Study #1 (2 John 1-2)

Words to the Chosen Lady

The Apostle John appears to have been the author of five New Testament books: the Gospel that bears his name, the book of the Revelation, and three epistles. The second and third epistles of John are very brief letters which were not intended to present completely new teachings, but are very valuable demonstrations of loving pastoral guidance.

Since these letters are not long, and contain little new material, they are not quoted much by the early church writers, but they have always been accepted as inspired Scripture. Since not much information is given concerning the exact recipients of these letters we must presume that God considered them important for us down through the ages, and present important lessons for us as we strive to carry out our responsibilities to God and to the family of believers. This will be the focus of this series of studies.

The letter was written by “the Elder” to “the elect lady and her children.”

2 John 1-2
1. The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,
2. because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever:

The writer identifies himself as “the elder”. There is good reason to accept the common understanding that it was the Apostle John.

The term “elder” [“presbuteros” (πρεσβύτερος)] has two basic meanings. It primarily means a person who is old in age and respected for his wisdom, learning, and experience. It also means an ordained officer of the church. The Hebrew word for “elder” was used for the ordained officers of ancient Israel.

John was both. He had been a follower of Christ at least 30 years before likely putting him above 50 years old. He was also an Apostle. Jesus Christ had personally given him this special ecclesiastical authority. Some believe he was the only Apostle still alive the time of this writing.

Since he does not name himself he was well known to the recipients. His style, vocabulary, and topics are similar to John’s other letters, and the church from the earliest records understood them to be written by the Apostle John. There is no supported reason to doubt that conclusion.

This letter was written to a “lady” who was “elect” and to her “children”. There are three key words here that effect our understanding of who received the letter.

The word translated as “lady” is the Greek word “kuria” (κυρία) which is the feminine form of the word “kurios” (κύριος) which is usually translated as “lord” in the New Testament. This is a more respectful term than simply “woman”, which is usually a translation of “gunae” (γυνή) in the New Testament books. Often this more respectful term was used of widows in the culture at that time. At least it shows that John had high regard for her.

Some have suggested that “lady” is actually her name. “Kuria” was a name which was used at that time. However, if that was the case then her sister in verse 13 had the same first name, which is unlikely. The grammar would also have been a little different than it is in the Greek text. There is little support for this idea.

Some see “lady” as a figurative reference to a church John was addressing. It’s true that the church was often referred to as a “bride”, a “wife”, and the normal word for “church” in the Greek New Testament is a feminine noun. There is no clear support for this figurative interpretation.

John addresses her as the “elect” lady. This term is a translation of the Greek word “eklektos” (ἐκλεκτός) which means “chosen”. It’s the word used throughout the New Testament of those specially chosen by God to be redeemed by the Savior. Jesus, Paul, Peter and John regularly used this term in that way. This would be a very comforting reminder to begin this tender letter.

John shows the tender relationship he has with this recipient

1. … whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,

John expresses his love in truth for this lady and her children.
Love a rather empty word when it only means a passing emotion. What the world thinks of as love is something fallen into and out of. It might be here today and gone tomorrow. That kind of love gives and cares only as long as it gets what it wants from the other person. It might seem to be self-sacrificing, but it is motivated by the feeling of doing something good, or the satisfaction and security it produces by having someone return appreciation. Many failed marriages show that the love the couple felt melted away when the partner disappointed in some way.

The kind of love John has for this elect lady is defined by God’s truth. It’s this kind of love that impels him to write.

Since this love is founded upon truth as revealed by God it has real meaning attached to it. It’s a love defined with specific standards. It comes from an abiding truth inside a redeemed person, the implanted truth of God. It lasts as long as the truth of God lasts from which it flows.

The Bible tells us how to love, and how to recognize artificial substitutes. The word “love” is often connected with the commandments of God in the New Testament. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). 1 John 2:3-4 says, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him,”

The kind of love that’s based on revealed truth tells us how to treat those we truly care about. It’s motivated by our gratitude to God for his promises, redeeming grace, and great mercies. It’s something we do rather than just something we feel. When we truly care about someone we will want to treat them as God says we should. When the feeling disappears for a time, we can still do loving things until the blessing of the inner emotion returns by God’s outpouring of goodness to us.

The word “truth” occurs four times in these three opening verses. In John’s writings truth is put in direct contrast with falsehood. Falsehood is deception about reality as God created it. Falsehood persecutes where love endures, is patient, and forgives.

John includes all who “know the truth”

1. … whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,

These other believers share this genuine love John has for this Christian family. The whole church ought to be concerned about every legitimate member of it. This love is evidence of the truth of Christ in them. 1 John 2:5 tells us, “but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him:”

This love is the true mark of the true Christian. John had reported what Jesus said in his Gospel in John 13:35, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

It’s important for us to rejoice in the good evidences of God at work in others. It’s a sign of a regenerate heart. Those who love and treasure God’s truth in themselves, should also love the love they see in others.

John’s love and this letter which it produced are anchored in God’s truth.

2. because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever:

Truth as God knows it and reveals it to us has been a target of evil ever since its confrontation with Eve in Eden. One of the main warnings in this letter is about how we should deal with deceivers. Those who hold to God’s truth and love it need to stand by it and promote it for the glory of God.

Some have debated which we should be more concerned about as individuals and as churches. Those who say that doctrine is just an unimportant intellectual distraction ignore what God has said. They say all we need to do is to love one another. But without knowing God’s revealed truth (doctrine) we can’t know what actions and attitudes are really what we should call “love”. But to go to the other extreme is also dangerous. If we just debate doctrine but show no sincere concern for others, we are missing one of the main teachings (main doctrines) of the Bible. This is a dangerous distinction that denies the true nature of both.

Christians and the church as a spiritual family ought to be concerned to love according to truth, and to hold the truth in love for God and for all who are in the family of Christ. Since truth and legitimate love are ours by God’s grace, we are assured that these amazing provisions together will be with us forever.

The word law stirs up different ideas depending on what’s being talked about. We know there’s nothing we can do about the so called, “Laws of Nature“. Gravity pulls things together because of the effect of their mass in space. That’s why we’re careful to avoid falling down and dropping breakable things. Inertia keeps things still until something moves them, then they tend to keep on moving. That’s why we have to start our engines before the car goes somewhere, and why we have to be sure our breaks are working once we get going. We call these laws of nature because it’s how we see things which God created operating. We write mathematical formulas that help us use these laws profitably.

There are also laws of economics that describe how we come to own things. If you have something another person wants, they can give you something you want in exchange for it. The more something is wanted or needed, the more it’s worth.

There are laws of governments too. They tell us who’s in charge, and set limits on how we live together. These laws define our responsibilities and liabilities. They also tell how we determine guilt, and what penalties are appropriate when the law is violated.

Unlike the principles we call laws of nature or laws of economics, the laws of governments are made up by people, and therefore they can be changed. Sometimes self-serving people pass self-serving laws that take advantage of others. Often situations change when new dangers come along and old ones pass away, so these laws have to change too.

But above all these things we call law, there are the laws of God. The New Testament word translated as “law” here is the Greek word “nomos” (νόμος). In the Old Testament the Hebrew word for “law” is “torah” (תּורה). Basically the words mean “instruction” or “direction” – as in stating what’s to be done, nor not done. In the Bible, as in every language, these words for law are used in a wide range of ways.

There are moral and redemptive principles that reflect God’s eternal and holy nature. Those laws are built into creation and they can never change because God never changes. For example, it’s always wrong to worship false gods, lie, murder, or steal.

God also imposed temporary laws to represent what’s true and what he promises at particular times. These laws prepared his people for the next stage of his eternal plan. Those temporary laws were primarily given in the time of Abraham, and in the time of Moses. They were designed to prepare us for the birth, life, and death of our Savior. The rituals and detailed regulations may have been temporary, but they aren’t unimportant.

The main point of Paul’s letter to the Galatians was to correct a misuse of these temporary laws. The distortion was a different gospel that kept God’s people from living for God’s glory.

As we saw in our earlier studies, Judaizers were teaching that the new Gentile believers had to submit to the ceremonial laws of Moses. But those laws were only given for Israel for the time before Christ.

Paul made it clear that the Judaizers were wrong. Since the ritual laws were given to teach about the coming Savior, when Jesus came, the original purpose of those temporary rituals was fulfilled.

This doesn’t mean they don’t have important lessons for us today. While there are changes in how God regulated the lives of his people at different times, there’s also a unity in his work all through human history. We have one unchanging God, with one unchanging plan that moves all things toward one unchanging goal and glorious end.

While correcting the error of the Judaizers, Paul didn’t want to diminish the value of God’s law. The struggling churches in Galatia were not just having debates between scholars. There were ordinary people trying to learn how to live out their Christianity day-to-day.

Today there’s still serious confusion about God’s law. Some think of religion as earning our way to heaven. Christianity is thought of by many as a religion of rules, popes, priests, and mystical rituals. Some imagine that by doing good works God will be convinced to let us go to heaven when we die. Some turn their attention to obeying strict rules, social reforms, and priestly incantations. Some don’t accept that Jesus Christ paid our debt and completed what the Old Testament laws prefigured.

Others want to throw out all the Laws of the Old Testament as if they all only applied to the Jews. They replace it with a poorly defined idea of “love” — what it is and what it’s not. They promote faith in a poorly defined Jesus. They replace God’s moral laws with rules defined by culture or a sub-culture of their own. Often worship just plays to the emotions, and ignores the present by just focussing on the end times.

Both extremes miss the main stream of what the Bible is telling us here. The Galatians were being mislead about God’s law, and it was having an effect on their daily lives. It wasn’t just a fine point of theology — it isn’t just that for us either.

To correct these confusing abuses, Paul asks this important question in Galatians 3:19.

19. What purpose then does the law serve? …

We have to keep in mind what point Paul was making here. Remember the context: The ceremonial laws of Israel couldn’t do away with God’s original promise. Paul said in 17-18, “And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”

The promise of the coming Christ, and the way of salvation by grace through faith, was explained to Abraham 430 years before the ceremonial laws were given by Moses.

The Reformer Martin Luther makes a good illustration here in his commentary on this passage. He tells of a wealthy man who adopted a son out of kindness alone, then he made the adopted son the heir of his entire fortune. After the son grew up he did favors for the man. Certainly the adopted son can’t then say that the favors earned him his inheritance. Then Luther says, “How can anybody say that righteousness is obtained by obedience to the Law when the Law was given four hundred and thirty years after God’s promise of the blessing?”

So the temporary rituals given in the time of Moses were signs telling more about God’s plan. The signs can’t possibly replace the covenant promises themselves. We are made right with God because God kept his promise, not because we preform some rituals or abstain from what’s currently popular in our culture.

So then, what good are these ritual laws the Judaizers said were necessary for salvation? Paul’s answer helps us unravel the confusion.

19. … It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.
20. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.

The particular laws being confused in Galatia were the temporary laws given to Israel at the time of Moses. They included the priestly order, the sacrifices, the annual feasts, cleansing and purity rituals, dietary laws, and other regulations designed to separate Israel out as God’s special people.

