An Analysis of The Gospel of John, Chapter 13, Verses 1-30

 SURVEY

In a careful reading of John 13:1-30, the author is clearly writing an historical narrative.  There are time indicators: “Now before the Feast” and “During the supper” stated within the first 2 verses.  John includes a theological proposition in verse 3 prior to describing the act of Christ in washing the disciple’s feet. There are hints of a betrayal positioned throughout the narrative culminating in the identification and expulsion of the traitor. A theme of “you are clean” “except your feet” to “not all of you are clean” runs consistently through the narrative. There are exhortations and admonitions of our Lord regarding “washing one another’s feet” and following His example.  And there is also an apparent promise “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”” (John 13:20, ESV) 

What role does this narrative play in this Gospel?  Is there a main flow of thought that unites all these elements into a common theme?  If there’s no common theme and flow of thought, then the passage acts something like a firecracker sending out fragments of light in various ways.  To those who have some familiarity with this passage often hear sermons on servanthood, betrayal and even commissioning. 

Within the passage there is great debate as to whether the meal in question is the Passover.  This paper isn’t going to discuss that issue and it is assumed that the meal is indeed the Passover.  It seems completely reasonable to me that John 13:1, in this transitory passage, it looks back summarily on the public ministry of Christ. “Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.” (John 13:1, ESV).  Now the author turns his attention to the Feast and the events that will take place: “During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose  . . .” (John 13:2–4, ESV).  It is the same meal. 

TEXT:  JOHN 13:1–30 (ESV)

CONTEXT

The most obvious observation that informs this passage is that it follows immediately after Jesus concludes His public ministry.  There is an apparent division in the Gospel whereby John provides insight into Christ’s public ministry (Chapters 1-12) with the remainder of the Gospel focusing on His Passion.  All of this is in view that John’s readers would “believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”^[1]  So it is probably with some purpose and intent that when Jesus identifies the betrayer in this passage, He Himself affirms: “I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.” (John 13:19, ESV).

With the ending of the public ministry of Christ positioned prior to the text, we also note that the intimate ministry of Christ with His remaining Eleven commence at the end of the passage.  It is there he enters a personal and intimate dialogue prefaced with these words: “When he had gone out, Jesus said . . .;”^[2] and we read these tender words: “Little children, yet a little while I am with you.”^[3] “Little children or τεκνίον in the Greek text, pronounced tek·nee·on.  It was “used as a term of kindly address by teachers to their disciples.”^[4] 

The passage acts as a transition from Christ’s public ministry to His private ministry with the remaining disciples.   “In the second major unit of John’s Gospel, Jesus prepared his messianic community (represented by the Twelve, minus Judas) for the time following his exaltation to the Father. I agree with Stephen Wellum where he writes, “The community was first cleansed literally (foot washing, 13:1–17), then figuratively through the removal of the betrayer (13:18–30).”^[5] Don Carson will comment: “On the one hand, it is symbolic of spiritual cleansing (cf. especially vv. 8–10); on the other, it serves as a standard of humble service and therefore as a call to all of Jesus’ disciples to ‘wash one another’s feet’ (vv. 12–17).”^[6]  In the most general of ways I concede that this passage “serves as a standard of humble service” but such a statement lacks the specificity that the text demands.

ANALYSIS

The entire drama takes place as noted by the author “during Supper”.  Keeping the idea of transition in mind whereby Christ’s love for His disciples is expressed so clearly (vv 31ff), it would seem natural for the author to remind us in verse 1 that the entire public ministry of Christ can be summed up this way: “having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.”^[7]  That sentence itself flows from past to future.  The public ministry of Jesus will go down in history as “love for His own”; and this supper will go down in infamy as the “supper when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.”^[8] 

Verse 3 is a theological statement.  “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God.” (John 13:3, ESV).  This is the proposition that will commit Him to public execution.  It was His message to Israel: “Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.” (John 8:42, ESV).  It also puts in place the events which will transpire: “I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”” (John 16:28, ESV).

 Verses 1, 2 and 3 are Past, Present and Future.  Together they form an introduction to the drama that will follow. The presentation of the traitor is an ever-increasing revelation through this drama. There are four movements. 

