the final predestined believer to come to faith/the last martyr to give his life for the Holy faith. To understand this better, it is important to look at how Peter addressed this very question in his second epistle. Peter was dealing with those who were scoffing and saying “nothing has changed since the old days—where is this God of yours?” It is almost as if Peter were writing to Mayer on this very issue—or perhaps Mayer isn’t overly creative in asking questions. Peter states that the reason God is taking what seems to us to be a long time is not because God is slow to act, but because God is patient, being willing to endure the mocking and scoffing of unbelievers until the very last member of his elect has been brought to faith (2 Peter 3:8-10). Thus, in God’s eternal decree before the foundation of the earth, when he chose his elect throughout history (Ephesians 1:4), God also determined to stay his hand of eternal judgment long enough for the very last believer would be brought to faith—he will not lose even one of those who he has so ordained to become his own (John 10:28).
Finally, we are left with the question of evil. The first thing to note is that while the concept of sin is related to the concept of evil, they are not synonymous. The Old Testament word for sin derives from the Hebrew verb aj’x’ (chata), which means to miss the mark or target that one is aiming at. Thus, sin is missing the mark of God’s righteous character or not being able to live up to his standard. In turn, the antonym of sin is righteousness. In contrast, the Hebrew word for evil is [r: (ra), and it is typically used as the antonym of bAT (tov), or “good.” Deuteronomy 30:15 presents this contrast quite clearly where Moses presents the people with the following statement: “See, I put before you this day the life and the good—the death and the evil.” In other words, that which is good and that which is evil are seen as the necessary results of obedience or disobedience respectively, or in the context of our discussion—good and evil are the results of a righteous lifestyle or a sinful lifestyle. One might take the concept one step farther, understanding the fall of mankind as described in Genesis 3 as the entrance of evil into the world, that good is ultimately reflected in what it was like to live in an unfallen world and evil is reflected in what it is like to live in a fallen world.
So why does God permit us to live in a world that is less than perfect and is often filled with evil rather than with good? Admittedly, such a time is only for a season, for there will come a time when Jesus will return and remake the heavens and the earth free from the effects of evil—restoring the world to an unfallen state, but with one catch—we will no longer be able to fall into sin. Yet, for now, we live in a fallen world and not only do we sin, but we are forced to endure not only evil people all around us, but also evil events that take place—events that are reflective of the fall of mankind. So why does a good God permit such evil? First of all, God permits such to go on in the world around us to remind us of the effects of our sinful actions and hopefully compel us to grieve over our own sin as well as the sins of others. Secondly, evil in the world around us stands as a constant testimony against the secular humanists and almost every other religious system. Most religions and the secular humanists believe that deep down mankind is good and that it will only truly become good when it “sheds the skin” of religion and moves forward apart from God. The Bible tells us quite the opposite. We are born in sin (Psalm 51:5) and we pursue sin (Romans 3:10-12) with all of our strength apart from a movement of the Holy Spirit in our lives. If mankind were good, then mankind would be perfecting itself and wars and political oppression and greed would come to an end. Yet we are sinners, and thus we stumble and fall into sin. Mankind is fallen and evil is a constant testimony to that fallenness. A final reason for God’s permission of evil in the world is that he uses evil to strengthen Christians in their faith. Facing evil, trials, and tribulations force us to draw closer to God and to rely on his strength and thus grow in our relationship to him.
In other words, for the Christian, while evil is something that we never desire to enter into our lives, when it does, such evil things are not necessarily bad. In fact, in many cases, the scriptures remind us that it is good to face evil things so long as we are relying upon God, for such cases will grow us to be stronger in our relationship with Jesus Christ. One final note—while the final destruction of the Devil will not take place before the second coming of our Lord, Jesus did once and for all time defeat the power of the devil upon the cross of Calvary. Yet, though Satan has been defeated, we must endure for a little while longer while God works out his plan in the world.
In a nutshell—God does has already destroyed the Devil and has promised to cast him in the lake of fire in the end times. Second, God is waiting for the last of the elect to come to faith and/or the last martyr to die. Third, even if the Devil were thrown into the pit tomorrow, we would still have evil in the world due to the fall of man and man’s sin—something that can only be remedied through a relationship with Jesus Christ. Fourth, evil is not always bad though it is always unpleasant. God often uses evil to bring about his work in this world as well as using it to sanctify and mature us in the faith.