God’s laws had a very clear purpose. The various laws were added because of transgressions among the Covenant People. They expose sin, show our need for God’s grace and discipline the covenant community. They were to apply to Israel until the promised Christ came. Jesus is the promised seed of a woman God promised in Genesis 3:15. He would ultimately crush the head of Satan and rescue the fallen race.

In these verses, notice the italicized words which appear in most of our translations. They are words added in English by the translator, words that aren’t in the original Greek text. They are added to smooth out the translation, but they can also influence the interpretation. Translating this portion very literally you get this:

19. Then why the law? It was put in place because of the transgressions until the seed came to whom it had been promised, having been appointed through messengers by a mediator’s hand.
20. but the mediator is not of one, but God is one.

Without getting into all the technical points, the idea here seems to be this: Mediation is always to settle differences between two parties. It doesn’t normally just deal with one, but two equal parties. But the “mediation” here was not between two equal parties to reach some compromise. It was a one-way communication as God alone restores fallen sinners back into his family.

The word angels “angeloi” (ἄγγελοι) simply means “messengers”. It sometimes describes human messengers in the New Testament. At times God used spirit beings (angels), but he also used men as messengers (for example the Prophets). The same word is often used. God used messengers to reveal his plan to his people. They mediated between God and man. Moses was one of these messenger prophets, who stood between God and his people.

But God’s covenant promise was a sovereignly imposed promise. It was not a deal struck between humans and God. God is one – the promise is entirely his work. There’s no input from us at all. God, by his messengers, gave Laws to show our obligations, to reveal our lostness, and to teach God’s plan. Therefore the law given to explain our lostness and the plan of redemption could never replace the sovereignly imposed promise it represented. Promise existed before the law was given.

The covenant of grace is all that actually ever redeemed and reconciled anyone. The law only reveals sin, depicts the promise, but it does not reconcile or redeem.

However, as our teacher it’s important, and it has great value to us. The ritual laws still demonstrate our lostness, our inability to earn salvation, and the uniqueness of God’s people. They display how Jesus would become the only real substitute sacrifice for our sins.

So there’s no conflict between the concept of grace and the teachings of God’s law. They fit perfectly together.

21. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
22. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

The contrast in Galatians 3 isn’t between Moses and Abraham, or between Moses and Christ. It’s between the belief that there can be righteousness by the regulatory laws and the fact of Scripture that righteousness has always come by faith in God’s promise – and by grace imparted faith alone.

No law can bring life to what’s already dead. That was never it’s purpose. The law exposes our dead condition by showing us that we aren’t innocent before God. But until the coming of Christ, before the fullness of the promise could be understood, the ritual laws narrowed the path to direct God’s people toward what was to come. God’s promise – not the law – is and always was the basis for our blessings.

In the next two verses, Paul shows that the law is a teacher.

24. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

The law is our tutor – our school master to bring us to Christ. So to demand rituals or any type of human works to add to our salvation denies that Jesus Christ fulfilled the promise made sovereignly by God long before the laws were laid out. It says we are no longer under a tutor, or “teacher”. But this doesn’t mean that what the teacher taught could now be forgotten. It means that the lesson has now been fully taught so the teacher had now completed his job.

So if the law doesn’t justify us is it good for nothing? No! It had a unique purpose from the beginning. We still benefit by it’s lessons about our need for a Savior, and about the Savior’s work.

So, what’s the value of God’s law for us today? The Judaizers were not causing a problem with the moral laws of God. They are always binding on everybody. Paul never criticized them for avoiding idols, keeping the Creation Sabbath, preserving marriage, telling the truth, and so on – he openly promoted those moral principles as eternal and always important. He also made it clear that as sinners, no one can earn his way to heaven by being moral.

Jesus alone kept the moral laws perfectly. By grace he clothes us with his righteousness. So the moral commandments of the Bible are always valuable to us as guides. We still learn from them that it’s wrong to improperly worship the one true God. We know from them that it’s wrong to disrespect authority, to be unfaithful to our spouses, to steal, murder, lie, and to covet what God doesn’t give us.

The problem in Galatia had to do with those ritual laws given to Israel by Moses. Some were insisting that those shadows of what was to come were still binding. That was an open denial that Jesus fulfilled what they stood for. The final and fully effective sacrifice for sin had been made on Calvary. The sacrifices of bulls and lambs had to stop. Their lesson was completed. The Lord’s Supper replaced Passover because the true Lamb of God was slain. The purity of God’s people had been secured by our Savior. Baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of God’s Covenant People. The other sprinklings and dietary rules had completed their job. We are washed in the blood of the Lamb, and set apart to be lights to the world.

With the coming of Christ, the lessons were completed. School was over. Christianity isn’t working our way to heaven. It’s about the finished work of Christ earning heaven for us. Those who think that our deeds fit us for God’s blessings, live with an irrational burden nobody can bear.

After graduation from our schooling we aren’t supposed to forget all we learned. The levitical laws are still there to teach us to rest in Christ as the substitute for our deserved penalty. They show our need for purity in our lives as we stand in the presence of God. They show that we are to be separate from the world as those saved by grace.

Now we need to take what those ritual laws taught us and get to work. We have a job to do as God’s children. His law points us to our own inability to live as we know we should. It helps us appreciate how much we need our Savior who paid our debt in our place. It also reminds us that we’re to stand out as different than those still lost and without Christ.

This isn’t just a scholarly matter for theologians to debate. It’s an important lesson for us as we read the Old Testament, and as we go about our work and family life every day. It should humble us and make us thank God all the more for his amazing grace that alone adopts us and keeps us as his own dear children.

Classes in Science and Theology are usually about the results of studies in each of those fields. Reliable results should be the products of a method of study designed to produce conclusions that necessarily follow. But in each field of study there are often claims and theories which are in conflict with one another. They are not “necessary” conclusions because a faulty method of study has been used to derive them. This produces a confusion of ideas, and even of the facts.

There is a growing need to rescue True Science and True Theology from the way they are commonly presented. People often say “Science says …” or “The Bible says …”, but what they claim as truth is often just the findings or opinions of some group of scholars or teachers. A sound method may not have been used in arriving at the conflicting conclusion they are promoting. Peer-review does not make something true. That only means that some group of reviewers agrees about the ideas being promoted. Theories and their predictions are not in themselves facts.

There’s another concern that also needs to be considered in Science and Theology. We all begin with a set of assumptions, things we suppose to be true and reliable before hand. These are the standards we accept as the test for all truth. Natural Science assumes the reliability of careful measurements and observations. Christian Theology assumes the reliability of the Bible as the word of God. Science and Theology both use the logic rule of “no-contradictions” to evaluate their basic facts. We call those preliminary supposings, “presuppositions“. The reasoning process is always based upon assumptions, admitted or not. They influence the way basic facts are interpreted, and how the processes used for drawing conclusions are designed.

An example of the influence of our presuppositions is seen in the way ancient astronomers studied the movement of the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets. They assumed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that everything in space revolved around it in perfect circles. They assumed that ellipses would be imperfect, and God only creates perfect things.

However as an example, there are times when the planets Mercury and Venus appear to reverse direction for a brief time. To make the observations fit their assumptions, they assumed that each planet orbits in smaller circles attached to larger circular orbits. Things got very complex trying to make it all work out.

When the Geocentric (Earth Centered) assumption was replaced with a Heliocentric (Sun Centered) one, and ellipses replaced the assumed circles, things worked out more simply. The assumption effected the conclusions and theories which they had accepted as truth.

The same is true in Theology. Instead of a direct study of what God has revealed objectively in his Word, some build theories about God based upon what they already think he ought to be. People often say, “Christianity says …”, when it’s really just what some preacher, author, or someone who claims to have personal visions says.

Reliable results of investigations are not found by counting how many believe a certain thing to be true. They are based upon an objective analysis of confirmable information which has been thoroughly and accurately tested, and which produces no contradictions to other confirmable bits of information.

1. Precisely define the problem. Clearly state what is being examined.
2. Gather all confirmed data related to the problem.
   In Science: all related measurable observations
   In Theology: all Bible passages dealing with the problem or its parts
3. Identify and examine all variables that could effect the interpretation of the data.
   In Science: consider the precision of measurements, the interaction of external influences that might effect the observations or measurements
   In Theology: consider what each Bible passage directly states.
   – Lexicography: the meanings of the words in the original languages
   – The Grammar of each sentence and phrase
   – The Context of each passage: the flow of thought in the entire book or epistle, local idioms and cultural influences at the time or writing, the relationship of each idea with other clearly stated facts in Scripture
4. Carefully define the limitations introduced by the sampling of data used.
   In Science: consider the size of sampled observations and measurements, variations of characteristics within the sample, any external influences upon the observations or measurements
   In Theology: consider the influence of other passages that address parts of the problem.
5. Reject all results that produce a contradiction.
6. Affirm the results that derive by necessary deduction from the study.

The problem with what some call “Science” is that some approach a problem with an agenda to defend some assumed theory. This will introduce unsubstantiated theories to get around what the raw data actually supports. The problem in Theology is to use poor translations and unsupported assumptions that change the plain grammatical meaning of the biblical text in context.

The goal of the Protestant Reformation was to apply this careful method to test beliefs that were popular at that time. Their intent was to reform (reshape) what we believe back into the original form presented in Scripture rightly translated and interpreted.

In the 21st Century the tendency of many is to abandon careful methodology to create a “Science” or “Theology” that supports certain assumptions and agenda driven motivations. We need to restore these two disciplines to what they ought to be, rather than a means to support what popular consensus prefers. We need to correct and counter the often distorted theories that support political, ideological, theological, and socialistic agendas. We need a new reformation in Science and Theology that reshapes agenda driven assumptions back to the form they ought to have which derives from sound data and reasoning.

The family is one of the the strongest human influences in a person’s life. Though there are exceptions and other factors, much of what we are is shaped by those around us. There’s an old saying, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”

During my 12 years of full-time teaching, I held many parent-teacher conferences. But before the moms and dads came in, I got to know the students pretty well. Having come to know the “apples”, it was always interesting to meet the “trees”. In most cases, it wasn’t hard to see why the child behaved as he did.

If the student had a habit of interrupting others, the parents would usually do the same. If the student was quiet, at least one parent usually had to be prompted to say things. If a student was a gregarious talker, in most cases at least one parent was too. The student who had a chip on his shoulder usually inherited it. And most often those who were very caring and thoughtful, had parents who were regular volunteers who helped out at school. It’s not surprising that the examples the children grew up around, shaped what they became.

The home has a strong influence on shaping the lives of all who live in it.

God designed the family. He planned it from all eternity to be part of how he would execute his providence. The family’s importance isn’t accidental or a product of social evolution. It was planned by our Creator to influence us in exactly the way it does. Of course in our fallen world there are no perfect families. That’s because they are made up of imperfect people.

Each new family unit begins with a marriage. Agreeing to marry someone is a very serious decision. It should not be based on the emotions of a romantic moment, or dreams of a memorable wedding. It’s important to consider how the person you marry will shape your spiritual life, and the lives of your children.