I - John 13:1–3 (ESV)

¹ Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. ² During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, ³ Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

 

II - John 13:4–11 (ESV)

⁴ rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. ⁵ Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. ⁶ He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” ⁷ Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” ⁸ Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” ⁹ Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” ¹⁰ Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” ¹¹ For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

 

III John 13:12–20 (ESV)

¹² When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? ¹³ You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. ¹⁴ If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. ¹⁵ For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. ¹⁶ Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. ¹⁷ If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. ¹⁸ I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ ¹⁹ I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. ²⁰ Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”

 

IV - John 13:21–30 (ESV)

²¹ After saying these things, Jesus was troubled in his spirit, and testified, “Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” ²² The disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke. ²³ One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus’ side, ²⁴ so Simon Peter motioned to him to ask Jesus of whom he was speaking. ²⁵ So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, “Lord, who is it?” ²⁶ Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. ²⁷ Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” ²⁸ Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. ²⁹ Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. ³⁰ So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night.

 

This segue in increasing measure to the traitor seems intentional.  One should note that in verses 12-20, where many see Jesus’ exhortation to follow his example in being a servant and doing good to one another, when you extract the traitor motif, the narrative clearly points to disciples washing one another’s feet in sanctifying cleansing, following by a blessing and a promise. 

Verses 4-11 follow a well-established pattern for Christ in the Gospel of John.  It was quite common for Christ to take an earthly custom or activity and transform it’s meaning into a spiritual lesson.  From John 2, the wedding of Cana through to the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus taught through a means of cultural transubstantiation – the form being retained but the meaning changed.  We know that because of this clue: ““What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.”^[9]

In verses 4-11 the cultural habit of footwashing was viewed by our Savior as the sanctifying work of the Incarnate Word (see verse 10). The disciples are clean (i.e., justified) but as 1 John 1:9 reminds us, we need daily cleansing from daily experiences of earthly travel.  Ephesians 5:26 (ESV) clarifies Christ’s desire for the Church, “²⁶ that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.”

The flow of thought as Wellum affirms is continual established on “cleansing” – cleansing of the individual, with the accompanying revelation of who the traitor is and the eventual cleansing of the group.

SUMMARY

John 13:1-30 form for us a transition from the public ministry of Christ to His private ministry to His disciples.  Embedded in the narrative is the sovereignty of God, justification of the elect and the necessity of sanctification of those who truly belong to Him (“If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.”^[10]).  As Christ washed His disciple’s feet, His Church is called to wash one another’s feet. This is not just a general call to servanthood within the Body.  This is a specific call to follow the example of Christ and serve one another through the washing of one another’s feet, that is, applying brotherly correction and cleansing through the application of the Word.  With the call to exemplify Jesus, there is a blessing and the promise of His authoritative presence (confirm: Matthew 18:20).

Interspersed within the narrative is the ever-increasing awareness of who the traitor is and his ultimate expulsion.  The cleansed group is now ready to hear, “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’” (John 13:33, ESV).

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 20:31). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 13:31). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 13:33). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[4] Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

^[5] Wellum, S. J. (2017). Incarnation and Christology. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 1693). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

^[6] Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (p. 458). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans.

^[7] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 13:1). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[8] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 13:2). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[9] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 13:7). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[10] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 13:8). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

Midrash and the Modern Messenger

In John 13:18–19 (ESV), we read:

“¹⁸ I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ ¹⁹ I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.”

Jesus is identifying the betrayer, Judas.  Judas, one of the twelve disciples chosen by the Lord is going to act in traitorous treachery.  According to the words of our Savior, He says to the disciples that the betrayal is taking place that “the Scripture will be fulfilled”.  Quite clearly in the text we assume that the reason Jesus chose Judas to betray him was to fulfill Scripture.  Literally the Greek text reads: “But so that the scripture may be fulfilled.”^[1]

“The psalm Jesus quoted was attributed to David, who lamented the defection of a trusted confidant (Ps 41:9). A parallel occurs in Psalm 55:12-14. Quite probably it referred originally to Ahithophel, who had been David's counselor and diplomatic advisor but deserted him in Absalom's rebellion (2Sam 15:12; 16:15-23; 17:4, 14, 23).”[2]

Normally we read the word “fulfilled” to indicate a direct prophetic accomplishment.  An example would be that in approximately 700 BC, the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah.  In Micah 5:2 (ESV) we read:

“² But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”

The quotation cited by our Savior in John 13 is clearly not written in a way that the reader of the Psalm would think this was written to foretell a betrayal of the Messiah.  So, we are left with the question, what does “fulfill” mean in this text.  When Jesus says that an event “fulfills” Psalm 41:9 it does not necessary mean that the event was predicted.  As a modern reader we don’t quickly understand this.