Does Sin Crouch? (Genesis 4:7)
Genesis 4:7
Can Sin Crouch and can sin Desire?
Genesis 4:7 (ESV) “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
Literal Translation: “Will not, if you do good, to lift up? And if you do not do good, sin is laying at the door. And it’s longing is toward you, and you must rule over it.”
The question that was asked, is this passage simply personifying sin of does God’s word somehow suggest that sin is an entity which can act on its own volition? The simply answer to the question is that sin is being personified by God to emphasize the point that God is making with Cain. God wants Cain to truly understand the power that sin has over him, so the comparison that is being made is of a predator crouching in wait at the threshold of his home—ready to strike—and that it has a desire for Cain.
While the simple answer is that God is personifying sin for the sake of emphasis, perhaps the more interesting question is why might God have communicated in this way with Cain? To answer that question, we need to know something about what is literally being communicated.
First, as you can see above, the initial question, when translated literally, makes rather awkward and unintelligible English. And such is not overly unusual when going from one language to another—especially with idioms, so a few notes must be made up front. First of all, the Hebrew language often uses word order to add emphasis to those things that are found at the beginning of the sentence, though typically not as much so as Greek. In other words, what is being emphasized is God’s beginning question—“Won’t this take place…?” Oftentimes when my son has been disobedient, instead of just telling him that he was wrong, I will ask him a leading question so that he speaks the truth about his action. I might ask “Surely, you didn’t think that such and such was okay to do…,” and in doing so, add a great deal of emphasis on the word, “Surely.” Usually, when confronted in this way, my son responds by hanging his head and saying, “no, dad…” I think that the word order and structure of the initial question lends itself to this tone on the part of God. God knows that Cain knows right from wrong, God knows that Cain knows that he sinned, and God also knows that Cain knows that he needs to repent, but the leading question is designed to force Cain to respond properly—yet Cain’s heart is hardened and he refuses to repent.
The second thing that we need to note is the word af’n” (nasa), which means, “to lift up.” While this term broadly refers to picking or lifting up anything in particular, it is also sometimes used in a judicial sense to some being restored to favor before a king, as with the cupbearer being restored to his office in Genesis 40:13. That seems to be the context of its use in this particular pattern—if Cain does right (in this case, repenting of his heartless offering and make a proper offering, sacrificing what is first and best of his crops), then he will be forgiven. Thus, the concept that the ESV is seeking to capture as they translate this word as “be accepted” is this idea of Cain’s being restored to proper fellowship with God. Note too, that af’n” (nasa) is being used in it’s infinitive form, and thus carries with it no subject (as my translation above reflects), and though this makes awkward English, it is meant to remind us that in the repentance (doing what is good in God’s eyes), the process of lifting up—the process or legal restoration to his original position in the covenant community—takes place. Yet, of course, if he chooses what is not good, in comes sin.
This raises the issue with respect to what is “good” and what is the relationship between “good” and “sin.” The concept of “good” is understood in a number of ways, but in its absolute sense (from which we should derive our applications of the concept) only applies to God (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Psalm 119:68 is the basis for this concept:
“You are good and you cause good to be;
teach me your statutes.”
Note the structure of this psalm. God is described as good—where the idea of “good” is functioning as a predicate nominative. In other words, “good” is being portrayed as part of God’s essential character and reciprocally, “good” cannot be defined apart from a discussion of God and who he is. The psalmist continues, though, by stating that not only is God good, but God’s work is good. This second use of the term good, moves from the adjectival use of the word Good (a reflection of God’s character) to the participial use of the term, reflecting his ongoing actions. In addition, the Hebrew uses the Hiphil stem of the verb in this case, which reflects causative action—in other words, God is the one who causes all good to come about.