In the home you build together, daily attitudes and life long values and habits are going to be formed. God will either be honored or neglected. It will be the foundation your children build their lives upon. This is why so much of the Bible is taken up with principles for good families.

But fallen human cultures tend to drift away from God’s ways. Today we can see how good family foundations are being challenged. There is confusion about the roles of men and women in society and in the home. When the divisions of duties God established are mixed up so is the home and the lives that live there. Marriage itself is given a different meaning than what God made it to be. Often it’s treated as an optional and temporary romantic arrangement instead of a divinely established bond between one man and one woman for life. And homes are often fragmented. Instead of quality family time together, individual family members get busy separately and don’t have much time for one another.

For these reasons, families based on sound biblical principles are becoming increasingly rare.

He starts out in verse 1 saying,

1. Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: …

In the first 6 chapters he was dealing with reports he received about the problems there. Now he turns to the specific issues the church had written him about. But since it’s the same church, he’s going to deal with the same issues and problems as in the first 6 chapters. Now he approaches them in a different way to help the Corinthians in more detail with these issues.

From Paul’s answers here we can know what they asked about.

The sexual looseness of Corinth surrounded them with temptations. Some just accepted the immoral life-style of their culture and saw nothing wrong with it. Others over-reacted to that looseness by promoting asceticism. They would totally abstained from marriage, or from normal relations within marriage.

Both extremes are dangerous and sinful. The loose view openly promotes immorality. The overly strict view denies what God provides for satisfying our human desires. When people deny the right way of fulfilling their needs they are easily drawn into wrong ways of dealing with them.

Chapter 24 of the Westminster Confession summarizes what the Bible says about the purposes of marriage: The first section is a basic definition. It’s fitting to consider with so much debate on this today:

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time. (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:46-, Romans 7:3, Proverbs 2:17)

The second section is about the purposes God intended in marriage:

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness. (Genesis 1:28, 2:18, 9:1, Ephesians 5:28, 1 Peter 3:7, Malachi 2:15, 1 Corinthians 7:2,9)

These three purposes are vital for a healthy world, happy individuals, and a thriving church.
1. God established marriage so that each would have a helper suited for his or her needs.
2. Married couples are to produce godly children to populate his church and influence the world.
3. Marriage satisfies our physical needs to avoid unclean, immoral behaviors. This last purpose was a serious problem in Corinth, as it is in our culture today.

1. … “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
2. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

The two extremes are directly dealt with in these first two verses.

First: the single life should not be dismissed. It can be a good way to live. The expression, “to have sexual relations” is just one word, “haptomai” (ἅπτομαι). The word means, “to touch, take hold, attach self to, engage in some relationship”. The NASB more literally translates it, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” The expression “to touch a woman” was at that time a modest way to refer to intimate sexual contact.

The expression “temptation to sexual immorality” is also just one word in the original Greek text. It is “porneia” (πορνεία) and it appears with the definite article. Again the NASB translates it more literally as, “But because of immoralities.”

Paul is explaining that no one should think it’s bad for a person to remain unmarried. It’s a good thing for those able to live morally as a single person. But he does not say it’s the only good way to live, nor that it’s the best way for everyone to live. The ascetics who abstained from all physical desires had gone to an extreme.

The second point is: for those unable to live morally as singles, God established marriage. Marriage is the more common way for God’s people to live. Not all are able or called to remain single.

Before sin entered the human race at Creation, God instituted marriage as a good thing. Genesis 2:18, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ ”

In Matthew 19 Jesus defined marriage as one man and one woman covenanted to be together as one flesh for life. Matthew 19:5-6, “and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ ”

This is the way God provides for us to help and encourage one another as spouses, for children to be conceived, and for our normal physical desires to be satisfied in a moral way.

In 1 Timothy 4:3 Paul includes in his list of dangers, those “who forbid marriage”. Then in the next two verses (4-5) Paul warns saying, “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.”

His point is very simple: Being single is good as long as the person isn’t sexually tempted. But Marriage is good too, and its the more common way God calls people to live. Therefore Hebrews 13:4 says, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

There is a danger when marriage is diminished from what God instituted it to be. When it’s called “sin” by the ascetics, physical urges burn within and lead to immoralities. When human urges are openly satisfied outside of marriage God’s order is horribly disrupted.

The word for immoralities here is “porneia” (πορνεία), that general term for sexual immorality. For this reason, when there is temptation, each person should have his own spouse.

3. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
4. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

NASB 3. “Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.”

The words “conjugal rights” or “fulfill his duty” are interpretive. Literally the words mean, the “due” or “deserved”, “kindness” or “benevolence”. It seems to be an euphemistic idiom for sexual needs. The context here makes it clear that this is what Paul is addressing.

This section deals with the often confused roles of husbands and wives. We are used to thinking that each person is only responsible for his own thoughts and conduct. But here we see again that this is not a biblical principle. The husband is required to satisfy his wife’s physical needs in marriage, and the wife is responsible for satisfying her husband’s needs. However, this does not contradict the headship of the husband in the home.

The details are better covered in a study of Ephesians 5. There wives are told to be in subjection to their husbands as the church is to Jesus Christ. And the husbands are told to be the head over the wife as Christ is to his church. Therefore this headship and subjection are not absolutes that cover everything.

The husband is head of the wife in the same way our Lord loves and leads his church. It says, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” This headship is motivated by love and for sacrificially meeting her needs. It’s not for taking advantage of her for his own comfort as if she was the husband’s servant.

The perversion of this idea has often confused the whole issue. The subjection of the wife to the husband doesn’t mean she is less important or valuable. It’s compared in Scripture with the way Jesus carries out the will of God the Father. Though in subjection to the Father’s will, God the Son is not lesser than the Father.

It’s a headship that takes responsibility for the other’s well being and spiritual growth. It’s a subjection the recognizes that God-given duties of the husband, and supports him lovingly.

The Bible also clearly spells out different duties for the two in the home: The wife is responsible for seeing that the domestic needs of the family are met. The husband is held responsible as the provider, protector, and spiritual leader. But here in 1 Corinthians we see that each is also responsible to satisfy the other’s physical desires.

Both asceticism and libertinism contradict the nature of God’s institution of marriage. They both eliminate the way God designed for our physical desires to be satisfied. These paves the way for sexual perversions and for temptations to commit fornication.

There is one exception only. The married couple might decide to abstain for a time, but for only one reason. If they agree on a temporary short time of abstaining it should be for focusing their hearts on the Lord in prayer. But to avoid temptation, they should come together again before very long.

6. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.
7. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

Paul again uses himself as an example. He wishes that all men were as he is. This is sometimes confused as if Paul demeans marriage and recommends celibacy to all. The context here, and in everything else Paul wrote, suggests a very different interpretation.

He wishes that all people were as able to obey God’s moral principles as he is by God’s grace. Paul was able to control his sexual desires without sin. Though he was able to do this while remaining single, those married must do the same: control their desires within the bond of marriage. God has gifted us all differently so we should honor whatever calling is ours. We will see more on this later in this chapter.

8. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
9. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

For those who aren’t married, either singles or widows, he tells them it’s OK if they stay as they are. That’s how God in his providence had made them for the moment.

But if they are unable to resist temptation, they should get married. The last part of verse 9 means that getting married is better than to burn with desire. If the single person lacks the self-control needed to stay within God’s moral principles, then marriage is a better solution than to struggle morally.

If we are to be light to the world and salt to the earth, we need to promote godly homes.

That part begins with our own families and marriages. God’s principles must be followed and appreciated. They are his loving word to his children.

But we need to do more than just that. We are commanded to promote these truths to others. We should elect leaders committed to God’s moral truths, and pray regularly for those elected and appointed. We should never be tempted to give our vote in exchange for political promises of an easier life, or for others to be made to pay our way.

We should promote God’s ways where we live and work. We should preserve the institution of marriage and resist temptations to impurity. If you’re married, be faithful to and care for your spouse as a great treasure. If you’re single, don’t engage in things that will tempt you into immorality. Decisions about marriage and family should not be made based on what seems most comfortable or appealing to us, but by what God has instructed us in his word. Marriage is a sacred union, designed to teach us about our relationship with Jesus Christ. If we damage that order we obscure the message of the gospel that brings life.

One of the problems we struggle against in our world is what I call the “Bo Peep Syndrome”. Her solution to the problem of lost sheep was to leave them alone and they’ll come home. Very different than the solution offered by our Good Shepherd who would leave the “ninety and nine” to seek out the lost sheep.

But ignoring a problem is the easy way only if we don’t look too closely. One of the ways parents harm their children is by being too permissive. They ignore correcting rude or selfish behavior figuring they’ll just grow out of it. The sad reality of it is that they do not just grow out of it. But it’s the easy way for parents to excuse being responsible and really helping their children. Sometimes it’s because parents never learned to discipline without being harsh.

One of the problems with modern approaches to education is a failure to teach responsibility. Teachers who let students do what they want usually lose control. They train students to be unable to get serious about a deadline or finishing hard tasks.

Political leaders often cater to the voters’ vices rather than promoting good policies. It’s easier to get votes by promising people what they want, rather than what they need. They are willing to let a society hang on to its sins, as long as they get elected.

World leaders often appease terrorists and rogue nations rather than stopping their evil. But if we reward lawless aggressors they just get more lawless and aggressive.

There are some things that are best left alone. However, where we have a God-given duty, we need to speak up and do what we can to help. When those God’s charged to help fail to do so, they are not just minding their own business, they are being irresponsible. They become co-conspirators with evil.

We all have a duty in the world to be light to dispel its moral and spiritual darkness, and to be salt to enhance its flavor and preserve it from the spoilage of sin. But in the church, among those who say they are Christians, we have a special duty to deal with sin and rebellion, even though it’s a very hard and difficult obedience.

Dangerous men had stolen the hearts of the Corinthian church. They intrigued God’s sheep with presentations that seemed very appealing. But when error rules in hearts, lives are left unguarded against sin. Wrong beliefs, values, and practices are excused with clever words. In Corinth, some very serious offenses against God were being overlooked, even permitted.

Paul’s letter now deals with those specific errors.

1. It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.

Paul was very disappointed by reports he received about their church. Immorality was being tolerated and ignored among them. The word for immorality here is the Greek word “porneia” (πορνεία). We get our English words pornography, and pornographic from that Greek word. It refers to sexual activity that ignores marriage as the only right place for sex.

Any time sexual acts or thoughts go beyond the marriage bond, it’s immoral. It offends God, harms his people, and destroys the image of Christ and the church which marriage was instituted to represent.

Corinth was a very immoral community. That was its reputation in the world. Even the pagan Romans saw it as a city that had gone over the edge with sexual license. Many ancient Greek terms for immorality were based on the name of the city. The verb “to corinthianize” (Κορινθιάζειν) meant to have sex outside of marriage. Prostitutes were often called, Corinthian girls or Corinthian companions. The temple of Aphrodite on the Corinthian Acropolis sanctioned prostitution as a religious rite.

Though many Corinthians became Christians, they continued to struggle with this sexual liberty. It’s not easy for people to abandon the cultural standards they were raised to see as normal. Every day they were faced with temptations, and surrounded by attitudes they were raised with.