This type of assertion was a form of Bible interpretation called “midrash” that helped Jews interpret a current happening by linking it to Scripture.  A midrash is like a parable or an allegory. One might also see it as an elevated illustration.  It includes elements of commentary.  I prefer to view it in terms of type and antitype.  In the case of Jesus and Judas, David and Ahithophel are the types and Jesus and Judas are the antitypes.  One is a foreshadowing of the other. 

Interestingly, the Apostle Peter employed the same interpretative method in the process of selecting Judas’ replacement.  We read in Acts 1:16–20 (ESV)

¹⁶ “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus . . . ²⁰ “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, “ ‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “ ‘Let another take his office.’”

A more familiar example is found in Matthew chapter 2 where we read: “Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt.”^[3]  Then we read: “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” ^[4]  The citation from Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel—not to Jesus. However, we recognize this as midrash rather than predicted prophecy.  Some refer to it as prophecy by parallelism.

What was appropriate for Matthew, for John, for Paul and other inspired writers is not appropriate for modern scholars, preachers, and authors.  Too often creative (overly creative) preachers and teachers will assert a certain doctrine or principle and reach back into the Old Testament and claim that this fulfills a particular Old Testament story of verse.  I recall one preacher attempting to show that the rescuing of Rahab in Joshua 2 anticipated the secret rapture of the Church.   

The Midrashian interpretation of Scripture, that is inspired and recorded in the Bible is one thing.  For pastors and teachers to employ the same method of interpretation is tantamount to claiming for themselves infallibility and inspiration.  It is an attractive method for the lazy and dishonest preacher for they soon succeed in providing their congregations with ever new and creative interpretations of the Bible.  It both denies the sufficiency of Scripture and the perpetuity of Scripture. 

So from John 13 we learn two things:  One, is that the word “fulfilled” does not always mean predictive prophecy realized; and Secondly, the art of Midrashian interpretation is only trustworthy when it is evidenced within the text of Scripture by inspired authors.  We have no liberty to turn any text from type to anti-type on our own whim and authority.

 

 

 

---

^[1] Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

[2] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:John/Exposition of John/III. The Private Ministry of the Word (13:1-17:26)/A. The Last Supper (13:1-30)/1. The washing of feet (13:1-20), Book Version: 4.0.2

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 2:13). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[4] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 2:15). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

What Does James 5:19-20 Mean?

This Sunday, I allude to a verse in the Letter of James.  James 5:19–20 (ESV),

 ¹⁹ My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, ²⁰ let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

What does this mean and what are the implications?  James was the brother of Jesus and became a leader in the early Church in Jerusalem.  Some of fondly referred to his letter as the New Testament book of Proverbs due to its wise and practical instruction. James answers the question, “How shall we then live.”  Faith, to James, is more than an idea; it includes a practical outworking of godliness.  The Letter was probably written soon after Christ’s ascension and primarily to dispersed Jews.  He addresses such topics as:

a. The need for wisdom in tests and trials;

b. Obedience to the Word;

c. Living loving lives among the rich and poor;

d. Living out your faith in good works;

e. Godly speech and worldliness;

f.  Instruction to the wealthy; and returning to the first category,

g. Suffering and prayer.

It would seem difficult to separate James 5:19-20 from his instruction on suffering, prayer and confession of sin because this would leave the letter without a concluding statement. However, that seems to be the case.  It appears that James is placing his arms around the readers and reminding them to care for one another by helping those who sin, particularly the sins noted in his letter.  What a poignant way to end a letter that focuses on the truth that our justification is justified by our godly behavior.  He is writing to “brothers” and his concern is “anyone among you.”   He is clearly addressing someone within the congregation “wandering away from the truth”. 

