Tag: Jesus

Shall We Dictate to Scripture?

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Spiritual Formation4 Comments

All who strive for a life of faith must recognize a fundamental principle of Divine religion: a life of faith is grounded and developed through the incorporation of the word of God into their lives. It is only until we harmonize our lifestyle with the influence of the inspired word, that we can find ourselves progressing towards spiritual maturity (2 Tim 3:16-17). If we do the former, the latter will follow.

It is the proclamation of the events leading up to the redemptive work of Jesus and the continued ministry of his apostles set forth in the written gospel message of the New Testament that is  “bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations” (Rom 1:5, cf. Rom 16:26). Paul puts the matter into focus in Romans 10:17 when he sets for the principle of faith: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

The question considered in this piece is focused on our attitude to Scripture’s application to our lives. We are asking, shall we dictate to Scripture regarding how we ought to live, or will we humbly submit to its teaching?

God and His Word

In Scripture, faithfulness to the instruction of God is paramount from both Divine and human vantage points (Hos 4:6; Psa 119). From the Divine side, God has often warned his people from adding to or removing from what He has entrusted humanity with (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18-19). Little wonder, then, that Peter once said that if anyone should speak, they should “as one who speaks oracles of God” (1 Pet 4:11).

When Joshua, the son of Nun, succeeded Moses as the prophetic leader over Israel and representation of the Lord’s will, God gave him this encouragement:

Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Joshua 1:7-8 English Standard Version)[1]

As the representative of the Lord’s leadership among the Israelites, Joshua’s success depended upon his courage to live his life upon the line of faithfulness. Commentary on Joshua’s influence due to his faithfulness is found in the words of Joshua 24:31. This could only be accomplished after extensive meditation and determined application of the Mosaic law.

The opening Psalm of the Psalter echoes these sentiments quite vividly. Psalm 1 is described as “a blessing or beatitude that lays down the two ways of living, exemplified by the character of the just and the wicked.”[2]

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. (Psalm 1:1-4)

The restatement of “meditation” of the “law” and the subsequent “prosperity” in the life of Joshua 1:8 is not coincidental. It is the foundation of a faithful life of obedience. To “fear God and keep his commandments” is the very fulfillment of the purpose of life (Eccl 12:13).

A millennium later, Jesus speaks to his disciples regarding the importance of abiding in his word. In the Gospel of John, Jesus affirms this principle quite clearly in John 8:31-32, where it is through abiding in his word (“the truth”) that individuals become free from sin. Later, at the close of his earthly ministry, Jesus appeals to the image of a vine and its branches with the emphasis upon the branches abiding in the life-giving vine in order to produce fruit (John 15:1-11).

The illustration stripped away from all metaphor, comes to a focal point in verses 9-11 where Jesus says:

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:9-11)

As Barnabas Lindars summarizes, “the loving relationship of mutual indwelling is pre-eminently a moral union. Hence, love is shown by the voluntary keeping of the Master’s commandments.”[3] We see, then, that love of God is expressed in faithful obedience to the divine commands reflected in a moral and spiritual lifestyle.

God’s Word in Human Hands

From the human vantage point, the application of God’s word derives from “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The significance of the word translated “rightly handling” (Grk. orthotomeo) is expressed by William E. Vine:[4]

The stress is on orthos; the Word of God is to be “handled” strictly along the lines of its teaching. If the metaphor is taken from plowing, cutting a straight furrow, the word would express a careful cultivation, the Word of God viewed as ground designed to give the best results from its ministry and in the life. (Link)

W. E. Vine, M. F. Unger, and W. White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1984)

In order to properly apply Scripture to life, we must seek the true meaning of the biblical text. This is the human side of living by faith. In essence, God has given his word and expects humans to obey it in love; meanwhile, we must employ our minds to understand and apply his word (cf. 1 Cor 2:11-14; Eph 3:4).