One note that we need to make in relation to this is the way in which we use the term “good,” because even as Christians we rarely use it in its absolute sense. We often express the idea of good in relationship to our preferences, other people, or our general comfort. And while they are all legitimate uses of the term, “good,” the general term must derive its meaning from some sort of inviolable standard. God is the only one who can set such a standard. This, of course, provides a problem for unbelievers who reject God’s presence, but in rejecting God, to where will they turn for the measure of what is good? If they determine that preference determines the meaning of good, all intellectual interaction is reduced to meaningless babble—one can turn to the beginning of Genesis 11 to see what happens to a culture that cannot communicate with one another in any meaningful way. If the unbeliever looks outside of himself, to perhaps the state, for a standard for good, they are reduced to excusing Nazi Germany for their execution of millions of people, for those in government saw themselves as doing good for the German people. If you look to the Nuremburg trials, they defined good in terms of that which preserved life (though one might ask from where they adopted that absolute definition). Yet many who would advocate such a definition would also advocate abortions, which terminate the life of an unwanted baby. The unbeliever is reduced to an endless cycle of confusion and frustration unless he can appeal on some level to a supernatural standard, and then he has trapped himself in an unwanted contradiction. If you don’t accept God as being who he is—and being the source of the definition of good—then you cannot use the term in any meaningful sense. At the same time, this causes a great deal of practical difficulty for many Christians, because if you accept that God provides the absolute definition of what is good, we must define what is good on that basis, not on the basis of our own comfort or preferences—and that causes Romans 8:28 and similar passages to be taken in a very different light compared to how most Christians look at the passage. Thus, while God does work all things for my good, what is ultimately good for me is not my comfort, health, or financial blessing, but being conformed into the image of his Son, Jesus Christ.
So, for Cain to do good, he must repent from his sin—and in this case, sin stands as the direct opposite of good. The term we translate as “sin” in the Old Testament is taJ’x; (chattath), and is derived from the verb aj’x’ (chata), “to miss the mark” or “to fail to hit the target” (see Judges 20:16). And then, what are we missing when we sin? We are missing God’s perfect standard (Matthew 5:48). This, of course, is why we needed a redeemer who could come and live a perfect life on our behalf as well as to pay the debt we owed on account of sin (retributive justice). Thus sin is not an entity wandering about on its own, but it is the result of our failure to live up to God’s perfect standard—and willful sin, being that God has revealed his law, is an intentional missing of the standard, and is thus outward rebellion against God’s holy and good character.
There is one more note that we need to make on this passage, and that is of the language of “desire.” The Hebrew term employed in this verse is hq’WvT. (tishuqah), which refers to a “longing” or a “desire” for something. What is particularly interesting is that while this term is only used in two other places in the Old Testament, one of those places is in the previous chapter: Genesis 3:16 (the second other place is in Song of Solomon 7:10). What is also interesting about this is that in both of these cases (Genesis 3:16 and 4:7) the word lv;m’ (mashal) is used in conjunction with it. The verb lv;m’ (mashal) refers to ruling over something or someone. In both cases, the desire is defined as something that must be ruled over—in the first case, Adam ruling over Eve in spite of her desire for him (or for his position as many understand it) and in this case, Cain ruling over sin’s desire for him (or to destroy his relationship with God as part of the covenant community).
The reality is that the struggle with sin, while an inward spiritual struggle, is like wrestling against a wild beast seeking to destroy, but instead must be dominated and ruled over. Not only is God using this language to emphasize the urgency of Cain’s repentance, but also to communicate to us the very real battle that we face—one that is not a battle against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities and thus we must take up the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:11-12).
Conclusion (Judges 9:7-15)
There is much more to the story than just this parable, and I would encourage you to go and read the rest of Judges, chapter 9 (and on…). Ultimately, the people get what they ask for: an illegitimate king. Also, Jotham’s prediction certainly comes true—there is fire between Abimelech and the people of Shechem, which brings about Abimelech’s downfall. But this is hardly the end of the story. The people keep on asking for a king until God finally grants them to have a human king. And what a mess of people they were. Even the good ones, though they are few, have their low points. This is what happens when we chase after the ways of this world rather than chasing after the things of God, and that point does not just apply to our political leaders, but to all aspects of life.
Friends, chase after the things of God and seek to grow holy. Learn to resist sin and to glorify God in both your public and private lives. Love him in all you do. Love his word—study it, pray it, sing it, and memorize it—and seek his face in prayer. If you do these things, you will stay clear of the seduction of the world. You will keep yourself out from under the choking bramble of sin—not by your strength, but by the strength of the one who dwells in you and is reflected in you more and more clearly as you grow in faith.
