Tough questions, many coming from blog readers

Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Jesus in the Old Testament, Old Testament

“The Virgin Shall Conceive”: Why Isaiah 7:14 Confuses People

For many years, the prophecy that confused me most was Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Every Christmas I heard pastors quote this, but none had ever explained its context. What confused me was that the next three verses say that the prophecy will be fulfilled within 14 years. If it was supposed to be fulfilled in the eighth century BC, how could it apply to Jesus?

Let’s go ahead and clear that up.

What Triggered “The Virgin Shall Conceive” Prophecy

First, here’s what brought on this prophecy.

King Ahaz’s dad had died, leaving him the sole king of Judah at age 20. Judah was a small kingdom south of Israel and Syria. Farther north and east, the kingdom of Assyria was growing rapidly by conquering one kingdom state after another. The kings of Israel and Syria knew they couldn’t stop the powerful Assyria alone, so they wanted to form a coalition along with Judah. But Ahaz refused to join them.

Ahaz’s refusal angered the kings of Israel and Syria, so they attacked. Unfortunately, Ahaz was not a godly king, and so the Lord allowed the two kings some victories. When Ahaz still wouldn’t join, the two kings decided to depose Ahaz and replace him with a puppet king who would do their bidding.

Assyrian conquests prompted the prophecy, "the virgin shall conceive" — Assyrian relief depicting conquests from the British Museum, photograph by Jean E. Jones

The Lord’s Offer

The Lord God sent Isaiah with a message for this young, frightened king. He told Ahaz not to fear the two kings because they would not take the throne from him (Isaiah 7:3-7). Instead, Israel would cease to exist within 65 years (verse 8). He cautions Ahaz, “If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all” (verse 9). Then he makes this incredible offer:

Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.
Isaiah 7:11

In other words, God tells the scared ruler to ask any sign he wants as proof that the Lord will be with him and will not allow his two enemies to remove him from the throne. He can request a miraculous sign that is as deep as hell or as high as heaven.

What did Ahaz do? He refused God’s offer! He told Isaiah, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test” (Isaiah 7:12). Why? Because he had already decided what he wanted to do and it didn’t involve submitting to or trusting the King of kings.

The Promise That the Virgin Shall Conceive

Isaiah was not fooled by Ahaz’s fake piety. If Ahaz would not request a sign, God would give him a sign nonetheless. Isaiah replied,

Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.
Isaiah 7:13-16

Isaiah no longer calls God “your God,” but rather “my God,” for Ahaz has rejected God as his King of kings.

“Virgin,” “Immanuel,” Curds, and the Child’s Age

According to John N. Oswalt in The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–9, the Hebrew word translated virgin means “young woman of marriageable age.” Jews would assume she was a virgin, of course, so the Hebrew word can be translated either “maiden” or “virgin.” There’s another Hebrew word that can only be translated “virgin,” but that’s not what Isaiah uses here. We’ll come back to why later. For now, note that the prophecy in its immediate context refers to a young woman who is a virgin at the time of the prophecy. She’ll marry, conceive, and bear a child. The woman is not named, but it is not the mother of the crown prince Hezekiah, for he was born before Ahaz rose to sole king.

The name Immanuel means “God with us.” Therefore, the child would be a sign that God was with Judah even though the king was abandoning God. God’s presence is a comfort for the godly, but terror for the ungodly.

Curds (a milk product like ricotta cheese) and honey were wealthy fare. Yet, when the child knows right and wrong (age 12-13), he will eat curds and honey and both Israel and Syria will be deserted.

Ahaz Openly Rejects God

Ahaz sent messengers to the king of Assyria, saying “I am your servant and your son” (2 Kings 16:7). These are titles that show Ahaz has rejected his covenant duty to serve under God alone and has put Assyria’s fearsome king in God’s place.

Here’s what this means. A king who rules over other kings is called a suzerain, and the kings serving him are called vassals. In those days, the suzerain protected his vassals in exchange for money, soldiers, and submission. The suzerain called his vassals “sons,” and the vassals called their suzerain “father.” So when Ahaz said to Assyria’s king, “I am your servant and your son,” he was offering to be his vassal.

In other words, Assyria didn’t have wait to conquer Judah—Ahaz sought him and surrendered before Assyria came near. Ahaz did this so that this king of kings would rescue him from Israel and Syria.

The trouble was that in Judah, the kings were supposed to have the Lord God as Suzerain. Ahaz had switched teams. And he used the temple treasures which belonged to the Lord God as tribute to his new lord.

But Isaiah isn’t done with prophecies about a child. He recorded more in the next two chapters.

Prophecies about Isaiah’s Child

Here’s what introduces the next set of child prophecies:

And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son.
Isaiah 8:3

The Hebrew translated “went to” is a euphemism in the Old Testament that usually means the first time that a husband and wife come together for marital relationships. Because of this, some scholars think that Isaiah’s first wife may have passed away and he married a prophetess who bore him another child. Thus, Isaiah 7:14 might refer to this child.

Immanuel’s Land

Isaiah 8:4 prophesies that before Isaiah’s newborn reaches three, the two kings won’t threaten Ahaz anymore. Assyria would demolish Syria and subdue Israel. But Ahaz’s trust in Assyria instead of God would cost him dearly because Assyria wasn’t trustworthy. Assyria would sweep into Judah and wreak havoc in “your land, O Immanuel” (Isaiah 8:8).