The verb “wander away” can either mean to be led astray or going away by one’s own choice. ^[1]  The word “if” conveys the possibility that this hasn’t happened, but if it did this is what you are to do.  The scenario is a wandering from the “truth”.  One might think this is a departure from orthodoxy, but the practical extent of this letter leads me to conclude that it is a wandering away from right behavior.  The call to the Christian community is to “bring him back”.  The danger to an unrestored wanderer is bleak to say the least: It will “save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”^[2]

At the very least this person who is “among” them is a professing Christian.  And in accord with this letter, I would agree with Bloomberg and Kamel that “this restoring is more a work that shows their faith than one that creates their salvation.”^[3]  That this is more than physical death is surely the danger. “That this cannot be physical death may be inferred from the literal translation of the Greek text: it "shall save his soul from death." So it would seem that spiritual death is in view.”[4]

Of course, it is only our Savior that saves. But the ministry of a loving believer seeking to restore a fallen brother (Galatians 6:1-2) is surely a life-saving rescue mission.  The restoration of the confessing believer not only shows that they have passed from death to life, but we learn that it “will cover a multitude of sins.”^[5]  This harmonizes with 1 Peter 4:8 that reads, “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8, ESV). 

Grammatically “The sins that are “covered” could also be the sins of the person who has wandered (v. 19), but it might be instead (or also) the sins of the person who has intervened on their behalf (Prov 10:12).”[6]  “The most obvious person would be the one who has strayed. Yet, ‘Jewish sources are quoted to the effect that the one who turns a sinner to repentance is deserving of forgiveness himself.’”^[7]  The verse tends to be ambiguous, but the natural reading, I would contend, would be that the erring brother is the recipient of such “covering”.  “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” (Psalm 32:1, ESV)

What does this mean? It would surely include the thought that once his sins are confessed before God in true repentance, they are “forgiven and forgotten” by God the Father. He has promised the erring saint in 1 John 1:9 (ESV), “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” [Emphasis mine].  The “saving the soul from death” is surely the result of confession and repentance and there is no sin that cannot be “covered” for the penitent believer. 

James's purpose in these closing verses is to encourage Christians to make an effort to bring the wanderer back.  A return by the “sinner” will “justify” their profession of faith with the promise that all their sins can be forgiven.  We Calvinists are fearful about embracing the warnings of Scripture, but that should not be the case.  Indeed, it is only those who persevere who show they are one with Christ.  “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” (Hebrews 3:14, ESV).  And again, “And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.”^[8]

So, I conclude that James is telling us that even though we have been saved by the grace of God and once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, we are still sinners living in mortal bodies who have a tendency to wander off like silly sheep. So, we are to watch out for each other and return each other to the truth of the Christian life, knowing full well that if an erring congregant fails to respond in repentance the consequences are dire. 

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it;
  Prone to leave the God I love:
Take my heart, oh, take and seal it
  With Thy Spirit from above.
Rescued thus from sin and danger,
  Purchased by the Savior’s blood,
May I walk on earth a stranger,
  As a son and heir of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

^[1] Blomberg, C. L., & Kamell, M. J. (2008). James (Vol. 16, p. 248). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jas 5:20). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[3] Blomberg, C. L., & Kamell, M. J. (2008). James (Vol. 16, p. 249). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[4] “Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:James/Exposition of James/XII. Miscellaneous Exhortations (5:7-20)/D. Concerning the Wanderer (5:19-20), Book Version: 4.0.2

^[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jas 5:20). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

[6] Zondervan. The NIV Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message . Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

^[7] Blomberg, C. L., & Kamell, M. J. (2008). James (Vol. 16, p. 249). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[8] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 3:6). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The Sayings of the Wise – Part 25

 

THIRTY SAYINGS OF THE WISE

SAYING NUMBER TWENTY-Four

The 24th saying of the wise is found in Proverbs 24:10 (ESV), "If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small."  Our immediate reaction might be, "Duh!"  Of course!   Why is this a wise saying?  "A difficult time is literally a “time of restriction” (Hb tsarah). To be limited is literally to be “restricted” (Hb tsar). So to avoid losing strength, act." [1]

Stated otherwise I think we can all see the wisdom.  If you fail to do nothing, which the Hebrew verb רָפָה (rafah) can mean, you will weaken, not strengthen, Procrastination does not empower but in fact contributes to weakening.  "Although framed as an observation, this is actually an exhortation for the reader to show himself strong and courageous in times of adversity."[2]

I like to watch a sporting event called American Ninja Warriors.  The advanced obstacle course that these athletes traverse is quite phenomenal. Occasionally one is hanging on a bar prepared to propel themselves to the next obstacle.  The truth that we all know is that the longer they hang there, the weaker they will become.  Procrastination does that to us. 

Tim Challies has written on this in an article published by Christianity.com. He makes this observation:

"First, I had to see this: Procrastination is a problem of spirituality before it is a problem of productivity. I came to understand that God has put me on this earth to bring glory to him by doing good for others. If that is the case, then procrastination hinders my ability to carry out my purpose. It is downright evil."