There are several approaches many take to find out the nature of God’s will – that is, His desire or plan for a person’s life. Some randomly open the Bible and apply the first verse under the tip of their finger, and find some mystical application to their situation. Though insight is no doubt obtainable, this is not the most effective approach to incorporating God’s word into everyday life. Scripture was never designed to be approached in this fashion.

Others may have read through the whole Bible several times but still have not figured out what to do with the Bible. The pieces of the biblical puzzle are still scattered throughout their mind because they have never really studied the Bible – they have merely read the Bible as one would read a fictional title. Biblical literature was designed to be meditated upon, memorized, and rigorously studied. It is not literature to enjoy as a pastime or hobby.

We are therefore submitting for consideration the need to study the word of God in such a way that produces spiritual formation; as Paul has said elsewhere, “until Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19b). To do this, we must “attempt to hear the Word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible.”[5] This is the process of exegesis.

The word exegesis is actually derived from two Greek words, ek (“out”) and egeisthas (“to guide or lead”).[6] This is the process of drawing out “the meaning of the biblical text and explaining it.”[7] Biblical faith, and the obedience which is inherent in it, occurs when the meaning of Scripture is drawn out, that meaning is then articulated in meaningful ways, and then applied to contemporary circumstances. This is the noble handling of God’s word.

It is always easier to spout off some superficial interpretation of Scripture that is grounded in inadequate research than it is to produce a well-reasoned, well-understood explanation of a biblical passage or message. Bible study is for all, but it must be candidly acknowledged that there is a difference between the academic exegesis of the Bible and the exegesis usually explored by those untrained in biblical academics. This is an important distinction to address.[8]

Briefly, the non-academic must constantly rely heavily upon the “expert” scholar with the added difficulty of not being able to personally cross-examine “expert” research. However, more resources available today are written at the popular level for the non-expert so that, provided sufficient study, they may become more knowledgeable than ever before (biblical languages, cultural context, tools to study the forms of biblical literature, etc.).[9] This is a matter of mental industry and dedication (Ezra 7:6).

The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, a word that likewise is derived from two Greek words, eis (“into”) and egeisthas (“to guide or lead”). Eisegesis is “the mistake of reading meaning into a text rather than deriving meaning from it.”[10] It may also be stated as reading into the text “meaning that one wants to get out of it.”[11] The point is: eisegesis is the exact opposite of exegesis. It is a hostile take over of the biblical teaching – intentionally or unintentionally.

In his work, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics, Charles J. Scalise uses the analogy of backpacking and camping to show the need for appropriate hermeneutics. Biblical “campers” must prepare for their trip, employing an important guidance tool for directing their theological travels – a map. The map is the biblical teaching, and it is, therefore, important to stay on the map for the right guidance.

Read carefully the following point Scalise makes contrasting exegesis from eisegesis. It should put the two Bible approaches into perspective:

Instead of Scripture functioning as the rule of doctrine, exaggeration of particular doctrines have sought to become the rule of Scripture. Proponents of a specific view have sought to read their particular opinions into Scripture (eisegesis) rather than letting the Scripture rule their view. Prooftexts have been claimed for an amazing variety of additions to and aberrations of the Christian tradition […] Christians who seek to claim authority for beliefs and actions supported by such scriptural pretexts are making maps where there is no biblical territory.[12]

C. J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology (1996)

If exegesis is what we do to “stay on the map we are given,” then the opposite is to make, as Scalise observes, a map “where there is no biblical territory.” Shame on us should we fall into this hermeneutical snare. We should always be ready to be taught more accurately and adjust our understandings (our bearings) based upon the Map of Life (Acts 18:24-28).

God’s Word in Human Hearts

After considering the importance God places upon the observance of His word and observing the responsibility laid upon us to properly interpret the Bible, it would be a misfortune not to discuss the need to apply God’s word in the practical everyday life setting. Some seem to simply mentally enjoy the study and proclamation of God’s word, but fail to have the same zeal in the application of its spiritual instruction.

The biblical books were always composed in such a way that they are complete within themselves to teach and to be understood. For example, when Paul composed his letter to the Ephesians regarding “the mystery of Christ” concerning the inclusion of all nations – Jew and Gentile – into the redemption offered by God, he was confident that they would read the letter and perceive its instruction (Eph 3:1-7).