By calling Judah “Immanuel’s land,” Isaiah links this prophecy about his son to the previous chapter’s prophecy about a child called Immanuel, God With Us. Now we have two prophecies about a child being born as a sign that God is with Judah. They’re also linked by the name Immanuel.

Isaiah then says this about his own children:

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.
Isaiah 8:18

Isaiah’s newborn is a sign of what’s to come within three years. But he and his children are not just signs; they portend (or foreshadow) future events. We’ll come back to this too.

For to Us a Child Is Born

Isaiah has another child prophecy in the ninth chapter:

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
Isaiah 9:6-7

Virgin Shall Conceive: "The Adoration of the Shepherds by Murillo — *The Adoration of the Shepherds,* by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo – Museo Nacional del Prado (Public Domain)

Unlike the prophecies in the previous chapters, this prophecy of a child is about no ordinary child. It was obviously a prophecy about a future child, not a child in Isaiah’s day. This child would bring the righteousness that Ahaz abandoned, and he would rule forever.

The Initial Fulfillment of “The Virgin Shall Conceive”

So what happened next? Assyria attacked both Syria and Israel, just as Ahaz had requested. Within three years of Isaiah’s son’s birth, the two kings that threatened Ahaz were dead. A decade after Ahaz refused God’s offer, Assyria demolished Israel.

But the king of Assyria was untrustworthy and swept into Judah too, killing many. So many died that the remnant left could not use all the milk. They turned the milk into curds, and everyone ate curds and honey. So the child prophecies of Isaiah 7 and 8 were fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, but not the child prophecy of Isaiah 9.

Now that we have seen Isaiah 7:14 in its original context, let’s look at how the Gospels use it.

The Later Fulfillment of “The Virgin Shall Conceive”

By the time of Christ, most Jews were using the Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The Septuagint translated “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 with a Greek word that meant virgin, not a young woman of marriageable age.

Matthew 1:18 records that Mary “was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.” An angel confirmed this to her fiancé Joseph (verse 20). Matthew explained all this and wrote,

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
Matthew 1:23

Matthew knew that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, so why did he write this? Because he also understood how OT portents work. The Bible uses a number of words for portents, including type, shadow, foreshadow, figure, and picture.

Most people today are less familiar with portents, so I’ll explain with a story.

A Potato Portent

A potato illustrates forshadowing — Adobe Stock, used by permission

Sometimes my husband calls me from the grocery store saying, “I found great looking salmon. Would you like some for dinner tonight?” I’ll reply, “Yes! Don’t forget to buy a potato.”

That night, I’ll sauté half the fish while Clay slices and boils the potato. I serve most of the fish and refrigerate the leftovers and the potato. The next night, I sauté the rest of the fish and refrigerate the leftovers.

Are you wondering about the cold, uneaten potato? Its presence foreshadows that something more will happen with the fish. And more will happen. On the third night, I’ll beat an egg, mash the potato into it, and stir in minced chives, salt, and pepper. Next, I’ll break up the leftover fish and fold it into the egg and potato mixture. Finally, I’ll form the mixture into fish cakes that I’ll sauté in butter and oil until they are browned and crispy and oh-so delicious.

Just as I made obvious links between the potato and fish before I told you how they were related, so Isaiah placed obvious links between the child prophecies in chapters 7, 8, and 9 without fully telling us how they were related. He linked the birth of a child, the name Immanuel, and the land of Judah. He also contrasted the current king’s wickedness with the future king’s righteousness, and Assyria’s king’s ruthlessness with Immanuel’s justice.

Just as the unused potato foreshadowed that something more was coming, so the unfulfilled chapter 9 prophecy foreshadowed that something more was coming as well.

Prophecies and Portents

As I noted above, Matthew knew that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. But he also knew that Isaiah 9:6-7 had not been fulfilled prior to Jesus’s coming. Jesus alone fulfilled it. And he was familiar with Mary’s story of Jesus’s miraculous birth to her as a virgin.

As Matthew read the passages—especially in the Septuagint—he realized that Isaiah 7:14’s prophecy that the “virgin shall conceive” was no coincidence. There was more going on than what was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day.

He realized that Isaiah 7:14 is a direct prophecy that was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, but its fulfillment portended a future event. In other words, the woman and child in Isaiah’s day foreshadowed Mary and her son Jesus. The woman in Isaiah’s day was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, but Mary was a virgin at the time of conception. The child in Isaiah’s day was called Immanuel, or God With Us, as a sign that God was still with Judah. But that child foreshadowed Jesus, who was literally God with us.

And that is why Isaiah used an ambiguous Hebrew word for virgin. The first meaning was meant for the initial fulfillment, but the second for the ultimate fulfillment.

Fulfilled Prophecy as Portents

Here’s another analogy for understanding prophecies that have fulfillments that foreshadow a significant future event.

I live in sunny Southern California where it doesn’t snow. Most of the year, we see what looks like one brown mountain range to the north. But sometimes in the winter, we’ll see a massive, snow-covered mountain range in the distance and a smaller brown mountain range closer to us (see the photo).

Near and future fulfillment of "the virgin shall conceive" illustrated by 2 mountain ranges — Photo by Virginia Thompson

The nearer mountain range leads our eyes up to the mountain range that is farther off and obviously much bigger. In the same way, some prophecies have a nearer fulfillment that points to and leads our eyes to a greater, future fulfillment. The nearer fulfillment foreshadows the coming fulfillment.