We often look at procrastination as an issue of personal discipline but I think Challies is right in that we ought first to consider it a matter of sin.  It is in that we have hope.  It is in that we can apply the Gospel.  “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17, ESV) 

Should we need acknowledge, as Christians, that God is for us and is working for our good -- our sanctification.  Therefore when we read: “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (2 Peter 1:3–4, ESV), we indeed have an empowering, sin-defeating promise to propel us into obedience?

The sum and substance of our lives as Christians as we prepare for eternity is wrapped up in one word: perseverance.  We read the exhortation of the preacher in Hebrews 10:35–36 (ESV),

³⁵ Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. ³⁶ For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 

So the Wise Man is right, the longer we delay in acting in what is right, the weaker we become. Our own strength is realized in all its weakness.  Obedience invites the strength and the power of God. Paul could testify:

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Corinthians 15:10, ESV) 

I honestly believe that if we Christians view procrastination as not a "productivity" problem, but a spiritual problem, we would enjoy the wonders of God's enabling grace and thus find great joy in living for Him.

 

_____________________________________________________

1. Stabnow, D. K. (2017). Proverbs. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 990). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

2. Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1176). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles

Is It Ever OK to Lie? 1 Samuel, Part 35

In the previous Blog, I noted that David confirmed Saul’s intention to kill him.  Saul’s son, Jonathan warns David and he himself remains faithful to a covenant he made with David. After their vow of friendship Jonathan sends David on his way.  In flight from Saul, David stops at Nob to gather supplies.  Within this story there is an ominous clue by the narrator of sad events that will transpire because of this stopover. Since he has nowhere else to turn, David flees to Philistia. He could have returned home to his enemy, Saul, but instead he decides to take his chances among his other enemies.

 Text:  1 Samuel 21 (ESV)

 “Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest.”^[1]  Nob located between Gibeah and Jerusalem seems to have become a center for priestly activity and the tabernacle, at this time. “Ahimelech. A great grandson of Eli (1:9) . . . Not only is there a rejected king on the throne (15:26–29) but also a disqualified priest (2:30–36).”^[2]

 Ahimelech was surprised and seemed distressed at David’s visit.  It probably wasn’t a secret that David was being hunted by the King.  David lies about his mission and asks for food for himself and his men. The priest answered, ““I have no common bread on hand, but there is holy bread—if the young men have kept themselves from women.”^[3] “Common bread, which might be eaten by anyone, is distinguished from holy bread, which, like sacrifices, could be eaten only by the clean (e.g., Lev. 10:10). Sexual contact was one source of uncleanness (Ex. 19:15; Lev. 15:18) . . . The “holy bread” was the bread of the Presence of Ex. 25:30; Lev. 24:5–9.”^[4]   It is clear that Ahimelech was “bending” the rules.

 Then we read this: “Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the Lord. His name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul’s herdsmen” (1 Samuel 21:7, ESV) which will prove to be an ominous statement later revealed in the story.

 Having eaten the bread, David also asked for a sword. In a moment of déjà vu David was granted Goliath’s sword whom he had killed.

From there David flees to Gath in Philistia.  No one could invent a story like this!  This is bizarre.  Fleeing from his enemy, the Israelite king, David flees to the enemy of Israel – wearing the sword of Goliath, the Philistine dead champion.  Another point of intrigue is that although Israel didn’t recognize David as king, the servants of Achish, king of the Philistines did! This gave David much fear.  So, what did he do?  We read in 1 Samuel 21:13 (ESV),

 ¹³ So he changed his behavior before them and pretended to be insane in their hands and made marks on the doors of the gate and let his spittle run down his beard.

Achish is convinced by David’s imitation of insanity and refuses to allow him to remain with them.  We read in the next chapter, “David departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam.”^[5]

 This is a story of deception. Sir Walter Scott is quoted as saying, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”  David’s deception of the Philistine king, Achish but particularly his lie to the priest Ahimelech is troublesome.  David may have thought that ensuring the safety of himself and his men warranted telling a lie.   He may have even been trying to protect Ahimelech in case Saul found out (If so this backfired horribly (see Chapter 22:9-18)). People lie for lesser important reasons, don’t they?  What is essentially sinful, albeit for “good” reasons, can never justify our actions.