It’s not easy to overcome our past sinful habits, particularly when the world around us continues to accept and promote them. But they need to be overcome. It’s our duty to God, and to one another in the church.

This is why it’s important to avoid music, television shows, movies, magazines and web sites that trivialize the sanctity of marriage and promote sexual themes. They train the mind to dwell on these things, and influence our desires and values.

The answer of Scripture is in Philippians 4:8, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

Minds busy with moral things, things that honor God, will find it easier to avoid tempting thoughts, and to resist falling back into past sinful patterns.

The particular immorality that was being permitted was extreme.
It was the kind of thing of which even the pagan nations did not approve.
One of the members of the church was having an immoral relationship with his father’s wife,
probably his step-mother. If it was his actual mother a different word would likely have been used.

Of course there were some of the more barbaric cultures that allowed incest like that.
But even the sexually free Roman and Greek cultures did not allow that extreme.
Yet the church seemed to be tolerating it. They were doing nothing to correct the problem.

God’s word is very clear about this. Deuteronomy 22:30 says, “A man shall not take his father’s wife, so that he does not uncover his father’s nakedness.”

Some Rabbis during Paul’s time had invented a principle of their own that modified God’s law. Rabbi Akibah taught that converted Gentiles didn’t have to keep this law. Maybe this was part of the justification the Corinthians were using to allow this.

Like these Rabbis of the first century, many churches today follow dispensationalism. Similarly, it invents theories to make the moral law only apply to ancient Israel. We see churches rejecting the Creation Sabbath as if it was the same as the Levitical Sabbaths added at the time of Moses. Some promote fictional pictures of Jesus as if they could behold the Savior yet have no response of worship. Some today even allow sex outside of marriage. One by one the 10 Commandments are being rejected by false teachers in the churches. Of course these sins can be forgiven with sincere repentance, but they should not be excused.

Paul makes it clear. God’s moral principles do not apply to just one group of people or period of history.

God records this extreme case here for our instruction too. It teaches an important principle of church discipline. We need to preserve the purity of the church in every case.

2. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

Their attitude was not honoring to God. Instead of mourning for the sin that had invaded their spiritual family, they were arrogant, proud of it. Just as we mourn for the dead, we should grieve when sin, the cause of death, moves in. Sin should not be defended, relished or excused. But in Corinth the spiritually immature church arrogantly allowed it among them.

The remedy is a hard one, but it’s what God demands of us. We have a responsibility to look after one another and encourage each other to do what’s right. This is how Jesus taught us to deal with sin among us in Matthew 18.

The first step should be a very private, humble, and personal attempt to help the person. In Matthew 18:15 Jesus said, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ”

If that fails, Jesus tells us to get some help but still to deal with the problem privately. 18:16, “But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”

If the person still ignores your encouragement and warnings the next step has to be taken. There comes a time when a person who persists in sin needs to be dealt with by the church. 18:17, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Telling it to the church doesn’t mean making a public announcement. Throughout the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, God’s church, his covenant family, is represented by men ordained to be Elders. They act as a court of the church to make careful judgments according to God’s principles.

Their judgment has real God-given authority. Jesus said in verses 18-20, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

This means that when the court of the church comes to a clear judgment, and they have followed God’s rules, God in heaven honors their decision regarding the church on earth. The court of Elders is responsible for admitting believers to membership and the sacraments. and for removing them from membership and the sacraments.

It does not mean they decide a person’s eternal salvation. It means either they bind them to the outward church as communicant members, or they loose them from the church and communicant membership.

When a person is removed, it’s because they failed to show evidence of regeneration. Their refusal to repent and abandon things clearly wrong according to God’s word, requires that we treat them as non-members, as those outside the church. But, what makes their rebellion even worse than the behavior of the unchurched, is that they bear the covenant mark of baptism.

The removal of members should never be done lightly. It’s always a last step. It shouldn’t be done harshly or with an arrogant judgmental attitude. It’s to be done humbly and solemnly showing Christ-like gentleness and compassion.

3. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.
4. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5. you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Paul wrote this while in Ephesus, unable to be with the Corinthian church as it judges this case.
But he was present with them in the decision they had to make.
Even from this distance he led them in what they should have been doing, but were not.
There was no room for debate about the wrongness of what was reported.

Paul was careful not to name the person committing this incest.
But he made it clear that anyone who had done these things is inexcusably guilty.
Evidently the evidence in this case was clear and undisputed.

Paul gave his opinion as a formal judgment for them to approve in his absence.
1. It’s given in the name of our Lord Jesus. It’s by Christ’s authority, delegated to his church in Scripture, that the judgment is made.

2. The Elders should formally assemble to determine this case as a church court. Elders, Pastors or Apostles have no authority to judge on their own. It’s only when they are formally assembled that they bear the keys to the Kingdom of God. If found guilty the person must be removed from among them.

There are some who interpret these words differently. How is this person to be delivered to Satan? And how is his flesh to be destroyed so that his spirit might be saved?

These are admittedly hard phrases to understand. But the context here and in the rest of Scripture clears up the confusion.

There are some who imagine that this means some physical harm is to be done. Some have said the church had the power to curse him with some horrible disease. Others say they were to execute the guilty person. But how could executing the person save his spirit? How could they then avoid Christian fellowship with him as verses 2, and 6-13 imply? And who was to do this executing? Rome didn’t allow church executions, and the Old Testament Levitical justice system wasn’t transferred to the church. None of these explanations fits with the whole picture.

There is a far more consistent interpretation. A person removed from the church by the discipline of Matthew 18 would be considered part of the kingdom of Satan instead of the kingdom of God.

The word for flesh here is “sarx” (σαρξ) , it’s not the word for “body” which is “soma” (σωμα). Paul has consistently used the word for “flesh” in this letter to mean “fleshly lusts”. We would assume he means the same thing here. In the final day of judgment a person’s soul is not saved apart from his body. In the resurrection the whole person is saved, body and soul. But the Bible does say a person’s spirit can be saved, delivered from fleshly lusts.

Probably Paul means that:
1. By excommunicating the unrepentant from God’s kingdom they are delivering him over to the kingdom of Satan.

2. His fleshly lusts could lead a straying believer to spiritual conviction. This would stir him to end (destroy) his fleshly desires leading him to repentance, and restoration.

A note on this verse in the old Geneva Bible says, “The goal of excommunication is not to cast away the excommunicate that he should utterly perish, but that he may be saved, that is, that by this means his flesh may be tamed, that he may learn to live to the Spirit.”

This view seems to fit best with the testimony of God’s word as a whole.

The hope of discipline in the Spiritual family, at every level, is to restore the wandering sheep.

The world advises permissiveness and tolerance. That’s the easy irresponsible way. It only makes sin easy and leaves its destruction and poison to spread and devastate.

God’s way is sometimes a difficult challenge. But the right thing must be done. For the honor of God, for the purity of the church as it shines as a light to the world, and for the reclaiming of those sinking in the grip of sin we need to do the hard things, though we do them humbly.

It’s the right thing to do, the good thing, the hard but loving thing. It’s the way God tells us to reach out to the renegade soul.

True self-less compassion is often very hard. But we need to bring ourselves to do the hard things even toward those who may be the least appreciative at the time. Yet we dare not hesitate to do what God promises to bless.

We are thankful that this last stage of discipline does not take place often. But the first stages of positive encouragement and kind, humble correction, are the way we regularly try to help one another as a spiritual family.

We should never let the infection of sin spread in the hearts of those we love, not our children, our spouses, our friends, or members of the church. As for ourselves, we need to keep our own hearts pure and honoring to God. Sometimes that means listening humbly to the warnings of Christian friends, or the warnings of the church. This is how we shine as lights to the world and keep Christ’s family a good testimony to the world.

by Bob Burridge ©2015

We can miss the main point of stories in the Bible if we get distracted by unimportant details, or if we’ve been taught a wrong interpretation of them. Art work can be a very helpful tool in teaching Bible stories, but it can also fix incorrect images in our minds which can influence our appreciation of the story’s purpose. Sometimes our English translations use words which don’t represent the meanings of the original words.

One of the events often misunderstood is the incident that occurred at the building of the tower of Babel recorded in Genesis 11:1-9. We often picture a tall tower reaching up into the sky trying to extend all the way to heaven. That may not be the most accurate way to picture what is described in this historical record. We may picture a worker asking for a “brick”, then someone handing him a “board” with a confused look on his face because suddenly they were speaking different languages. That may be what happened, but it’s not necessarily the way things were on that day long ago in Babel.

Some have taught that the story is recorded in Genesis to explain where our different languages came from. That misses the real purpose behind the preserving of this story. God put it there as a lesson for us in every period of human history.

A closer look at the actual text should make us re-think this important event recorded in God’s word. Our goal should always be to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, and to direct our focus to the actual purpose of the story preserved for us by our Creator. We should not let paintings from the middle ages or traditional stories about this event color our interpretation of what took place at Babel.

One Language for All
The account begins by informing us that only one language was in use at that time. Genesis 11:1 says, “Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.”

It is not easy to pinpoint when this took place in history. The Genealogies in the Old Testament were not intended to record every generation. Their purpose seems to be to show line of descent. It is unsound to try to use them to date events or the span of time between them. The genealogies tell that at some age or at some time one person “fathered” or “begat” someone. The Hebrew word in the original text which is translated as “fathered” or “begat” is yelad (ילד). It is better translated “became an ancestor of”. Sometimes the same genealogy is recorded in different places in the Bible which show us that every generation was not intended to be included. The genealogies are never added up in the Bible. Genesis 10 describes the nations that descended from Noah after he and his family survived the great flood. For a detailed analysis of the Genealogies of the Bible see Primeval Chronolgy by Dr. William Henry Green as published in Bibliotheca Sacra in 1890.

We are told that the descendents of Noah journeyed east to a plain in the land of Shinar where they settled down to build a community (Genesis 11:2).

A Plan that Offended God
There were some in the community who came together with a plan to build a city and a large impressive structure. The language of the text does not necessarily mean that all were involved in this plan. The builders knew how to make sturdy structures of brick and mortar. The English translations use modern terms to describe these ancient building materials.

Genesis 11:3-4, Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar. And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”

Obviously the making of bricks and the building of a city were good things, not the reason behind God’s judgment upon the people of Babel. The focus of the story is the purpose the people had in wanting to build the “tower”. The Hebrew word used for this structure is migdol (מגדל). According to the Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon this word is used to describe a “tower, elevated stage, pulpit, raised bed.”

The top of the migdol would be “in heavens”. The word for “heavens” is “shamayim” (שׁמים) which is a majestic plural in Hebrew, not necessarily meaning “more than one”. That plural form was often used to describe things of great majesty or importance. The word was used to describe the atmosphere around us, sometimes the sky, or at times to indicate the dwelling place of a deity which was sometimes thought to be high above the visible sky. Archeology has uncovered many flat top mounds, some like pyramids with a flat top instead of a pointed one. They often had ramps or stairs leading to the top and were several stories high. On top of them they often built pagan temples to their gods, or had drawings and religious symbols on them where gods up above in the heavens could look down and see the devotion of the people.