Deep as Sheol or High as Heaven

Let’s look back at the Lord God’s generous offer to King Ahaz:

Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.
Isaiah 7:11

Consider that the immediate fulfillment in Isaiah’s day wasn’t a sign that was as deep as Sheol (hell) or as high as heaven.

But the typological fulfillment in Jesus’s day certainly was.

CLICK TO TWEET:

The Virgin Shall Conceive: Why Isaiah 7:14 Confuses People Share on X

Books You Might Like

These are affiliate links for which I receive a small commission at no cost to you.

Discovering Jesus in the Old Testament, by me, Pam Farrel, and Karla Dornacher | Discover more about the hope of Immanuel, God With Us, in chapter 7
NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible, edited by D.A. Carson
The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament), by John N. Oswalt

December 22, 2020/7 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Bible Perplexities, Bible Study, Jesus in the Old Testament

Why Jews Thought the Messiah Would Be Different

Christians often wonder why so many Jews didn’t recognize that Jesus was the Messiah. As one gal put it, “How could they miss it when it’s so obvious?”

There are a number of reasons, but one was that Jesus wasn’t what the Jews of his day expected. In fact, Jesus surprised even godly Jews like John the Baptist. Here are four ways Jesus differed from expectations, and why these differences are so much better.

1. Jesus’s kingdom was not of this world.

“Messiah” comes from the Hebrew for “anointed one.” It’s one of the titles of the kings descended from David. “Christ” comes from the Greek for “anointed one. “Christ” and “messiah” are synonymous.

God interrupted David’s dynasty when the kings stopped submitting to God as the King of kings. But the prophets who announced the exile that ended their reign also announced that God would bring the exiles back and would send a new king descended from David. This king would rule forever:

Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore.
Isaiah 9:7

The Jews expected an immediate reign on earth.

By Jesus’s day, the exiles had long ago returned, but the promised messiah hadn’t appeared. Instead, Rome ruled them. Because of this, most Jews expected a messiah to lead a revolt against Rome and establish an earthly kingdom at once. In fact, others had already declared themselves messiahs and had revolted in vain.

Jesus fulfilled some prophecies about the messiah in his first coming.

Messiah preaching — “Christ Preaching” (La Petite Tombe), by Rembrandt (public domain)

Jesus identified himself as the messiah (John 4:25-26). He was descended from David and was born in Bethlehem. He also performed signs that were expected in the age of the messiah’s rule, such as giving sight to the blind and healing the lame, and he sent word to John the Baptist that this was evidence he was the messiah (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 11:4-5; Luke 5:24; 18:42). He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey colt as the people welcomed him as messiah in fulfillment of prophecy (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9).

Because of this, Jesus’s disciples expected him to establish an earthly kingdom immediately. That’s why they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). It’s also why John the Baptist was confused when Jesus didn’t rescue him from prison (Matthew 11:2-3).

Jesus did not fulfill all prophecies about the messiah in his first coming.

Jesus did not establish a kingdom on earth at his first coming. Instead, he said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). He also withdrew when people tried to force him to be king. In addition, he explained that the kingdom of God was going to be a different type of kingdom:

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Luke 17:20-21

Jesus will fulfill remaining prophecies in the future.

So then, how will Jesus fulfill the prophecies about ruling forever? First, Jesus rules at the Father’s right hand now (Ephesians 1:20-21). But there’s more to come. Jesus said he will return “on the clouds of heaven” and will gather his servants “from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Daniel 7:13-14; Matthew 24:30-31). God will make a new heaven and earth, and the new Jerusalem will descend on it (Revelation 21:1-2). The “throne of God and of the Lamb” will be there and Jesus’s servants will reign with him “forever and ever” (Revelation 22:3-5).

2. Jesus was both messiah and the prophet like Moses.

Jesus fed the crowds who concluded he was both Messiah and Prophet — “The Feeding of the Five Thousand” by Jacobo Bassano (public domain)

In the first century AD, Jews desired the fulfillment of prophecies about both a messiah and a prophet like Moses. That is why when Jesus began teaching and performing miraculous signs, “some of the people said, ‘This really is the Prophet.’ Others said, ‘This is the Christ’” (John 7:40-41).

The expectation of a prophet like Moses comes from this prophecy:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen… And the LORD said to me, “… I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.”
Deuteronomy 18:15,17-19

Jesus gave many signs that he was the prophet like Moses. For example, Moses turned water to blood and Jesus turned water to wine. Like Moses, Jesus commanded the sea and it obeyed. With Moses, the people ate manna that miraculously appeared in the wilderness; with Jesus, the people ate bread and fish that miraculously multiplied in the wilderness.

Some Jewish leaders desired neither a messiah nor a prophet.

Painting of Messiah Driving the Money Changers from the Temple — “Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple” by Rembrandt (public domain)

The Jewish leadership consisted of members from two competing Jewish sects: the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees were aristocratic and wealthy priests who wanted good relations with Rome so they could stay in power. They hoped for neither a messiah nor a resurrection, partly because they held the five books of Moses in higher regard than other OT books, such as the writings of the prophets.

Jesus presented problems for priests. First, Moses had had authority over even the high priest. Therefore, if a prophet like Moses appeared, the Sadducees would have to give up their authority and status. This was apparent when Jesus drove money changers and sellers out of the temple, thus challenging the priests’ authority to run the temple as they they saw fit (Mark 11:15-18).