In order to apply God’s teaching to their lives in the most effective way, Christians must be personal students of the Bible. They must be people who hear the word, perceive it, give it space to grow and flourish. Their teacher must be God, and they must never settle for any scholar’s “explanation.” It is Jesus’ words that give life, not the words of the scholar, preacher, or teacher (John 6:68).

As Merrill C. Tenney once said:

[T]here is a danger of substituting the explanation for the text itself. Men read what Dr. X and Professor Y have to say about the text rather than let the text talk to them.[13]

M. C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (1948)

The Bible is fully capable of inducing belief and providing instruction for faithful living. Knowledge of “the book” prevents destruction, and it is for this reason that Hosea lamented for Israel. They failed to allow Scripture to instruct them and guide them (Hos 4:6).

We must allow Scripture to dictate our behavior in public and in private, at work or at play, “at church” or out “in the world” – wherever we are, we must stay conscious of our responsibilities to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8 cf. Rom 12:1). To this point, the Lord spoke very clearly to his auditors (Matt 12:33-37). The genuineness of our faithfulness will become evident to those around us.

Jesus once spoke a parable regarding various souls in a field. It is recorded in three Gospel accounts (Mark 4:1-25; Matt 13:3-23; Luke 8:4-18). It was based on an agricultural backdrop, where a person scatters seeds in a field so that he could grow a crop. In this process the seed is tossed out liberally all around the field: “some here,” “some there,” “some over there,” and “some right here.”

Actually, Jesus set forth four places in the field – the pathway, the rocky soil, the thorny patches, and then the good soil. Each seed produced different results depending upon the soil it was embedded within. The seed that fell on the pathway was quickly devoured by the birds, the rocky soil produced superficial growth of the seed, and the thorn patches choked out the developing seedlings. Finally, the good soil developed seed exponentially, according to the ability of the seed to produce.

But when Jesus spoke this parable, the seed was to represent the word of God, and the different soils represent the different receptive hearts. One group (i.e. pathway) is so dense that the word of God will not penetrate their heart, others (i.e. rocky soil) have no real spiritual depth to them and the spiritual effects of the word only last temporarily, another group (i.e. thorn patches) were so occupied with the cares of life that there was no dedication to the word.

These three groups all have failed relationships with the word. But there are some (i.e. good soil) who have receptive hearts, they are tender and pliable before the God who created them and loved them. These are submissive to the word and develop spiritually, according to the person’s ability to develop spiritual vitality. These individuals allow the word to dictate the terms and conditions of their faith.

Finally, in connection with these thoughts, reflect upon the words of Paul as he speaks of the power of the Word of God:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

God’s word should have full reign in molding the human heart. Heaven help those who desire to live in eternity with their God to be so minded.

Conclusion

Returning to the question which led to this study, shall we dictate to Scripture regarding how we ought to live, or will we humbly submit to its teaching? God has clearly shown that we must submit to his word in order to have a lifestyle representative of biblical faith. We must view the Scriptures are authored by God and, therefore, are capable to accomplish the task of spiritual formation.

God has always expected his word to be faithfully kept and never altered. We must exert great care in deriving our understanding from God’s word. And finally, the application is the only way to truly be the people that seek after God. Mere knowledge will lead to destruction, both knowledge and action are the keys to unlocking spiritual vitality in God’s way.