It’s not necessary to believe that they were attempting to build a tower all the way to above the sky to where the god’s lived. It could very well be that these workers were taken in by the pagan beliefs which developed in the generations following the flood. If they were building a migdol with a flat place on the top to honor other deities (like the ancient ziggurat mounds of the pagans), that would certainly be offensive to the true God of the Bible. Their united efforts in building such a pagan thing would invite Divine judgment.

Their stated goal in building the city and the migdol was to ensure that they would not become “scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” Their reasoning seemed to be that this construction would make a name for themselves. The grandure of their magnificent city and migdol would unite them, and keep individuals from wanting to move away.

Their goal of wanting to keep from being spread out was another strike against the revealed commands of God. When God first created Adam and Eve he told them in Genesis 1:28, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” After the flood he told Noah and his sons, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”

Of course what they did is exactly what ended up causing their scattering as a judgment of God for their rebellion. They would scatter and fill the earth as a direct result of their rebellion.

Genesis 11:5-8 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.

God does not come down in the sense of entering a place he had not already occupied. God is omni-present, he fill all space completely all the time (Psalm 139:7-10). When God “enters” a place it means he is revealing himself to particular persons in a particular place, not that he wasn’t already present there. God observed what these rebellious men were doing. He knew their hearts that drove them in this impressive project.

God specifically noted their unity and the ease with which they carried out their work by having a common language. They had developed the arrogant and man-centered view that there was nothing they couldn’t accomplish. He saw in that an attitude of independence from their Creator and Sustainer.

God’s judgment had two parts.
The people would be scattered, and would speak different languages. There are two ways scholars have understood this judgment. Either 1) God miraculously and suddenly made them speak with different languages causing them to scatter and settle to different places. Or 2) God caused them to scatter to other places where different languages then developed to hinder them from easily working together again.

We only have a few brief statements upon which to base our interpretation. There are unanswered questions faced by both views.

If God supernaturally changed their languages suddenly causing them to scatter, we assume there were several families in each language group. They would become united within those language groups motivating them to move to a location where they could become unified communities. However, we see people of different languages working together on complex projects today and at other times in human history. Also, this in itself would not keep one of the language groups from remaining behind to boast of the migdol, and to complete the project for themselves.

The immediate descendents of Noah obviously spoke the same language in the years directly after the flood. We also know that different languages existed in very ancient times after the flood. In the field of language studies (Philology) there are a small number of original basic language groups. Within each basic group there are many variations. There are different theories about how many basic groups there are, and how they relate with one another.

The events at Babel seem to be the origin of that language diversity. Whether it happened suddenly or developed because of the isolation and scattering which God brought about by means not directly stated, is not determined by the text of Scripture taken by itself. Philologists have traced similarities in ancient writings indicating that the present wide variety of lauguages seems to have diversified over long periods of time.

If God scattered them first by somehow keeping the people from being able to get along, we are not told the mechanism by which God broke up their unity. Maybe he withdrew his restraints upon their sin nature and caused arguments and jealousies to divide them. Once they were scattered, according to this view, their isolation eventually caused them to develop different language groups which would hinder their reuniting.

The text taken by itself mentions the confusion of languages first, but the Hebrew grammatical structure does not necessarily mean that it took place first. It states that God determined that he would cause them to not understand one another, and that they would be scattered. Which is the cause and which is the effect is not directly made clear.

The conjunction that begins verse 8 (“So the LORD scattered them …”) is simply the Hebrew letter “vav” (ו) which is translated in a variety of ways. Primarily it is similar to our English words, “and” or “also”. The word itself does not imply sequence or consequence. The text just lists what God did without indicating priority, or cause and effect. The text therefore does not difinitively settle the issue. In his judgment God confused their language, and scattered them into various groups around the world. To be faithful to the text it is wise to accept the facts of God’s judgment without insisting upon one explanation over the other.

The result is not ambiguous.

Genesis 11:9, Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

It is believed that the word “Babel” (בבל) means, “confusion”. The intent of humans in rebellion against God built this migdol to ensure that they would not be scattered. God judged them by scattering them. The judgment also brought about the various lanuages of our world. Lanugage and geography remains a barrier which can be overcome to a certain extent, but continues to divide us into a variety of cultures.

The Real Lesson
Rather than teaching the foundations of Philology, this portion of God’s word is preserved as a reminder that we are a fallen race and can easily fall into rebellion against our Creator while we imagine that we are furthering our self-centered ambitions. We are inclined by our own nature to desire life and satisfaction of our desires. In our fallen condition we are inclined to seek satisfaction of those desires in ways contrary to what God says is moral. Because of our rebellion we deserve and are destined to death and dissatisfaction. It was the work of our Savior Jesus Christ that rescues some, and gives them life and joy forever. Those blessed in this way are redeemed from judgment by grace alone. The Savior took their condemnation upon himself and clothes them with his own righteousness.

When we see the judgments described in the Bible, our response should be humble thankfulness for undeserved blessings as we recognize what we all actually deserve if it wasn’t for that amazing grace.

As the world tries to develop a system of what’s right and wrong it has a few serious problems. First, most of those setting the boundaries are not redeemed by Christ, therefore they cannot see things as they really are. Second, they have no standard for morality beyond their own current opinions.

Different ideas about what’s right and wrong causes arguments, political battles, persecutions, and wars. There are radical extremists determined to torture and kill anyone disagreeing with them. There are those who claim to be “open minded”, but believe that to be open minded means “agreeing with them”. It often seems that there’s nothing as closed minded as those who brag about being “open minded.”

There are groups like the “Freedom From Religion” people who claim that public prayer, Christmas, Easter, and Bibles are intolerant things which should be made illegal and banished from society. It’s ironic how intolerant they are who see those who disagree with them as the intolerant ones. It’s nothing new though. Attacks against God’s truth have been going on since Eden.

The word “tolerate” comes from a Latin word, “toleratus”. It is a past participle of “tolerare” which means, “to endure, to put up with something”.

On the one hand God “tolerates” the existence of evil and sin in his universe. He could remove it immediately, or have kept it from every existing — if that was his plan. He puts up with it, endures it, and uses it to reveal is power, justice and grace.

On the other hand, God is “intolerant” regarding the approval of immorality and of those who engage in evil and sin. He not only tells us it’s wrong, he also promises to pour out his vengeful judgment upon it.

Habakkuk 1:13 brings both of these ideas together: Speaking to God the Prophet asks, “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?”

He testifies that God is offended by evil and wrong. In confusion he wonders why he doesn’t just eliminate it.

He allows unbelief, wickedness, and rebellion in his world to serve his purposes. Certainly God allowing evil to exist does not mean he approves the sinfulness of evil.

Acts of sin and evil are permitted to occur (they are actually decreed) to be used to serve God’s end.

Romans 9:22-23, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”

The word “endured” there is the 2nd aorist form of the Greek word “phero” (φέρω) which means “to bear up, carry something, endure”. The word itself has nothing to do with approval. Though God puts up with evil for a time, he is not in the wicked sinning through them. They are the ones fully responsible morally for their attitudes and actions. This is made clear throughout the Bible.

God tolerated the rise of Egypt’s Pharaoh to accomplish the display of his power in delivering Israel. In Romans 9:17 Paul quoted Exodus 9:16 when he wrote, “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ ”

He used the jealousy of Joseph’s brothers to put the chosen deliverer in the hands of that evil Egyptian ruler. In Genesis 50:20 Joseph said to those brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”

God tolerated the existence of evil religious leaders to accomplish the atonement made by Jesus on the cross. Acts 2:23, “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

Acts 4:27-28 in prayer to God, Peter and John said, “for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”

God patiently endures evil behavior to supply a continuing lesson about human depravity. By that, God says he makes known his wrath, power, and grace. This does not make evil to be good. It shows that evil is never beyond God’s control.

Sin and evil are not independently existing created things.
They don’t float around in the universe as independent and unattached entities. They are attributes, moral conditions of persons. They are the attitudes and behaviors which are contrary to moral good as defined by God’s own nature.

God’s attributes are not created, they are eternal. Good is eternal because it is a characteristic of the divine nature. Evil is no more a created thing than is “good”. The creation of imperfect morally fallible and morally changeable creatures brought into existence the possibility of the opposite of God’s perfections. In his word God tells us that in his relationship to such creatures, and to the moral evil they produce, he displays his amazing divine perfections.

That is what we saw back in Romans 9:22. God endures evil to exist, “to show his wrath and to make known his power.”

That is how God tolerates the existence of evil and sin, while not approving the immorality of evil and sin.

We accept the fact that God calls us to live here in a world still lost in sin. We need to understand the sad condition of the lost. We remember that aside from God’s grace, we are no better than the most evil and sinful people. We need to appreciate the sin barrier that separates the lost from fellowship with their Creator.

It’s not our job to silence the lost by violence. They are here for a reason. However we are not to tolerate the lies that distort God’s truth, or the immorality that offends God’s moral principles as if we approve of them.

There’s a compassionate intolerance that reaches out with the love of Christ.
This compassionate intolerance humbly refuses to be tolerant of the things that destroy and do harm.

We should never compromise God’s message to make it more acceptable to the lost world. Changing our behavior or modifying the Gospel to get them to tolerate us should not be our goal. That’s destructive. It serves Satan’s imitation kingdom, and tears at the kingdom of God. This is what often makes people label conservative Christianity as intolerant of others.

We should deal with unbelief and evil evangelistically and as good neighbors, while we don’t approve of it. Our job is to love the truth, and to represent God faithfully. It is not to treat unbelievers in a rude way, or to forbid them from expressing their views. That was never the way of the Prophets, of our Savior, or the Apostles.

Modernism attempted to re-interpret the Bible to make it fit in with a more secular view of the world. They saw the Bible as inspiring reading and they believed that God can speak to us through Scripture, but they believed it was not free from errors, or the opinions and cultural views of the writers. It tried to explain away the miracles by saying they were primitive interpretations of natural events, or just myths. The Modernists assumed that Jesus was not virgin born, but was conceived illegitimately, probably by a Roman soldier. They denied that there was any real atonement made on the cross. They saw the crucifixion as just an act of martyrdom. They also rejected the actual resurrection of the body of Jesus.

With that rising threat of unbelief, the Presbyterian Church at that time had proposed Five Declarations of faith.

Those ordained to the ministry should all believe in …
• the infallible and inerrant inspiration of Scripture
• the supernatural nature of the miracles of the Bible
• the virgin birth of Jesus Christ
• the necessity of a real atonement made on the cross
• the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ

As Modernism infiltrated the Church it demanded that we should be tolerant of other views about these five statements. They did not mean just being nice to those who differ with them. They meant that we should accept other ideas of truth right along side our own. The Modernists in the Presbyterian Church wanted to allow ministers to deny some of these basic biblical teachings.

He was born in Baltimore, Maryland on July 28th, 1881. His father was an Episcopalian and a prominent Baltimore Lawyer. His mother was from Macon, Georgia. She raised her son John in the old school Southern Presbyterian tradition.