Second, they wanted to prevent anyone claiming to be a messiah (king) from gaining followers lest Rome quell not only the rebellion but also the Sadducees’ power.

Many Jewish leaders expected a messiah submissive to them in spiritual matters.

The rest of the Jewish leaders were Pharisees. They wanted a warrior king who would lead a revolt against Rome, but who also would be submissive to them in spiritual matters. They taught that the messiah and prophet were two different people.

Why was it important to Pharisees that the messiah and prophet be different?

The Pharisees had a set of rules that they used to interpret how the law of Moses should be applied. For example, their rules described what could and couldn’t be done on the Sabbath. The problem for them was that Moses had been the ultimate authority for how to apply the law, so a prophet like Moses might threaten their authority. Indeed, that’s what happened.

Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ authority to interpret the law of Moses.

Jewish leaders accuse the Messiah — False witnesses accuse Jesus before the ruling council (José Madrazo, 1803, public domain)

When Jesus healed people, the Pharisees told him to stop doing so on the Sabbath. Jesus told them their reasoning was bad, and he continued healing. He also pointed out that they rejected God’s commands in favor of their rules, which he disparaged as mere “tradition of men” (Mark 7:8-13). That Jesus rejected their traditions about how to apply the law incensed the Pharisees and convinced most of them that he couldn’t be the messiah.

The crowds embraced Jesus as both messiah and prophet.

Unlike the Jewish leaders, the crowds were fine with the messiah also being the prophet like Moses. That’s why they declared him “the Prophet who is to come into the world” and then attempted to make him king (John 6:13-14). But ruling on earth wasn’t part of Jesus’s immediate plan.

Still, when large crowds started following Jesus because of his miracles, the Jewish leaders feared they would lose their power:

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
John 11:47-48

The Sadducees didn’t care that Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ traditions—they did too. But they cared a lot about losing their waning political power.

3. The messiah was the suffering servant.

Isaiah prophesied about a righteous, suffering servant. But no one thought the messiah and the suffering servant could be the same person. Why? Because the messiah was supposed to rule forever, while the suffering servant had to die:

And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Isaiah 53:9

Crucifixion of Messiah before Resurrection — “The Crucifixion” by Rembrandt (public domain)

See the problem? The Jews didn’t see how the messiah whom they thought would save Israel from Rome and establish an everlasting kingdom could also be the suffering servant who dies. That is why when Jesus told his disciples that he would suffer, be killed, and on the third day be raised, Peter rebuked him and said this would never happen (Matthew 16:21-22).

That also is why when Jesus told the crowd he would be lifted up from the earth, they surmised that he was speaking of death and replied, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up?” (John 12:34).

Isaiah gave clues that the suffering servant was the messiah.

Four Servant Songs proclaim the coming of a righteous, suffering servant: Isaiah 42:1-9; 49:1-12; 50:4-9; and 52:13-53:12. They hint of similarities between the suffering servant and the messiah, for both would

be anointed by God’s Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; 42:1);
bring justice (Isaiah 9:7; 42:1; Jeremiah 23:5);
be righteous (Isaiah 42:6; 53:11; Jeremiah 23:5);
make others righteous (Isaiah 53:11; 61:3; Jeremiah 33:15-16);
bring peace (Isaiah 9:6-7; 53:5; Ezekiel 34:24-25);
participate in bringing Israel back to God (Isaiah 49:5; Jeremiah 23:3-5); and
be part of a new covenant (Isaiah 42:6; Ezekiel 34:24-25).

Jesus fulfilled prophecies about the suffering servant.

That Jesus was crucified with the wicked and buried in a rich man’s tomb clearly fulfills prophecy about the suffering servant (Isaiah 53:8-9 cf. Luke 23:32-33,50-53). But the next two verses reveal something remarkable.

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
Isaiah 53:10-11

This passage says that though the servant died, he shall prolong his days! in other words, the suffering servant will come back to life. Moreover, because Jesus conquered death as the suffering servant, he reigns as Messiah forever.

4. The prophet was also the suffering servant.

Ascension of Christ (Messiah) after resurrection — “The Ascension of Christ” by Rembrandt (public domain)

Moses was a type of Jesus. Jesus was not merely a prophet speaking God’s words, he was the Word who was God (John 1:1).

Isaiah’s prophecies about the suffering servant show the servant had similarities to but was far superior to Moses. The Lord God gave the first covenant through Moses, but he gave the suffering servant as the new covenant (Isaiah 42:6-7). The suffering servant fulfilled everything the sacrificial system put in place by Moses could not fully do (Isaiah 53:5-6). He was the light for the nations that Israel failed to become under the law of Moses (Isaiah 49:6). And as suffering servant, Jesus died, arose, and atoned for people’s sin as Moses wanted to do but could not (Exodus 32:30; Isaiah 53:12).

Conclusion

The Jews expected the promised messiah to lead a revolt on earth, but Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. They thought that the messiah, the prophet like Moses, and the suffering servant were three different people, but Jesus demonstrated he is all three. Because he is the suffering servant who died and rose again, he is Messiah King who will reign forever in the new heaven and earth. As the suffering servant, Jesus fulfilled all to which Moses and the sacrificial system pointed. And because the suffering servant bore our iniquities, we can become God’s children and live in his kingdom with him eternally.

That’s good news!