The Bible nowhere presents an instance where lying is the right thing to do. The ninth commandment prohibits bearing false witness (““You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16, ESV)).  Likewise, the New Testament is clear: “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.” (Ephesians 4:25, ESV).

The Bible also describes at least two instances where lying produced good results (e.g., For example, the lie the Hebrew midwives tell Pharaoh seems to result in the Lord’s blessing on them (Exodus 1:15-21), and it probably saved the lives of many Hebrew babies. Another example is Rahab’s lie to protect the Israelite spies in Joshua 2:5.). Pragmatism or situational ethics have never been affirmed in the Bible as excuses for sin. 

The most common illustration of this dilemma comes from the life of Corrie ten Boom in Nazi-occupied Holland. Essentially, the story is this: Corrie ten Boom is hiding Jews in her home to protect them from the Nazis. Nazi soldiers come to her home and ask her if she knows where any Jews are hiding. What is she to do? Should she tell the truth and allow the Nazis to capture the Jews she was trying to protect? Or should she lie and deny that she knows anything about them?

Ethics classes love to debate this quandary. One ethics class I took taught that it is OK if done in love.  In other words we can sin, if love is the motive!  Some authors consider David’s lie, including the midwives and Rahab, to “appear to be acceptable”.  But it is extremely hard to read the Scriptures and even suggest that lying (although admittedly in these cases an exceedingly difficult choice) is ever acceptable in the eyes of God.  Lying flies against His nature.  He is the God of truth. Whether lying leads to further consequences as David’s does or even if it seems to have accomplished what its intention was, it is still wrong.  The biggest question is why God doesn’t strike us down (e.g., Acts 5:1-11) every time we lie, not whether it might provoke the silence of God, or even bring to pass some good.

God never lies (Titus 1:2). He is the source of truth. “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). Liars will be among those judged in the end (Revelation 21:8).  Our prayer should be:

“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin . . . Behold, you delight in truth . . ..” (Psalm 51:1–6, ESV)

 

 

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 21:1). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[2] MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 410). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 21:4). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[4] Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 527). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 22:1). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

6 Reasons Why I Disagree with John MacArthur and the Elders of Grace Community Church.

I would be remiss not to mention a couple things at the outset.  Dr. MacArthur’s ministry in preaching, teaching and writing has served my soul as long as I’ve been a Christian.  I have the highest respect for the faithful tenure of service that he has provided to Grace Community Church, the Church in general and countless numbers of peoples, in various languages, through Grace To You.  My disagreement with Dr. MacArthur is not personal.  I do think he and his elders erred on this matter.

Also I want to concede that the Elders at Elk Point Baptist Church also wrestled with this issue.  Although I was on vacation, I was privy to their work and I highly endorse it.  Their work in many ways is superior to mine.  They focused primarily on the issue that the political and legislative climate in California was totally different than the Province of Alberta.  To import a church’s reaction in that state and import their conclusion into our province was not logical.  My comments are not intended in any way as to undermine their work.  This blog looks at MacArthur’s position in light of his context and I remain convinced that it is unwise.  What gives rise to my response is the final sentence of his position, which reads: “Our prayer is that every faithful congregation will stand with us in obedience to our Lord as Christians have done through the centuries.”  The implication is obvious: to disagree is to be unfaithful.  The position of MacArthur is reported here: https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B200723

 In short here are 6 reasons why I disagree with their decision.   

 #1.

It is unfortunate that the GCC position did not reference exact California legislation.   We presume by the GCC blog that there was a “government-imposed moratorium on our weekly congregational worship or other regular corporate gatherings.”  The language of GCC is “moratorium”  meaning “halt” or “cessation.”  The language of the State includes ideas of restriction, re-location, addition of protocols.  Why did GCC escalate the language?

“Places of worship must therefore discontinue indoor singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. Local Health Officers are advised to consider appropriate limitations on outdoor attendance capacities, factoring their jurisdiction's key COVID-19 health indicators. At a minimum, outdoor attendance should be limited naturally through implementation of strict physical distancing measures of a minimum of six feet between attendees from different households, in addition to other relevant protocols within this document.”[1]

I think it is blatantly wrong for GCC to say that the State called them to cease their worship when it is apparent that the State asked for an adjustment to their worship.   We need to be careful of our language.  When the authors opt to use cease and desist language instead of amended and curtailing language it implies manipulation.