He learned his Bible well and was taught the Westminster Catechisms. He got his degree from John Hopkins University in 1901, and Princeton Seminary in 1905. After that, John went to Germany for a year where he studied under some of the leading Liberal theologians. When he came back to the states he struggled to deal with the conflicting approaches to God’s word.

In 1906 he became an instructor at Princeton Seminary, and was ordained in 1914. At that time he was moved up to the position of Assistant Professor.

When Liberalism started to appear Machen was well equipped to deal with it.
He spoke out against the Philadelphia Plan in 1920 which wanted to unite 19 denominations. Not all were faithful to the Bible and some rejected its basic teachings. His lectures on The Origin of Paul’s Religion became a classic defense of the Biblical Faith.

In 1923 a conservative overture almost failed to pass General Assembly. It called for all Pastors and teachers to be faithful to the doctrines of the Confession and particularly to the Five Declarations. Shockingly 359 ministers voted against it! There were only 439 supporting it.

Later that year the liberal ministers adopted the Auburn Affirmation. It said that the General Assembly had no right to declare what doctrines had to be believed, and said that the Five Declarations were not a necessary part of the Christian Faith.

The Moderates were influenced by the outward success of the American Evangelicals and wanted a more practical and social gospel that allowed for differences of faith. Machen said he respected the concerns of the Evangelicals, but the Presbyterian Church was not the place for non-Presbyterians even if they wanted to do good things.

The Moderates were only tolerant of those who agreed with them. They issued scathing attacks on Machen and the other conservatives that dared to speak out. In 1929 Princeton Theological Seminary became the target of the Liberals in the Presbyterian Church. To move it away from conservatism, the seminary board was re-organized by the General Assembly. It was controlled by moderates who were not tolerant of Conservative views.

They blocked Machen’s appointment to the Professorship of Apologetics. That year, Machen and other Princeton Professors founded Westminster Theological Seminary. To them it was important to have a school still preparing men who were actually Presbyterian.

But liberalism continued to take over in the church.
In 1932 they published a study called Re-Thinking Missions where they minimized the gospel. They didn’t want Christianity presented as the only true religion by our missionaries. They were told to support other religions in our common goals. Pearl S. Buck was one of the most liberal missionaries who stood strongly against the conservatives.

To give better opportunity for the conservative missionaries Machen and others formed the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. In 1936 charges against Machen were upheld stating that his conservatism was doing harm. They removed him and others from the church. To continue the original Presbyterian Church, Machen and others formed The Presbyterian Church of America. They were later required by law to change the name. They adopted the name Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Jesus certainly did not go along with the idea that any religion was OK with God. He said very clearly in John 14:6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

The Apostle Peter said about Jesus Christ in Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

We ought to be very tolerant of the fact that we all grasp at truth imperfectly, and grow at different rates. We need to remember that we only appreciate God’s truth by God’s grace in Christ. But while we tolerate one another’s needs and weaknesses, we do harm to the whole gospel and to those in need of it if we tolerate false gospels or open denials of God’s truth. We do not need to be mean spirited, arrogant, or prideful, but we do need to promote and defend the truth without compromise.

In his Introduction to the Literature and History of the New Testament, Machen wrote about the distinctiveness of the Apostolic Church. He said, “The church … stood in the midst of a hostile environment. She did not shrink from the conflict; she never entered into any compromise with a religion of works, or with heathenism; she was never content to make a common cause with the non-Christian world; she was never content with a divided allegiance.”

He said of the early Christians, “they preferred to be triumphantly intolerant.” Then he quoted that text in Acts 4:12.

Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

He wrote books and articles back in the early 20th century which are appropriate advice for us a century later. We still need to promote the teachings of Scripture without compromise. There is only one way of Salvation from sin. He said, “Such intolerance is unpopular today. It’s unpopularity, however, is due partly to misconception. The intolerance of earnest believers does not involve a harsh and repellent attitude toward the non-Christian world. On the contrary, it is compatible with the broadest sympathies. Just because the Christian is conscious of a great possession which is lacking to the world, he desires to share it with all men. The intolerance of the early Church was an intolerance that resulted in blessing. Christ, to the early Christians, was the only Savior — no other could be tolerated beside him — but though he was the only Saviour, he was a Saviour sufficient for all.”

He was tired and worn out from his busy efforts. A Pastor in North Dakota had invited him to come out there to preach when he had the chance. Against the warnings of his friends and other teachers at Westminster, Machen left Philadelphia and took a train into the 20-below zero winds of the Dakotas. He came down with Pneumonia, and after sending a telegram to John Murray at Westminster he died on New Year’s Day of 1937. He was only 55 years old.

Many call him the Martin Luther of the 20th Century. He led the way for a movement that produced not only the OPC, but eventually also the Bible Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and more recently the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

He strengthened the conservative cause that stood up to Liberalism as is spread in our country. He was appreciated by all who loved God’s word. While he differed with other Fundamentalists on some points, they claimed him as a dear brother in Christ. We owe a great debt to this faithful servant of God as one used to strengthen the church when under attack in a perilous era.

Note: Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
Back to the index of Our Reformed Heritage

Job 40:15 mentions a creature referred to as “Behemoth”. Many have wondered what kind of animal is meant. It has been identified with animals ranging from the elephant to the dinosaur.

The context makes specific comparisons to the ox, cedars, bronze, and iron. Misunderstandings of these references have been used to support favorite speculations and theories. A good word study can help us set aside our assumptions, and understand what the Bible actually says about this awesome creature being pointed out to Job.

God was helping Job understand that as a mere creature he was in no position to question the wisdom of God, even in times of great personal suffering. The Lord was impressing upon him how little he knew compared to the infinite and perfect knowledge of God. In chapter 40:15-24 the grandeur of this animal referred to as Behemoth was pointed out to show the amazing design and handiwork of the Creator.

The word “Behemoth” in Job 40:15 is the Hebrew word בְּהֵמוֹת (be-hae-mot, which would be pronounced “beh-HAE-moat”). It is understood in various ways by different scholars. Some say the Hebrew word was derived from an Egyptian word p-ehemau relating to the hippopotamus (which means “river horse”). Others identify it with the rhinoceros or elephant. Still others have suggested that it relates to a mammoth or even a dinosaur. There are also those who say it was a purely mythical creature.

This same word appears in other places in the Bible. In Deuteronomy 28:26, 32:24, Isaiah 18:6, and Habakkuk 2:17 it is translated by the word “beasts”. In those places it is referring simply to animals of the wild with no particular species in mind.

The word in these texts and in Job is in the plural form which is why it is usually translated as “beasts” rather than “beast”. Here in Job the plural word is treated as singular. The reason for that has to do with the point being made in the context. The Behemoth is mentioned as a specially amazing creature in certain ways. God is impressing Job with the magnificence of the things he had created. Here in Job we have an example of a special use of the plural form which is a common feature of the Hebrew language. To show the superlative nature of something it can be expressed in the plural form which is called the “majestic plural”. For example the Hebrew word for “heaven” or “sky” is the majestic plural “shemayim” (שׁמים). Similarly the Hebrew word for “God” is simply “El” (אל), but it is often expressed as the majestic plural “Elohim” (אלהים).

The Job reference could be translated “Behold beasts ..” as a simple plural. However, one particular kind of animal seems to be the object here. If we take this as a majestic plural, the expression in that enhanced form could be translated, “Behold, Beast …”. God was asking him to consider the amazing wonder of this particular animal he had made. Therefore in that context the “majestic plural” fits very well. The context also argues against the “mythical animal” view since it would not have helped Job understand God the Creator’s power and superior knowledge if he was asked to consider an animal that didn’t actually exist.

We do not have a taxonomic dictionary of how specific animals were referred to in the time of Job. They did not have a classification system with formally accepted names for each genus and species as we have today. We can only rely upon the context which determines the meaning of each use of the word. The description of the “Behemoth” in the verses that follow is all we have to go on to figure out what it means in the Job text. The challenge is to properly understand each part of the description.

Job 40:15-24 (the LORD answered Job saying), “Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. Under the lotus plants he lies, in the shelter of the reeds and in the marsh. For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. Can one take him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a snare?” (ESV)

The descriptions of his diet and body are not given with the same precision we use in modern Biology and Taxonomy. We need to be careful we don’t read more into each comparison than is justified by the text itself.

The animal eats vegetation. This does not mean it eats grass type foods exclusively. For example the hippopotamus of the Nile region eats fish while it is in the water, but when fish are scarce it comes out onto land where it eats various types of vegetation. Its land eating habits would be what most people would commonly observe. That would be why this part of their diet would be mentioned in the text. (See the details in Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible and the commentary by Keil and Delitzsch on this verse).

The Behemoth is very strong and powerful. This description would fit most of the suggested types of animals, but Albert Barnes points out that the elephant is vulnerable in the area of it’s under-belly while the hippopotamus has strong muscles there to protect him. This fits best the description given in verse 16, “… strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly … .”

One of the most confused points is the description of the tail of the Behemoth. It does not say it looks like a cedar tree, or that it is a big as a cedar. Verse 17 says, “He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; …” (ESV). The King James and ASV translate it, “He moveth his tail like a cedar:” The verb in this phrase (“makes stiff”, or “moveth”) is “kha-phets” (חפץ) which means to “incline toward, bend, or move.” It sometimes takes on the figurative meaning of “to take delight in, favor, or desire”. The comparison to a “cedar” has nothing to do with the “tail’s” size or shape. It has to do with its “rigidity”, the “way it moves” is like the firm cedar. Rather than being just a draping tail, it has the ability to stiffen out like a tree. Dr. Barnes tells us that this best fits the type of tail associated with the hippopotamus of the Nile.

The reference to the creature’s bones and limbs are also made in reference to their strength, not their shape or size.

The attempt to see this as a description of a dinosaur fails to use these descriptions the way they are presented in the text. It is only when the interpreter comes to the text with a preconceived desire to find dinosaurs in the Bible that they could be seen in this description.

Careful commentators and dictionary writers list all the ways this word is used, and caution against forcing one meaning upon any word in every place where it is used. Those dictionaries which give just one meaning for the word are obviously presenting their opinion rather than reporting how the word was actually used elsewhere in Scripture and in the contemporary language. It is the word the Holy Spirit moved the writers to use in conveying what God intended.

Those who have studied the biological peculiarities of the animal described here, and who have examined the remains of animals found in that ancient place and era, usually favor this as a description of the hippopotamus rather than any other proposed animal. The descriptions of the habitat of the Behemoth in verses 21-23 also best fits what we know of the Nile hippopotamus.

There is certainly room for discussion about what specific animal Job was asked to consider. The obvious conclusion is that we cannot use this reference to prove that there were dinosaurs roaming around in the time of the Book of Job. Those who have promoted this interpretation are advised to consider carefully what this portion of God’s word actually says when allowed to speak for itself.