Because Jesus conquered death as the suffering servant, he reigns as Messiah forever. Share on X

Find out more about Jesus as Messiah in Discovering Jesus in the Old Testament

Books You Might Like

These affiliate links lead to books you might like.

Discovering Jesus in the Old Testament by me, Pam Farrel, and Karla Dornacher: This Bible study shows how God revealed his plan of redemption in the OT. It combines Q&A, short devotionals, and gorgeous art.
Christ from Beginning to End by Trent Hunter and Stephen Wellum: An interesting, easy-to-read book that divides biblical history by God’s covenants.
NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible edited by D.A. Carson: If you want a study Bible that traces God’s redemptive plan, this is for you! I’m currently reading this one and it’s my favorite study Bible yet.
Typos by Leonhard Goppelt, translated by Donald H. Madvig: For those who enjoy scholarly depth, this look at how the NT interprets the OT typologically is fantastic (the Greek title is pronounced “TWO-poss”).

March 11, 2020/8 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Bible Perplexities, Bible Study, Old Testament

5 Things Christians Should Know about Omnipresence

It’s no surprise that when I was a child, I didn’t know the word omnipresence. In fact, I pictured God as a bald man with just a fringe of short dark hair behind his ears. I thought he lived above the sky and occasionally poked his head through the clouds to peek at what was happening in the world.

That’s far from what the Bible teaches us about God! Instead, God is Spirit and innately invisible to human eyes (John 4:24; Romans 1:20). He’s able to “see” everywhere in the universe at once. His ability to do that is what we call omnipresence. But omnipresence is often misunderstood. Therefore, here are 5 things Christians should know about God’s omnipresence.

1) Omnipresence means God’s presence fills the universe.

The word omnipresence isn’t in the Bible. But it describes something we do see in the Bible: God is present everywhere. For example, the prophet Jeremiah wrote, “Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:24).

Similarly, David described God’s presence everywhere like this:

Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,” even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you.
Psalm 139:7-12

God is Spirit

Jesus said, “God is spirit” (John 4:24). So he doesn’t have a physical body like we do. Therefore, according to theologian Millard Erickson,

he does not have the limitations involved with a physical body. For one thing, he is not limited to a particular geographical or spatial location.
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 267-8.

Scholars sometimes debate whether omnipresence has more to do with God’s ability to know everything that happens everywhere or with his power to hold all things together (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). What matters, though, is what God’s ability to be everywhere means for us.

Omnpresence in Serpens Nebula — Serpens Nebula HBC 672. Credits: NASA, ESA, STSci. Public domain.

What this means for us

God’s omnipresence is frightful for wrongdoers, for the Judgment will miss nothing. In fact, God even knows thoughts and intentions (Psalm 139:2; Hebrews 4:12-13).

But for his worshipers, God’s omnipresence means that he is never out of reach. When those who belong to him pray, he hears. When those who want to know him seek him, he responds. When we suffer, he knows. When we try to please him, he rewards.

2) Creation is not God.

Sometimes people think that if God’s presence is everywhere, creation must be God. In fact, those involved with the new spirituality (or New Age movement) hold this view. Alisa Childers explains:

One of the core principles of the new spirituality is that everything in the universe (including you and me) is made up of the same substance and reality. In other words, there is no separation between you, your dog, and the tree outside that your dog just peed on. This worldview is called pantheism and believes that “God” is a type of divine consciousness or energy that is one and the same with the universe, something we can tap into as we become more “enlightened.”
Alisa Childers, “I’m Not Religious; I’m Spiritual! New Spirituality,” in Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies, ed. Hillary Morgan Ferer, 202.

While creation reflects God, creation is not the Creator. Rather, the Creator made the heavens and earth from nothing (Genesis 1:1; Acts 17:24-25). Moreover, God “is never identical to those created things” (Vern S. Poythress, Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing, 167).

Even though many today embrace pantheism as new spirituality, it is an old idea, as C.S. Lewis pointed out:

Pantheism is congenial to our minds not because it is the final stage in a slow process of enlightenment, but because it is almost as old as we are. It may even be the most primitive of all religions.
C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study, 84.

That’s not the only reason people find pantheism attractive. The apostle Paul wrote that when humans abandoned God, they “worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

What this means for us

God’s omnipresence does not mean he is identical to creation. Therefore, we worship the Creator, not creation.

God’s omnipresence does not mean he is identical to creation. Therefore, we worship the Creator, not creation. Share on X

3) God has sometimes made his presence known via theophanies.

At certain significant times in history, God revealed his presence in a special way that humans could sense. For example, a cloud descended on the tabernacle and first temple at their dedications (Numbers 9:15; 1 Kings 8:10). These temporary manifestations are called theophanies.

Omnipresence and theophanies — God and two angels visit Abraham in “Abraham and the Angels” by Aert de Gelder, 1680-1685 [public domain]

But here’s the thing. A theophany doesn’t mean that God is present in just the place and time of the theophany. He’s still present everywhere even though he’s manifesting his presence in a special, intense way at a certain time and place (A.H. Leitch, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenney, gen. ed., vol. 4, s.v. “omnipresence”).

Theophanies serve specific purposes. For example, the cloud theophanies at the dedications of the tabernacle and first temple showed people they had a place they could go to meet with God in a special way.

Dr. Poythress puts it this way:

According to biblical teaching, God is present as ruler and Lord in all places and at all times (Jer. 23:24; Rev. 1:8). This universal presence of God goes together with his special presence with the people that are his.
Theophany, 200.