References

  1. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  2. Roland E. Murphy, The Gift of the Psalms (2000; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 18.
  3. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (1981; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 490.
  4. W. E. Vine, M. F. Unger, and W. White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1984; repr., Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 2:289.
  5. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 23 (emphasis original).
  6. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics: A Text-Book (repr., Delight, AR: Gospel Light, n.d.), 1.
  7. Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 54.
  8. Jack P. Lewis, “The Importance of Biblical Languages,” Man of God: Essays on the Life and Work of the Preacher, ed. Shawn D. Mathis (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1996). Lewis specifically addresses the difference in ability between the minister who is a student of the word in its original language, versus the minister who simply preaches and studies from an English text. The former allows ministers to be more certain of their conclusions while the latter finds ministers encumbered with exegetical limitations. Basically, Lewis affirms, “If one is to be an expositor of Scripture, then he matures in that through a life-long study of the languages of Scripture” (162). The difference spoken of here equally resonates with the members of the congregations: it’s a matter of depth of personal certainty upon which a conclusion is drawn. Otherwise, heavy reliance upon “expert” opinion can be and often is costly.
  9. I have seen flaws on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, I have seen students that know more of their English Bible demonstrated in their deep faith and devoted life than some academics caught up in their theoretical debates on hermeneutics. On the other hand, I have seen students make many egregious errors because they press a biblical passage from an English Bible beyond its intended meaning – an error that could have been relieved by appealing to a more in-depth study of the passage.
  10. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary, 50.
  11. Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001), 52.
  12. Charles J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 70 (emphasis added).
  13. Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief – An Analytical Study of the Text (1948; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 21.

Defining Adultery in the Old Testament

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Biblical Ethics, Essays, Interpretation, marriage, Old Testament3 Comments

Adultery. Not exactly the warmest of words. For some, it evokes the pain that can only be felt from experiencing a broken home. For others, it is a reminder of what could have been if certain circumstances had presented themselves. There are some who think of this word as an obstacle that was overcome and they are survivors indeed. While yet still, there are others who are ever vigilant of all the steps that lead to this dreaded sin.

And finally, there are some who stand humbled in the rubble around them (a life destroyed), that was brought to fruition through that terrible act of adultery. They enjoyed their brief night in paradise, only to be awoken by the torrents of horror in the morning.

The Word Adultery

It is amazing that some who would set forth the claim that their interests are in teaching the Word of God hold a variety of views as to the nature and meaning of adultery contrary to the biblical data. Without considerable interaction with these distinct points of view, let us press on to consider some of the Old Testament evidence as to the meaning and nature of adultery. How does God represent it in the Hebrew Bible?

But where does the word adultery come from. The actual derivation of the English word for adultery is quite enlightening. It actually derives from combining a number of Latin terms into one:

The word adultery originates not from “adult”, as is commonly thought, but from the Late Latin word for “to alter, corrupt”: adulterare. Adulterare in turn is formed by the combination of ad (“towards”), and alter (“other”), together with the infinitive form are (making it a verb).

Wikipedia.org

So, in English the word adultery has the idea of one person moving towards another person in order to make a new personal arrangement. Moreover, in some cases the Latin term adulterare carried the meaning of “to pollute” – taking something that is pure, and contaminating it.

When we say that someone has committed adultery, we are simply stating that a person has corrupted his or her marriage by introducing a third party. The marriage has been altered, changed, and polluted. The English word is quite graphic, but since the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew we would be wise to consult the meaning of this term there.

The Old Testament Term

In the Old Testament, the primary Hebrew word for adultery is nā’ap. As with any word, it is part of a grouping of words with similar meanings. Many of these words emphasize a range of meanings; for example, they can take literal or figurative meanings, and even describe those who are married or betrothed who are unfaithful. However, nā’ap is the found the majority of the time to state that a person has – as we say – “cheated” on their spouse.[1]

William Wilson notes that nā’ap “is confined to adultery in the exclusive sense of the term or fornication by a married person.”[2] James Swanson amplifies the meaning, stating that it refers to a person who has “sexual intercourse with [someone] other than a spouse, as a married or betrothed person, generally, a person of low social status.”[3]

One of the earliest appearances of nā’ap in the Old Testament is in the reading of the “10 Commandments” (Exod 20:14). God says transparently, “You shall not commit adultery.” This command is cradled between the “shall not’s” of murder and stealing, which should give us an indication as to the severity of adultery in the eyes of God (Exod 20:13, 15 cf. Lev 20:10).