Major References Used:
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (by Kittel)
Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon
Greek -English Lexicon by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich
John Gill’s commentary on Job
Keil & Delitzsch commentary on Job
Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary
and several others which all present about the same material

As Paul waited for Silas and Timothy to join him in Athens, he took the opportunity to explain the gospel both to the Jews in the Synagogues, and to the Gentiles in the market place. He was invited to address the philosophers at the Areopagus to explain his teachings. Paul didn’t hesitate, though their interest was obviously just a vain curiosity.

He commented on their deeply religious and superstitious attitudes. Pointing out their monument to an unknowable God, Paul said that God is knowable. He then began to proclaim that truth to these skeptics. He told them that God made all things, and that by his sovereign providence he upholds all things. Therefore, all men are obligated to honor him obediently.

Up to that point Paul’s message was seen by the philosophers as just a different view of the universe on a metaphysical level. Interesting, but not challenging. Then Paul took the next step. Since all are created by and sustained by this Sovereign Creator, all are held accountable before God’s judgment.

In verse 30 Paul begins to explain this moral responsibility to a Holy God.

God holds us morally accountable and will judge all men through Jesus Christ.

Act 17:30, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,”

God had been patient and long-suffering toward the unbelieving nations. Peter reminds us of the patience of God back in the time of Noah. 1 Peter 3:20, “they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared …”

The Athenians Paul was speaking to had lived in spiritual darkness for a long time. God had been patient. He did not bring his judgment upon them immediately for what they deserved.

In his sovereign plan, God’s endurance of sinners plays a part in demonstrating his wrath, power, justice, and patience. It would be wrong to assume that God’s patience meant he didn’t care. In Romans 9:22 Paul wrote, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”

While God withholds his judgment, some by grace are brought to repentance and become redeemed children of God. The rest continue in their sin with no gratitude to God for restraining his wrath. Those left to their own natural disobedience show more clearly how deserved God’s judgment is. This theme was enlarged upon by Paul early in the Book of Romans. Romans 2:4-5 says, “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”

After the seasons of God’s patience, there comes a time of accountability.

At this point in his address to the Athenians, Paul was narrowing the focus of his message to the main moral issue. Since God made all things for his glory, and the pagans had not lived for his glory, their only hope is that they turn from their sin based upon the only hope possible.

God makes it clear that all need to repent. There are three things we are told to tell unbelievers.
1. All are obligated to obey God as he reveals himself in his word.
2. Since they have not done that, they are to repent for their sins against him.
3. They should trust in the saving work of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of their sins.

Our message to the lost should not appear to rest upon our own authority. It should not be based upon emotional appeals, pure logic, our own experiences or assurances. What we tell the unbeliever should be presented as what God himself has said.

We also know that in their fallen nature no one is able to do any one of these things they are called upon to do. Only when the Holy Spirit applies the benefit of the work of Christ can the lost soul be regenerated. Three basic spiritual faculties are then implanted into that regenerated soul.
1. Repentance – by which he abhors his sin and wants to be rid of it
2. Saving faith – by which he trusts in the redeeming work of Christ
3. Sanctification – by which he begins to grow in true obedience

It’s very important then that we have a good understanding of what repentance is. It’s part of the gospel we are to present to the lost, and it’s part of the ongoing life of every believer. That implanted faculty of repentance should be put to use for God’s glory. The first step is to know the meaning of the words translated as “repent” in the Bible.

Biblical meaning of the word “repent“

In the Old Testament there are two main words translated that way.

1. The primary Hebrew word for “repent” is nakham (נחם).
It comes from an ancient root word which means “to draw a deep breath.” It came to be used to describe the deep emotions that result from calamity. Sometimes it’s a sigh of relief, sometimes of deep sorrow.

Hebrew verbs can be used in different “stems” or grammatical forms. The most common way נחם is used in the Old Testament is “reflexive”, an inward action centered upon the person repenting. This is when someone deeply grieves over something. When nakham is used for something a person does toward someone else, it means to have compassion on them or to console them in their grief. When nakham comes to someone from another person it means “to be consoled” or “to be comforted”.

This word most commonly describes a deep grief over something, an inner sighing or gasping in sorrow. When it relates to our sins, it means understanding the offense our thoughts or actions have caused. It’s not the word for “regret“. It’s not sorrow for the consequences of doing wrong. It’s grief over the thing itself. If “regret” was meant, it would be said differently.

This word is sometimes used of God, saying that he repented in some way. Translations often confuse us by the English words used. Genesis 6:6-7 is a prime example.

The New King James Version says, “And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.’ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” (The ESV translates it similarly.)

The old King James Version translates verse 7, “And the LORD said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.’ ”

Those who wrongly think of repentance as regret, have a problem with this passage. It obviously can’t mean that God regretted something he had made or done. God never makes errors of judgment, nor does he make plans he later regrets. He never commits wrongs to grieve over, nor wishes to change his eternal decrees. None of these make any sense regarding God as he reveals himself to us in the Bible. The Bible directly rules out this interpretation. In Numbers 23:19 it says, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (ESV). Both the KJV and NKJV say, “… that He should repent …” The word translated “change his mind” or “repent” is nakham.

If we remember that the meaning of the word is not regret, the problem goes away. God is often said to be deeply offended by the wickedness of sin in his creatures. The word nakham has to do with that deep sigh of sorrow over the sinful rebellion of God’s creatures.

These passages show us that the sin and wickedness of God’s creatures produce in the Lord what we humans would best understand as deep sadness.

Though God decreed to allow sin to enter the human race, and though he uses even our evils to advance his plan, he is offended by immorality in those he made. It is hard for us mere creatures to comprehend that difference, The two concepts of allowing and using evil for a purpose, and at the same time being morally offended by evil, are not opposites. We know from Scripture that these are facts about the Nature of God.

The context must show us who is doing the repenting, and over what circumstances. Only then can we know what kind of deep sorrow is being described.

2. The second Hebrew word used for “repent” in the Old Testament is suv (שׁוּב ).
This word is not used in the sense of repentance very often. However, it is a very common word meaning to turn, turn back, or return. Most of is uses are of literal changes of direction of travelers and of similar things in motion. In the few times where it is used in the sense of repentance it has to do with the change in some course of action, or change of attitude.

When we see the word “repent” in the Old Testament, we need to know which Hebrew word it represents. One would be speaking of the deep sadness in a person’s heart over something. The other would have to do with a turning around of some action or attitude.

In the New Testament there are a few related Greek words translated as “repent”.

The most common Greek word for “repent” is metanoein (μετανοειν). The same word can be used for the noun “repentance” in the form metanoia (μετανοια). Another Greek term is metamelomai (μεταμέλομαι). The ancient Greek roots of these word mean a change of mind. The Greeks saw intellectual changes as being their most important concern. However, the human mind contains not only knowledge, but also the emotions and our ability to make choices.

When God’s people translated the Hebrew Old Testament in to Greek in Jesus’ time, these Greek words were the closest they could find in that language.

The change of mind the Bible talked about relating to our sins was not just intellectual, nor was it just regret. It was the deep state of sorrow in the convicted conscience when God makes us aware of how offensive our sins are to him.

When God regenerates someone who has been without Christ, his renewed moral understanding deeply humbles him in grief and repentance. This is the challenge Paul was making to the philosophers on the Areopagus.

When a believer is brought face to face with his sin he is deeply humbled in grief and repentance. David’s response to Nathan in Psalm 51 is a good example.

The Bible says a lot more about repentance, than just what word studies tell us. A very good summary of the Biblical teaching is found in the answer to Westminster Shorter Catechism question 87 which says, “Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience.”

Repentance is a saving grace.
For the unredeemed to respond with true grief over his sin, a change must first take place in his depraved heart. Until he is regenerated by grace, having had the guilt of his sin paid for by Jesus Christ, he will not appreciate how much his sin offends God. He will only see it as it effects himself. Paul was calling the Arthenians to repentance unto life.

The nature of Repentance unto life is seen in three kinds of changes.
God implants the faculty of repentance into someone when he regenerates them. This produces changes that take place in the person’s soul.

1. There is an intellectual change.
This is a change in a person’s understanding. The regenerated mind is made able to see sin in a new way. Before that, sin was only the violation of a rule, or something that can bring unpleasant results if you get caught. But the regenerate heart sees sin as an offense against God. It sees the moral element, and it sees what justice demands.

David’s understanding was changed when the Holy Spirit, through the prophet Nathan, led him to understand the true horrors of his sin. Psalm 51:3-4, “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.”

2. There is also an emotional change produced.
When the regenerate heart is given life, and for the first time sees how God has been offended, he responds with deep grief and spiritual pain. But since regeneration also implants a living and saving faith, he also senses the joy that is his over the salvation God provides to the unworthy by grace. David showed that response when brought under conviction by the Holy Spirit in Psalm 51.

3. There is also a volitional change.
This is a change in our desires. The informed and convicted soul of a regenerate person wants God to change him. He is not content to covet and lust as he had done. Enlightened by the Spirit, and set free from the dark bonds of sin, he freely chooses to seek after the ways that please God. David shows this transformation in the same Psalm. In Psalm 51:11-15 David says, “Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. … O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.”

A. A. Hodge says that repentance unto life is, “a change of mind including evidently a change of thought, feeling and purpose corresponding to our new character as children of God.”

Sadly, there is also a false repentance.
The sorrow of the world is more a regret for the consequences of sin. 2 Corinthians 7:10, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.”

The world sorrows over the inconvenience of sin and the trouble it produces for them. This grief is selfish. It is motivated by self-interest, not for concern about an offense against God. By putting its own interests above the honor of his Creator the lost only adds to his condemnation. He wants to be free from the consequences of sin, not from the guilt of sin.

Godly sorrow sees the evil of sin in its offense against his Creator. The redeemed soul understands that sin is morally wrong, not just that it can produce unpleasant results. The fleeting pleasures of sin lose their appeal when considered in the light of what truly honors God (Hebrews 11:25). He sees the moral weakness of his own soul which he wants changed. He sees his condemnation as just and only removed by the merits of Jesus Christ. As the Apostle Paul learned to cry out; Romans 7:24-25, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! …”

Repentance is an Evangelical Grace.
That means it’s a result of the good news, not the cause of it. We are regenerated by God’s grace alone. That is what implants in us the faculties of repentance and faith, along with the desire and ability to obey.

Non-evangelical religions teach that repentance is one of the things that convince God that we should be his children forever. Since they see repentance as occurring before God changes the heart, they deny our total moral inability. Along with repentance non-evangelicals (or marginal-evangelicals) put faith, good works, or religious practices as things we do to earn eternal life in heaven. That’s exactly the message condemned by the prophets, Jesus, and all the Bible writers. The only merit that earns forgiveness is that which was earned by Jesus in his holy life and death on the cross for his people. Any obedience we have (faith, repentance, or holy living) is the result of God’s amazing grace.

Since it’s an evangelical grace, it must be part of the gospel when we present it. It is God who puts repentance into the hearts of those he draws to Christ.

Romans 2:4, “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?”

2 Timothy 2:24-26 gives us good instructions for personal evangelism, “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

Acts 11:18, “When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.’ ”

A. A. Hodge explains, “Every Christian duty is therefore a grace; for without him we can do nothing ( John 15:5). And equally every Christian grace is a duty because the grace is given to us to exercise, and it finds its true results and expression only in the duty.”