Additionally, the Holy Spirit now indwells all those who belong to God, and their bodies are his temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19).

What this means for us

While God is omnipresent, he is present with his people in special ways.

4) God limits how much his presence is experienced by humans.

C.S. Lewis described why God doesn’t make his presence known more often in his novel, The Screwtape Letters. There, a senior devil named Screwtape writes to his nephew Wormwood to teach him about their Enemy, God.

The Screwtape Letters: Annotated Edition by [Lewis, C. S.]

You must have often wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat his cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve. He is prepared to do a little over-riding at the beginning. He will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such trough periods, much more than the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best. We can drag our patients along by continual tempting, because we design them only for the table, and the more their will is interfered with the better. He cannot “tempt” to virtue as we do to vice. He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away his hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.
C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 46-7. Emphasis mine.

What this means for us

We can trust God’s promise to never leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5) even when we can’t sense his presence.

5) God will one day dwell with humans in a greater way.

God is omnipresent and has at times demonstrated a special presence with his people. Now the Holy Spirit indwells his people. But something more is coming. God will resurrect his people so that they can dwell with him in the new heaven and earth in a fuller, more immediate, and more palpable sense:

Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
Revelation 21:3

They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.
Revelation 22:4

What this means for us

Those belonging to God’s kingdom will dwell with him forevermore, his presence with them in a glorious way. Hallelujah!

Want to know more about God’s plan to dwell with humans? Check out my latest book, Discovering Jesus in the Old Testament.

Discovering Jesus in the OT cover — Discovering Jesus in the Old Testament

Books You Might Like

The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis
Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies, edited by Hillary Morgan Ferrer
Miracles by C.S. Lewis
Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing by Vern S. Poythress

October 17, 2019/0 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Bible Perplexities, Bible Study, Message Series

Will there be Sadness in Heaven over Unsaved Loved Ones? Part 3

In this series, I answer a reader who asked whether there will be sadness in heaven for parents of unsaved children. In Part 1, I listed several unsatisfying approaches to the question. Part 2 explains the first of three considerations involving this question: that blood relationships to both saved and unsaved children will change in heaven. This post examines two more considerations, both ways the judgment will affect sadness in heaven.

2) Revelation will Lessen Sadness in Heaven

Two of my girlfriends who thought they had married nearly perfect, godly men recently discovered their husbands had been involved in long-term affairs. Both women were shocked to find out that the men they were certain they knew intimately were actually living double lives: there was the “faithful Christian” life they portrayed in front of family and church friends, and then there was the worldly life they lived among others and in their thoughts.

Both men called hiding their sin from others “compartmentalizing”; the Bible calls it “walking in darkness” (John 3:20-21). The wives had loved a façade, not who that person really was.

Sometimes We Love a Facade

We cannot know with certainty what another person is like here on earth. But at the judgment, God will expose people’s hidden sins and motives (Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Matthew 10:26). When we see the true nature of people who continued in evil and refused to repent, that nature may shock us, but it will also enlighten us as to why they don’t belong in the kingdom of heaven. Sometimes we will learn we loved a façade and the person we thought we loved never existed.

The “Remains” of the Unsaved will Differ

The question remains: The saved resurrect to glorified bodies, but what of the unsaved? Jesus speaks of “both soul and body” being destroyed in hell (Matthew 10:28), but the type of body isn’t clear. C. S. Lewis argues in The Problem of Pain that it will be less than the earthly body:

What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a man: it is “remains”. To be a complete man means to have the passions obedient to the will and the will offered to God: to have been a man—to be an ex-man or ”damned ghost”—would presumably mean to consist of a will utterly centred in its self and passions utterly uncontrolled by the will.” (1953: 113-114)

He illuminates his meaning further in the novel, The Great Divorce. If Lewis is right, then seeing ex-humans with uncontrolled wills will do much to help us understand why they are lost (though without necessarily stopping sorrow over the loss of what might have been—more on this momentarily).

3) Joy and Sadness can Co-exist

Sadness in Heaven over Unsaved Loved Ones

Detail of martyred Bartholomew in “Last Judgement” by Michelangelo (Web Gallery of Art, public domain, Wikimedia)

Philosopher and ethicist Adam C. Pelser argues in Paradise Understood that the saved will at times feel sadness and somberness over the lost, but that will not diminish joy. He says emotions result from evaluating something as good or bad, so emotions such as sadness and somberness are valuable because they help us “perceive, know, and appreciatively understand” badness and they enable us to fully appreciate goodness. For example, contemplating the Crucifixion on Good Friday causes sadness and somberness, but also increases “a deep, appreciative understanding of the significance of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ” and therefore increases the joy of celebrating Easter (2017: 130-131).

Joy and Sadness in Scripture Together

Pelser argues:

Indeed, Scripture attests that it is possible to experience a deep and abiding joy even amidst the most severe trials and tribulations of this life (cf. James 1:2). If a joy that is “inexpressible and filled with glory” is possible in this life (1 Peter 1:8), still so full of pain and suffering, how much more will a deep and abiding joy be possible in heaven where those who are saved will live forever free from the many and varied trials and tribulations of this life? Just as Christian joy need not be diminished by sad and somber reflection on the crucifixion of Christ in this life, the stable, enduring state of perfect heavenly joy will not be diminished by moments of sadness and somberness toward negative realities, especially when one views and understands those negative realities in the light of God’s perfect goodness. (2017: 131)

If Pelser is correct, then sadness can co-exist with joy even in this life.