Clyde Woods makes the observation that in this command, the “sacredness of marriage” is emphasized, and it is this “principle of social purity” that “provides the basis for numerous [other] laws regarding sexual relationships and offenses” (cf. Exod 22:19; Lev 18:1-18; Deut 22:13-30).[4] And in this connection, R. Alan Cole finds in Joseph’s rejection of Potiphar’s wife the fact that:

For a man to have intercourse with another man’s wife was considered as the heinous sin against God as well as man, long before the law, in patriarchal times (Gen 39:9).[5]

R. Alan Cole, Exodus (1979)

The holiness of God demands that the matrimonial bed be undefiled by extra-marital affairs (Heb 13:4). Some people defile their marriage by actually sleeping with someone other than their spouse (John 8:4), others have so saturated their minds with “daydreams” of scenarios to have affairs, that if circumstances presented themselves they would do it (Matt 5:28); and yet still, there are those who have slipped on more rings on their one wedding finger than many super bowl champions have on their whole hand – and with little to no effort (John 4:16-19). From the beginning, however, this was not God’s ideal plan for marriage (Matt 19:9 cf. Gen 2:24).

Literal and Figurative Adultery

Nā’ap may mean literal adultery, but it also carries figurative, or more precisely, a spiritual application as well. Swanson explains: “in some contexts this refers to religious adultery, usually in which Israel is viewed as the unfaithful female spouse to the Lord in a covenantal marriage contract.”[6] Wilhelm Gesenius likewise remarks, “it is applied to the turning aside of Israel from the true God to the worship of idols” (Jer 3:8-9, 5:7, 9:1, 23:14).[7]

Even as Jeremiah writes of the faithless one – the Northern kingdom of Israel:

The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 3:6-10)

Judah had not learned the lesson of her sister Israel. The Northern kingdom of Israel’s fixation with idolatry is amply substantiated in the Hebrew Bible, and, in fact, was a foundational aspect of its administration and spirituality (cf. 1 Kings 12:25-33). It was this faithless one that committed adultery with stone and tree.

We see then that the literal usages of nā’ap enhance the figurative-spiritual uses. The literal and figurative uses share a reciprocal connection; that is to say, they enhance each other.[8] And, this makes perfect sense, for there are very few – if any – words that do not lend themselves to figurative or metaphorical uses.

Examples of Adultery in the Old Testament

Several times in the book of Ezekiel, the spiritual appraisal of Israel is pictured in terms of adultery. Principally, the first 24 chapters of Ezekiel address themselves to this theme. Chapters 15 through 17 explain the doom of Jerusalem by means of allegories and parables.[9] Within this framework, chapter 16 portrays the spiritual infidelity of the Hebrews in the unmistakably graphic picture of marital sexual infidelity.

Observe some snippets from the chapter that the English Standard Version translators call “The Lord’s Faithless Bride” (Ezek 16:1-58):

  • “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine.” (vs. 8)
  • “But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore [were unfaithful; ESV footnote #2] because of the renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his.” (vs. 15)
  • “At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering yourself [“Hebrew spreading your legs”; ESV footnote #1; cf. ASV “opened thy feet […]”] to any passerby and multiplying your whoring.” (vs. 25)
  • “Adulterous [nā’ap] wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband!” (vs. 32)

With great precision, the prophet presents God’s anger and sense of betrayal with the imagery of adultery. As Samuel Schultz and Gary Smith summarize:

[I]n an allegory, Ezekiel compared Judah to a young girl that God cared for and married. But the bride ignored her husband and loved others (foreign customs, idols, her own beauty).[10]

Exploring the Old Testament (2001)

Jeremiah, a contemporary of Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity, ministered in Jerusalem and abroad. Numerous false prophets declared that this captivity was merely temporary and that God would return them soon. In Jeremiah 29:1-28, the prophet sends a letter from Jerusalem to the captives in Babylon encouraging them in their situation, rebuking those who oppose the truth of God’s punishment upon Judah, and re-enforcing the fact that Judah will remain in Babylon for 70 years. One of the blistering comments rendered to the false prophets is that they were adulterers (Jeremiah 29:20-23).