God is the offended party when we sin. We all deserve the eternal wrath of his justice. We can be reconciled with God and united in his eternal family because our worthy Savior Jesus Christ fully satisfied that justice by his death on the cross. That is the only way guilt can be justly satisfied and our condemnation removed.

When he redeems us we will respond with inevitable sorrow for our sin and with a joyful embracing of Christ’s salvation. Our redeemed soul will begin the process of fleeing from sin and desiring to be holy out of a profound gratitude toward God.

This was Paul’s aim in this part of his message at the Areopagus in ancient Athens. It must be part of our message too as we bring the gospel to the lost today. Though God has been patient, he is offended by our rebellion against him as our Sovereign Creator. All are challenged to sincerely repent, resting in God’s provision for our salvation alone.

Note: Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.

Lessons in the Book of Habakkuk by Bob Burridge ©2013, 2015 Understanding God in Troubled Times (Video #4)

Lesson 4: Living By Our Faithfulness Habakkuk 2:1-4

In the time of Habakkuk, evil and immorality had become common among God’s covenant people. Foreign powers were invading their cities. Jeremiah was warning of God’s coming judgment. The Prophet Habakkuk was confused. How could a Holy God, allow such oppression and evil to continue? But Habakkuk’s confusion was not doubt. His unfailing trust in the truth of God drove him to the Lord for answers.

God’s answer is recorded in 1:5-11. He was at work even if the Prophet was not seeing what He was doing. God had warned Israel long ago that if they rebelled He would bring judgment upon them by a foreign heathen nation. Habakkuk responded by confessing his trust in the unfailing promises and power of the Sovereign God. (1:12).

Yet the prophet’s confusion continued (1:13-17). He struggled to understand how it all fit together. Why did God seem to look with favor on those who deal treacherously? His holiness should make that impossible. He wondered why God seemed silent when the wicked swallowed up those more righteous? However, God’s seeming silence was not really silence at all. God had already spoken very clearly in His word.

It appeared to the confused Prophet that God had made men like fish where they had no ruler to protect and shelter them from brutal enemies. Would the wicked ones continue to slay the other nations? The conversation continued in Habakkuk 2:1-4.

Habakkuk 1:1, “I will stand my watch And set myself on the rampart, And watch to see what He will say to me, And what I will answer when I am corrected.”

Habakkuk pledged to kept watch to see what God would say. He used the symbolism of a rampart, a lookout enclosure where a sentinel would watch for the advance of troops. The Hebrew word here is “ma-tsur” (מצוּר) which is a protective enclosure, an entrenchment, sometimes a tower. It doesn’t necessarily mean a physical place. More likely he meant it purely figuratively. He waited for God’s response with the same eager anticipation of a child sitting at the window looking out at the street waiting for expected friends to come.

He watched with diligent expectation. He wanted to know God’s answer to his questions. He fully expected and wanted “correction”, “reproof” to clear up his confusion.

Habakkuk 2:2, “Then the LORD answered me and said: ” Write the vision And make it plain on tablets, That he may run who reads it.”

The Lord commanded him to write the vision so others can read it. The message (revelation, vision) was not for Habakkuk alone. He was to get it down on tablets clearly so that the one reading it may run as a sentinel would to warn others. The idea that it should be able to be read while running departs from the metaphor. That interpretation does not fit the primary concern of the Prophet who saw dangers and wanted to know how to deal with them, and how he should direct God’s people.

God was not always going to speak to men with visions and other special revelations. He intended His word to be put into written form to preserve it for other times. Today we don’t look for God to speak to us supernaturally. We are told to search the Scriptures for God’s word and comfort.

The Holy Spirit operates in our era through Scripture, not by private revelation. Ephesians 6:17 tells us to, “take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

The Spirit’s weapon is not supernatural voices or private visions. It’s the written Word of God. With this sword the Holy Spirit guards us from the evil one, and pierces the heart when we stray or lean to our own understanding. It brings God’s children to an understanding of what is good, glorious, and true.

The Bible was inspired and preserved for our understanding. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17 Paul reminded Timothy, “… from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

The “Scriptures” Timothy had as a child were the preserved copies of the books of the Old Testament. He was sent to the words of Moses, David, Solomon, and the Prophet Habakkuk. These books, and all those of the Bible, are there to remind us in this present age about God’s moral principles, promises, and glory.

There is a dangerous trend today where people listen to mystical inner voices believing them to be God speaking to them. Now that we have a complete, finished Bible these special revelations have ceased. We are to look to the preserved Word of God through which the Holy Spirit guides and instructs us. Our own subjective judgment about things we think God is saying outside of Scripture cannot be tested objectively. They lead us to believe things untrue, and to do things not pleasing to our Creator.

We need to be cautious of any idea that cannot be tested by Scripture. If it contradicts Scripture or violates its principles, we should run from it as we would from Satan himself.

The Lord explained the reason for this writing.

Habakkuk 2:3, “For the vision is yet for an appointed time; But at the end it will speak, and it will not lie. Though it tarries, wait for it; Because it will surely come, It will not tarry.”

The prophecy was for an appointed time in God’s plan. That is, it had a fulfillment which was yet future at the moment God spoke to Habakkuk.

The next expression is translated in various ways. More literally it reads, “it breaths (longingly) toward the end of something.” Some translate it as if it refers to the speaking (breathing out) of the message which will be reserved for the end where it will become clear. Others take it to be a panting toward some particular end as if hurrying toward it, longing for it. This second meaning agrees more with the Hebrew jussive form of the verb and its most normal meaning. Most agree that the end or goal in mind is the final victory of Christ, the Messiah, which is a major focus of human history.

The isolated political events, moral judgments, tests, and trials of every era are part of the building of the church as it moves toward its final union in Christ. All is moving longingly toward that pivotal event where the accomplished redemption is fully applied in earthy time.

Next we are assured that though the vision may not be fulfilled immediately, we are to wait for it. It will surely take place. It will not fail (ie. not be false). This written message by Habakkuk will preserve God’s assurance until it is time for it to be fulfilled. It is not to be limited to the time of Habakkuk’s inquiry. It’s a message which was intended to endure throughout human history.

At times God’s judgment seems to be withheld. Evil appears to be spreading around us and in our midst uncontrolled like some dreaded incurable disease. But that is not the case. This message in Habakkuk is still helpful for us today.

The central message of God’s answer is found in verse 4.

Habakkuk 2:4, “Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith.”

The clarifying focus here is a contrast.

First, God explains the tragic attitude of the person who is proud. The word translated as “proud” [“aphal” (עפל)] means something puffed up or swelled. When applied in geography it means “a hill” which is like a swelling of the ground. When applied to a person it has to do with his being swelled up by his own importance. He is arrogant, and puts himself first.

It says that his soul is not “upright” in him. Literally, it is not “straight”. There is something deeply twisted and wrong within him. He is not as alright as he may think of himself, or as he may appear. He looks to his own strength, and lives for his own pleasure. He looks to himself, and tries to understand everything as he sees it with his perverted, crooked soul.

He is not reliable because he does not trust in God’s promises and provisions of grace. Since his foundation is his own imagined importance and ability, he vacillates as circumstances change. The proud person will be disappointed because he cannot succeed in advancing his delusional dreams and aspirations. He believes he is smarter and more able than those resting in God’s word.

The Lord recognizes his inner evil for what it really is. He will be judged for his arrogance, for putting himself as a creature above the glory and power of his Creator (Romans 1:25).

Next, He describes the attitude of those who are justified, the righteous. The righteous person will be living by his faith.

The word translated “faith” is emuhah (אמונה), which means, “firmness, steadfastness, fidelity, steadiness”. It’s related to the word “amen” (אמן) which is a declaration that something is true or reliable. We add that to the end of our prayers as we confirm the truth of our prayers and of the promises they rest upon. When we have faith, we are trusting that something is true and reliable. We rest confidently, steadfastly, in what God says because we are convinced He is trustworthy.

Faith is not just a feeling, or existential leap in the dark. It’s not just irrationally trusting in something without good cause. It is not just the vague exercise of an undefined trust. It must have an object, something in which it trusts.

John Calvin summarizes the Bible’s information about saving faith in the third book of his Institutes (Inst 3:II:7 end), “(Faith is) … a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds and sealed on our hearts by the Holy Spirit.”

The righteous person looks to the Lord for his strength. He trusts in God’s promises, and believes what He says about him and about Himself. Since he is clothed by grace with the righteousness of the Savior, he has a firm foundation that cannot fail. He will be held by the unyielding hand of God so he endures even when he does not understand all that God brings into his life. His life is characterized by that steadfast confidence that all God has said and done is reliable. He evidences that he is united in fellowship with his Creator through the work of Christ, and will be blessed as certainly as the promises of God are certain.

He is not just faithful to certain points of doctrine and history. He rests confidently in the atonement promised in the Messiah, the Savior, who would take his place to pay for his debt of sin. His life is characterized by his trust in God. He is content to know that what God permits in his world has a purpose, even when he cannot put it all together to see how evil and tragic things are part of that eternal and good plan.

This verse is quoted directly three times in the New Testament in Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and Hebrews 10:38. Those verses translate the Hebrew words into Greek. The literal translation of those verses would be, “the one righteous out of faithfulness will be living.” They are usually translated into more smooth English as, “the just shall live by faith”. This is one of the most primary themes in the Bible.

He expected an answer explaining how what he was seeing fit in with the plan held secretly in the mind of God. He knew God used the heathen for his purposes, but why now was he letting this go on for so long?

Instead, God pointed to the very core of human purpose.

Adam was created for the purpose of honoring and obeying God. The detailed reasons behind God’s revealed principles and commandments were hidden from him. He was created to trust in what God had revealed, to accept it as sufficient.

But Adam and Eve wanted more. Satan made a deceitful offer. His words are recorded in Genesis 2:5, “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Adam and Eve wanted to know things as God knows them. They became discontent with what God had revealed.

Similarly, Habakkuk wanted to know how to explain the details of how it all fit in with God’s plan. He believed that God was just and holy. He trusted God that evil was permitted for his purposes, but he was troubled that he didn’t see all that was taking place at that time as God sees it.

God reminded him of a fundamental truth built in to His created universe. If he was one of God’s righteous ones, then his responsibility is to rest faithfully in what God was doing. His word may not tell us all we think we need to know. It tells us all God knows we need to know. That is enough.

The proud and arrogant rest in their own strength as their god (1:11). We are to rest in the LORD’s provision, recognizing that God is God. Our life is to be characterized by living faithfully to what He has chosen for us and caused us to know, even though the specifics of His ways are often past finding out.

Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”

God’s word tells us a lot. It explains that even evil and the enemies of God’s people are there for a purpose in revealing God’s power, justice, grace, and redemption. The nature of God is displayed clearly in all he made and in all that unfolds in history: his justice, mercy, grace, and wrath. But how each event, victory and tragedy fits in, this we do not need to know. Our duty is to live trusting in the God who provides our righteousness through the Savior.

May God make us faithful to trust Him that He does all things well.