Joy and Sadness on Earth Together

One of our foster children at 14 ran away to connect with her birth mom and gain freedom to live with boys, forget school, and enjoy drugs. We were heartbroken, while at the same time relieved to have the violence and turmoil she brought finally gone. We knew the separation was good for our family, yet cried over her choices because we loved her dearly.

But here’s the thing. Even though her choices and pain still saddens us, we no longer shed tears. In fact, somber reflection about her co-exists with a joyous knowledge of God’s grace to us and others.

Joy and Sadness in Heaven Together

Now, between our deaths and the creation of the new heavens and earth there will be time—perhaps substantial time. The judgment of billions of people follows the general resurrection. My husband Clay in his book, Why Does God Allow Evil?, points out that it would take 133,090 years to judge for ten minutes all seven billion alive today (2017: 155). That’s a long time and doesn’t include the judgments of those who have lived before.

My point is that there will be time to consider and adjust to losses of loved ones. The tears that God wipes away may include tears over lost loved ones.

Who knows? When God wipes away the tears, we may talk to him about all the attempts we and he made to draw those loved ones in, and we will be satisfied that all that could be done was. Somber reflection will co-exist with a joyous knowledge of God’s grace to us.

And when the day of Christ reveals loved ones whom we have poured our lives into are saved, we “may be proud that [we] did not run in vain or labor in vain” (Philippians 2:16). We shall join with angels in taking great joy over them (Luke 15:10).

Sadness in heaven over unsaved loved ones? Part 3: 2 Ways the Judgment will Affect Sadness Share on X

Sorrow in heaven over lost loved ones? Surprising answer of @AdamCPelser! Share on X

In This Series “Will there be Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children?”:

3 Approaches that Don’t Work (Part 1)
3 Ways Blood Relationships to Saved & Unsaved Children will Change (Part 2)
2 Ways the Judgment will Affect Sadness in Heaven (Part 3)

For further reading:

For a thorough and enlightening discussion of human nature, see Why Does God Allow Evil? Compelling Answers for Life’s Toughest Questions, by Clay Jones (Harvest House, 2017).
For Adam C. Pelser’s full argument on sadness in heaven, see Paradise Understood: New Philosophical Essays about Heaven, edited by T. Ryan Byerly and Eric J. Silverman (Oxford, 2017).
For C. S. Lewis’s full treatment on hell, see The Problem of Pain.Jo
For an imaginative look at the revelation of glorified saints and the character of the unsaved, see The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis.
Does God Send Good People to Hell?

July 11, 2017/2 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Bible Perplexities, Bible Study, Message Series

Will there be Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children? Part 2

In Will there be Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children? Part 1, I began to address a reader’s question about sorrow in heaven over unsaved children and I listed three approaches to it that don’t work. In this post, we’ll look at the first of three consideration that shed light on the issue.

3 Helpful Considerations About Sorrow in Heaven

The first consideration pertains just to parents of adult unsaved children, while the next two in Part 3 address knowing any unsaved loved one is in hell.

1) Blood Relationships with Saved & Unsaved Children Will Change

That the question asked about a parents’ sadness over adult unsaved children is due, perhaps, to the fact that most people view parental love as the one that mourns loss most. On earth, there are some complicating factors that make loss of children especially difficult. Some of these complicating factors will be replaced or disappear in the afterlife, and that may lessen sadness so that it becomes more like the loss of other loved ones.

a) The Instinctual Part of the Parent-Child Bond May Cease

When I was 11, I excitedly told schoolmates on the bus that our family dog, a German shorthaired pointer named Gayleene, had puppies. Two children wanted to see the puppies, so I brought them home. I opened the front door to the smell of damp fur and milk. I beckoned them to follow. But as I rounded the corner from the short hallway into the living room, I heard a roar and froze. Gayleene half rose, the four speckled puppies attached to the front of her chest dropping loose with a sucking sound while others further back kept feeding. Her roar—a mix of a howl and deep growl—emanated from her dappled chest, pulsed through her tautly stretched neck, and reverberated out her whiskered mouth opened in an “O” just below quivering nostrils. Her chocolate ears pressed back and her brown eyes bulged wild and wide.

I put out my hand to stop the others. “This isn’t a good idea,” I whispered, and they nodded, turned, and left. I shut the door and peeked back around the corner. Gayleene had lain back down and was busy nuzzling her little ones back into place so they could feed. I gingerly approached and sat in a chair not far from her while I pondered the sudden change in her personality. She ignored me, apparently not considering me a danger.

That day I learned that female animals have a strong instinct to protect their young. Later, I learned that both male and female humans generally have such an instinct, too. The Bible calls this instinct God-given and observes that ostriches have less of it (Job 39:14-17) while she-bears are ferociously endowed (Proverb 17:12).

The Mama-bear Instinct May Cease

Detail of Book of Life in “Last Judgement” by Michelangelo (Web Gallery of Art: Public Domain, Wikimedia)

Instincts are behaviors that are innate rather than learned. In fact, the Bible likens people who act on passions alone to animals who act on instinct rather than reason (2 Peter 2:12; Jude 1:10). Thus instincts seem to be part of our physical makeup—our “flesh and blood”—rather than our minds. Since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50), I suspect that purely physical instincts that have no use in the next life will disappear with our earthly bodies.