#2.

Civil disobedience seems unfounded and certainly not be the only moral course of action at this time.

  Churches throughout the US and Canada have found ways to honour Christ AND honour Caeser.  It is not true that GCC cannot meet.  They can meet out of doors. Is there any reasonable explanation why the larger congregation can’t meet in smaller groups?  I suggest two options to GCC. As an attendee I participated in a pastor’s luncheon (with 4000 + pastors and wives) hosted in GCC’s outdoor complex.  In what is normally beautiful California weather that would be an option.  Secondly, GCC and MacArthur boast some of the most qualified elders in the western evangelical world plus a cadre of exceptional professors at their Master’s Seminary, why couldn’t this 4000 member congregation fall under the leadership and preaching of various smaller groups held in COVID-19 respectful gatherings?  Alastair Begg’s church, Parkside Church, in Cleveland does this. I usually watch their full online service every Sunday.  To date, Alastair preaches to an empty auditorium and weather-permitting, the Church gathers out of doors for the evening service, seeking to meet under the COVID guidelines.

#3.

The State has not prohibited worship in every way and in all cases.  As yet this is not an Acts 5:29 scenario.  They have not been commanded not to meet (period).  They have been called to meet under certain conditions. Because they are not commanded ever to meet and because they are not commanded to disobey God.  They can still meet, still worship, still sing, still preach the Gospel, still evangelize.  So what might be behind this?  I am fearful that this appears to be more a political, social statement than an evangelical statement.  A careful listening of the following interviews given by MacArthur reveals, in his own words, that this is a “protest”.  His Church does not believe the narrative that lead up to the State’s restrictions.  In English they don’t believe the veracity of the medical claims.  By his own words MacArthur does not believe that the situation is as dire or deadly as being claimed.  They may also disbelieve the measures being taken as unnecessary or ineffective. These interviews will show this:

https://youtu.be/ssMW4QOCr7g

https://youtu.be/SR-TxvubxdA

#4.

MacArthur claims the US historic claim to separation of Church and State with its Biblical support. However what is overlooked is that the doctrine of separation of church and state has never been assumed in cases of building codes, fire regulations, health and safety concerns and even charitable status issues.  In Elk Point Baptist Church that are a myriad of things we do in compliance to the civil authorities from the above-mentioned to use and reporting of funds, Constitutional particulars, marriage licensing, etc. etc.  Indeed we would agree with MacArthur that there are many important areas that the State has no right to interfere, but health and safety of citizens is part of their God-given portfolio and we humbly submit recognizing that.

#5.

There appears to be no regard for what has become a very real health concern in the State of California. Photos of the congregation without masks or social distancing appear insensitive to the reality.  If there was a gas smell at GCC, not only would the worship be halted, the building would be evacuated and members would not re-convene until the health threat had passed.  God’s call to love Him with all our being cannot be set against His call to love our neighbour.  From the beginning of this so-called pandemic, Christians have been reminded to be sensitive to one another’s needs and to think not only of you, but others as more important (Philippians 2:3-5).  What is fundamentally different that a mass gathering without due care and diligence on a beach in San Diego and 4000 people packed into an auditorium without due care for their neighbour?  Both smack of unbridled insensitivity to the needs of others.

Lastly,

 #6.

But perhaps with equal importance we must come to the conclusion that the New Testament does not condition our response to human authorities on whether we think they are fair or even if we think their conclusions are based upon faulty data.  “Children, obey your parents if you think they’re right.” (!!?!!)  Peter lived through and instructed the Church in the most egregious, wicked regime in human history. Here’s what he wrote,  

“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:13–17, ESV) [Emphasis mine].

For instance, let me assume that I think that the work of the epidemiologists is faulty; that the medical analytics are flawed; that the diagnosis and treatment is lacking; along with a multitude of other foundational defects.  None of those things offer a free ticket to disobedience.

Conclusion

I end as I began.  With the deepest gratitude and respect for Dr. MacArthur and Grace Community Church I am not only surprised, but saddened that they would promote this position, for the reasons they give. They also have worldwide influence and I wish they had exercised greater discernment. I sadly see a political or social motivation more than an evangelical one.  I am also repulsed by the notion that to disagree with them renders me and my church as unfaithful.  I position myself in a vulnerable place to differ with such a giant in the faith. To God alone be the glory.

   

 

---

[1] https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship--en.pdf