The Fire and the Cedars (Judges 9:15)
“And the bramble said to the trees, ‘If in truth you anoint me to be king over you, enter and take refuge in my shadow. But if there is not, let fire go out from the bramble, and let it consume the cedars of Lebanon!’” (Judges 9:15)
There are two levels to how we need to approach this passage. The first level is the immediate context of the passage. Here, the bramble is given kingship and will subjugate all of the trees, destroying them in the process. Indeed, there is a curse that is attached to the acceptance of the bramble: may fires go out to consume even the great and stately cedars of Lebanon. Abimelech will be made king, he will rule with an iron fist—and does so for three years—and not even the greatest of the people who made him king will be able to stand against him, indeed fire will consume even his strongest opposition during his reign.
And, were we just studying the book of Judges, we would leave this verse be with that translation. But, given that all scripture is authored by God, it is important for us to see where this imagery is referenced in other books of the Bible. And, indeed, the imagery is referenced in other books of the Bible, and in those cases, the language carries with it Messianic intent.
Indeed, just as Abimelech, the false king of Israel destroys his enemies, so too, does the true king of Israel destroy his enemies with fire. The book of Amos, within its first two chapters, repeatedly finds God sending out his fire to consume his enemies. Also, in Zechariah 11:1-3, God pronounces his judgment against the unbelievers in Israel by declaring that his fire will devour the cedars of Lebanon. Though this language is often used figuratively, it also looks backward to a time before the time of Judges, during Israel’s wilderness wanderings, where God literally destroyed his enemies with fire (Leviticus 10:1-7).
Yet, there is an even more compelling allusion to the language of this parable that occurs nearly 1300 years after the Jotham’s telling of this parable. In Revelation 11, there is a reference to the two witnesses of God breathing out fire and destroying their enemies. Now, admittedly, there is a great deal of debate as to just what these two witnesses represent, but I hold the position that they represent Christ during his earthly ministry. The two witnesses are described as the two olive trees that stand before the lampstands which are before God. This is imagery taken right out of Zechariah 4, where the two olive trees are the “anointed ones” that stand before the Lord (Zechariah 4:14). Who is the anointed one before the Lord? It is the Messiah—Jesus our Lord.
Why then is Jesus represented by two witnesses? I would like to suggest two options: first, Jesus’ witness is to both the Old Testament believers and to the New Testament believers, and second, Jesus had dual natures—one human and one divine. Thus, two witnesses are given within the figurative language of the book of Revelation. And indeed, getting back to the imagery that we spoke of earlier in this passage, Jesus is the olive tree; he is the rightful king of Israel.
Did Jotham have all of this in mind when he told his parable? I very much doubt it. Jotham was telling a story to tell the people what they had gotten themselves into. At the same time, God, through other Biblical writers and in other times, used that imagery to warn those who would be the enemies of his son. Abimelech would rule as a despot, and the righteous had much to fear; Jesus rules as the rightful and righteous king, and the unrighteous have much to fear. Our God will obliterate even the strongest resistance to his rule—even the modern cedars of Lebanon cannot withstand his wrath.
I find it comforting to serve a God who has all of his enemies at his feet. As believers, we know just how the story will end up and who ends up on top. We do not worship in vain and we worship a God that gives life and sanctuary to those who enter under his shadow. Jesus calls out to all who would hear: “come and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). Won’t you rest in him?
The Acceptance (Judges 9:15)
“And the bramble said to the trees, ‘If in truth you anoint me to be king over you, enter and take refuge in my shadow. But if there is not, let fire go out from the bramble, and let it consume the cedars of Lebanon!’” (Judges 9:15)
If you ever drive through the mountains of Virginia, in places you will see a remarkable sight. There are portions of the mountainside that are covered with green-leafy vines as far as the eye can see. In fact, this phenomenon can be seen in many parts of the American southeast. What you are seeing is area that is covered by the kudzu vine. Originally, these plants were imported to the United States from Japan for the purpose of soil conservation, but it was soon discovered that these vines not only grew well here, but grew at an alarming rate. While this was good for soil conservation efforts, this proved disastrous for forests. The plants would grow and choke the trees, preventing them from absorbing sunlight. In perfect conditions, a kudzu plant can grow up to sixty feet in a year.