Jeremiah says that Ahab and Zedekiah, the false prophets, “have done an outrageous thing in Israel, they have committed adultery [nā’ap] with their neighbors’ wives, and they have spoken in my name lying words that I did not command them” (vs. 23). This language is as transparent as Leviticus 20:10 where Moses writes, “if a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

Adultery, literal or figurative, describes the most intimate of interactions. Literally, it refers to actual sexual encounters with someone other than their spouse. Spiritually, it expands upon the literal meaning of adultery and give it a figurative flavor stressing the deep treachery felt by God from his people who give their beauty to another.

Conclusion

Literally, then, adultery is sexual activity between a married person and a person who is not their spouse. Spiritually, then, adultery is spiritual and moral activity contrary to God’s teaching. While Old Testament and the New Testament are uniform in their presentation of adultery, space has been given to a brief investigation of the concept in the Old Testament. The Old Testament and New Testament are two testimonies that share the same conception of adultery, a behavior that Russell describes as, a “special and aggravated case of fornication.”[11]

This concept has not been altered or distorted through the passing of time; consequently, we have no right to redefine it in modern times, contemporary times, or in any subsequent generation to come, for God’s truth endures to all generations (Psa 100:5). He means what he says. Heaven help us to keep it secure and unaltered in our minds!

References

  1. James Swanson, “nā’ap,” Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), 2d ed., electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
  2. William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.), 6.
  3. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
  4. Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972), 179.
  5. R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (1973; repr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979), 160.
  6. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
  7. Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, electronic ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2003), 525.
  8. Emmet Russell observes this exact point when he writes, “the figurative use enhances the literal sense, emphasizing the divine institution and nature of marriage” (Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967], 17).
  9. Homer Hailey, Hailey’s Comments (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Publications, 1985), 1:201-04.
  10. Samuel J. Schultz and Gary V. Smith, Exploring the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 191.
  11. Russell, ZPBD 17.

So Close: Jesus, the Pharisees, and His Divinity (Luke 5)

On By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, Articles, Christian Evidences, Christology, Gospel, Luke, New TestamentLeave a comment

By the language of the text, it appears to have been an average day during the Lord’s ministry in Galilee. The multitudes had flocked to the Good Master wishing to hear him speak and to request him to heal their infirmities. In this particular case, the Lord was teaching in a house and a paralyzed man was dropped down through the roof by his inventive and determined friends.

They trusted that Jesus could heal him, but it seems safe to ponder that they did not expect the Lord’s gracious response. Luke chronicles the narrative in the following manner:

And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man, your sins are forgiven you." (Luke 5:18-20 ESV)

The Lord’s first response was to give the paralyzed man a pardon. Jesus canceled the man’s transgressions. He overrode the situation and removed the burden of the man’s sins. What a profound event!

Many today wonder why the Lord forgave the man of his spiritual infirmities first, instead of meeting the principal need for which the man was brought – physical restoration. It could be the case that He had already intended to substantiate his Divine claims to forgive sins by means of a miracle, but we simply do not know why with any degree of absolute certainty.

In some sense, the question is irrelevant because the Lord’s activities are interrupted by the scribes and Pharisees. This gives rise to a unique situation where the Lord boldly argues for and asserts His Divine prerogative to forgive sins.

We continue Luke’s narrative:

And the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" When Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answered them, "Why do you question in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the man who was paralyzed—"I say to you, rise, pick up your bed and go home." (Luke 5:21-24)

The miracle was immediate, the crowd was amazed, and the scribes and the Pharisees received an answer they would never forget – Jesus of Nazareth possess the ability and right to forgive sins!

On the Divinity of Christ

Tremendous amounts of energy and ink have been spent discussing the Divinity of Christ. The canonical documents are quite clear as to the Lord’s divinity. John 1:1-3 describes the existence of the Word, who was the agent to create the universe at the beginning (Gen 1:1; cf. 1 John 1.1). In conjunction with these thoughts are the words of John 1:14 that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (cf. Phil 2:5-10). The divine Word has made a human and his habitation was among mankind: he was a living and breathing human (in form and substance) capable of dying.

Paul speaks of the supremacy of Christ by saying that in Jesus the universe stands in “perfect equilibrium,” for in him it is “held together” (Col 1:17; Grk. sunistemi). If Jesus pre-existed in eternity, and then became human, and lived a human life in preparation for his divine ministry, it is not surprising, therefore, that Jesus incorporates the miraculous in His ministry. And though we cannot precisely and neatly slice Jesus into his divine and human sides, this is the great mystery of God in the flesh (1 Tim 3.16).

Yet for some who initially beheld his ministry, this was difficult to absorb. The scribes and the Pharisees, the noted Jewish leaders of the day, heard the words of Jesus, “your sins are forgiven you,” and immediately cataloged His action as blasphemous. How did they come to this conclusion? They properly reasoned “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” If Jesus is the son of Joseph and Mary, then it is logical to assume that Jesus is only human.

They were so close! The presupposition of the scribes and Pharisees is correct. Their working knowledge of biblical data and their perception of the situation is, at face value, true. This act of Jesus of Nazareth was therefore viewed as an arrogant hostile takeover of the prerogative of God (Exod 10:17, 32:31-33; Jer 31:34, etc.).[1]

Had Jesus simply been a mere mortal, they would be completely correct; however, they were dealing with a unique situation – Jesus is no mere mortal. He is the “Everlasting Father” (Isa 9:6), a Hebrew idiom meaning that he has an eternal existence (Micah 5:2; John 1:1).[2] Jesus is Immanuel, which means God among us (Matt 1:21-23). The Lord forgave the paralyzed man of his sins because He had the authority to do so. His authority is derived from His Divinity.

Was Jesus a Moralist?

Many have stumbled and erred regarding the nature of Jesus. To some, he is a great teacher, one that should stand at the top of the world’s “Top 10” of most influential religious leaders of human existence. They over-emphasize his humanity and praise his ethical and moral teachings (e.g. the golden rule). However, they cannot view him as a wonderful teacher of ethics and morals and at the same time deny his claims to divinity.

He was not a mere moralist who “inherited” and “perfected” a preexisting moral tradition from the Jews! And those who are so persuaded to think of Jesus in this light, C. S. Lewis stressed the inconsistency of this view:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said [in his teaching and about himself] would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that [option] open to us. He did not intend to.[3]

We believe that the Pharisees and Scribes held a similar view that many hold  – that Jesus was a just great teacher. They were so close, but still so tragically far away from the real nature of God-Man Jesus.

Are You Close, or Yet so Far?

What will you do with Jesus? How will you view his teaching? His claims to Divinity? His claim to be your Redeemer? You will make a decision either way – actively or inactively – and that decision will ripple its effects in the deepest crevices of your life. Again, we ponder over this decision with the words of Mr. Lewis:

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.[4]

The is a passage in the Gospel accounts that is often nicknamed “the Great Invitation.” It is in Matthew 11.28-30. In it, Jesus invites all who believe in him and his teaching.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

He promises that the life that he promises stems from his gentle and lowly heart, and promises rest for your soul. Someone has wonderfully said, that in verse 30 the pressure to successfully live out the teaching of Jesus “fits just right” according to each person’s burdens. We finally ask you: will you come so close to the truth of Jesus and his claims to divinity, or will come so close but yet stand so far off from the good life he promises. The answer is left in your hands. God bless you to do the right thing.

Endnotes

  1. Note: Special thanks to Dr. Earl D. Edwards, Head of the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Bible, for introducing me to this observation in a Bible class. It is not enough to simply observe that the Pharisees and scribes were wrongly charging the Lord with blasphemy, we must also appreciate that they had correctly reasoned that a human did not have this right or power – this was the sole possession of God.
  2. Wayne Jackson, Isaiah: God’s Prophet of Doom and Deliverance (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1991), 25.
  3. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 52 (emphasis added).
  4. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 53 (emphasis added).