This is what happens when you allow vines or brambles to rule. Their offer of kingship having been rejected by the fruit-bearing plants, the trees went to the bramble, likely thinking that they could control his actions as well. Look at the response of the bramble once again. He tells the trees to enter and take refuge in his shadow. This should catch our attention. How is a stately tree to take refuge under the shadow of a bramble. The only way for that to happen is if the bramble grows to overcome the trees—just as the kudzu plant did in the southeast—yet, when this happens, the trees will be choked out. What begins as an offer of refuge ends up being a sure promise of destruction.
How often, in our lives, does the sinful path seem to be a path of refuge and safe from danger? Yet, it always brings destruction. The people were afraid that if they did not have a king like the Canaanites did, they would be overrun—even though God proclaimed himself to be their king and even though God had repeatedly delivered them from their enemies. They felt that the path of faith entailed danger and the path of sin would offer safety. How we are deceived by the wiles of sin.
Friends, God calls you to be holy. That means trusting God to set the timing for your life and to walk in that timing with integrity and godliness. That means walking in faith. The temptations of sin may seem to provide a clear and safe route through the mountains and valleys of life, but that path will lead you straight into the briar patch.
The Bramble (Judges 9:14)
“Then all of the trees said to the bramble, ‘You come and reign over us.’”
(Judges 9:14)
And this is where you end up if you try and organize life in accordance with your own desires and not in accordance to God’s will. You end up with a good-for-nothing, thorny bramble as your king. The term that the Jotham uses here is dDfDa (atad), which is only found five times in the Old Testament (2 times in Genesis 50 as a proper name, 2 times in this parable, and 1 time in Psalm 58:9, where it is used to describe a thorny bush ready to be destroyed), but is never used in a positive way when referring to such a bush.
Indeed, the only fruit that such a bush bears are thorns and thistles. This contrast is very important to note in this parable. The previous three candidates which were asked all bore abundant and good fruit. The fruit of the grapevine, the fig, and the olive are not only staple foods, but they point to the promised new creation. Given that the new creation is a restoration of the earth to its pre-fall purity, beauty, and abundance, new creation language often uses language that points our minds backwards to Eden as well—a place where the grapevine, the fig, and the olive would have been abundant. What am I getting at here? The bramble was not present in Eden, nor will it be present in the new heavens and earth.
In God’s judgment of Adam, God cursed the land rather than cursing mankind (who rightfully deserved the curse). This is a foretaste of the substitutionary work of Christ for our sins. The effect of that curse on the land is that it would bring forth “thorns and thistles” (Genesis 3:18). This thorny bramble, which the people of Shechem have made king, namely Abimelech, is being linked with sin. Indeed, it is the sin of not trusting God’s kingship that has brought them to desiring a human king and to bring this about, the sin of murder (68 of them to be exact) is committed. Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden was an outward rebellion against the rulership of God, and the fruit of that sin was demonstrated in the lives of their two sons: Cain and Abel. What a dark place the people of Shechem have gotten themselves into.
And, all too often, we do the same. No, we may not be guilty of killing off our brothers and sisters to gain a kingdom, but how often do brothers and sisters raise their fists against one another fighting over a share of their parent’s estate? How often do we cut someone down to size at work, seeking a better position in the boss’ eyes? How often do we insult someone just to get others to laugh? Jesus calls this murder (Matthew 5:21-26). Just because we do not wield the knife, does not mean we are innocent of this sin. Friends, the good news is that in Christ there is forgiveness for our sins (1 John 1:9). But God does not simply forgive us and let us go back to our sinful ways, he wants us to grow and mature in holiness. Repentance means turning around; it implies seeking to put to death those things that cause you to trip and fall. We have a lifetime of work ahead of us, but in Christ, there is progress in that work. The people of Shechem put their own desires ahead of God’s will—nothing but trouble comes from doing that; it brought them brambles then and it will bring us brambles today.
The Preacher's Study 