This may include whatever is purely instinctual about the parent-child bond; for example, the mamma-bear instinct that causes parents to rush to defend their children. In humans, this protecting instinct ensures a family’s survival on earth, but such a drive is unneeded in the coming kingdom where there is no more death. If that instinct to protect our own disappears, then it would no longer drive emotions to greater heights.

b) Corruptions of Parental Love Will Cease

Although the instinctual parts of the parent-child relationship may desist, love will not, for “Love never ends” (1 Corinthians 13:8). On the other hand, certain corruptions of parental love that increase grief on earth will cease. Fire will reveal and burn these away (1 Corinthians 3:12-15):

The pursuit of immortality through offspring that causes the loss of an only child to also be the loss of preserving one’s memory

The pursuit of self-worth through being needed that results in loss of purpose when children leave or die

The idolizing of children that may result in abandoning God if family expectations aren’t met (Matthew 10:38)

c) A Sibling Relationship Will Replace the Parent-Child Relationship

Jesus considered blood ties to have less significance than spiritual ties (Matthew 10:37; 12:49-50). This particularly makes sense when we consider that in the kingdom of heaven our family relationships actually change, especially the parent-child relationship, because God adopts those who are born again (Romans 8:23). When someone adopts a child, her parental ties to the birth parent end.

In the kingdom of heaven, everyone will be a child of God the Father, and the earthly parent-child relationship will become a heavenly sibling relationship.

Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children? Part 2: 3 Ways Blood Relationships Change Share on X

In This Series “Will there be Sorrow in Heaven over Una)a)saved Children?”:

3 Approaches that Don’t Work (Part 1)
3 Ways Blood Relationships to Saved & Unsaved Children will Change (Part 2)
2 Ways the Judgment will Affect Sadness in Heaven (Part 3)

July 4, 2017/0 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Bible Perplexities, Bible Study, Message Series

Will There Be Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children? Part 1

A reader asks about sorrow in heaven over unsaved children:

If we who are in Heaven have memory of our life back on earth, how can there be no mourning from parents who may not see their children in Heaven? But if our children are not with us in Heaven that would be a painful reminder that seems to interfere with Revelation 21:4.
Steve

The Problem of Sorrow in Heaven

This is a great question, Steve. I assume your question is about adult children since most theologians think young children are saved, as Dr. Clay Jones argues in Why Does God Allow Evil?: “Although Christians differ about whether all children will be saved, many of them, including apologists such as Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and Greg Koukl, have argued that all who die before the age of accountability (see Deuteronomy 1:39) will be saved” (2017: 90).

Revelation 21:4 says, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” How can there be no more mourning or crying if Christian parents in heaven remember beloved unsaved adult children?

God’s Heart on Sorrow in Heaven

Let me begin with a story. One evening our foster daughters’ rebellion discouraged my husband and me greatly. We’d poured our lives into them, we’d done everything we knew to help them, we’d sacrificed for them, but they weren’t leaving destructive ways. So my husband went walking on the hill next to our house among the frames of partially constructed homes so he could pray. With tears in his eyes, he asked, “Lord, what if these girls never come to know you?” Immediately, the words came to mind: “Then you will know the fellowship of my suffering” (Philippians 3:10). At that, we understood better what it is like for God to love those who reject him. That helped immensely.

When we talk about sorrow in heaven over lost loved ones, it’s important to remember God’s heart. He desires all to be saved (Ezekiel 18:23; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus grieved over the lost (Matthew 23:37; Luke 19:41). He told us, “there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Luke 15:10). The Bible describes Jesus as “a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief,” which assures us that “as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (Isaiah 53:3; 2 Corinthians 1:5). He shares our sorrow over lost loved ones.

3 Common But Unworkable Approaches to Sorrow in Heaven

Sorrow in Heaven depicted in Last Judgement

“Last Judgment” by Michelangelo (Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

Here are three common approaches to this problem.

Sorrow in Heaven Approach 1: Universalism

Some argue like this: Perfect joy in heaven cannot exist if loved ones reside in hell; the Bible says there will be perfect joy in heaven; therefore, everyone must go to heaven. But universalism contradicts Jesus’ teaching about eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46) and about salvation coming only through him (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Sorrow in Heaven Approach 2: Memory Loss

This argument also contends that we cannot have perfect joy in heaven if loved ones are in hell, but resolves the problem by saying we won’t remember our earthly lives or even that we had children. But what would it mean for Jacob to be “gathered to his people” if he doesn’t know who “his people” are (Genesis 49:33)? Also, how can the deeds of the saved follow them (Revelation 14:13) if they don’t remember those deeds? To remember Corrie ten Boom’s faithfulness in the face of the Holocaust requires remembering the evil of the Holocaust, too.

Sorrow in Heaven Approach 3: Beatific Vision

The saved shall see God face-to-face and know him fully (1 Corinthians 13:4). We call this seeing and knowing the “beatific vision.” Particularly during the middle ages, many believed that in heaven the saved gaze and contemplate on God eternally. They’re so filled with joy that they’re unconcerned with anything else, including the lost. But Revelation 6:9-10 says “the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God” cried out, “how long before you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on earth?” Also, in Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), the rich man is in Hades, yet Abraham knows his history and talked to him over a chasm.

There you have three common approaches that don’t work. In Part 2 and Part 3, I’ll cover three considerations about sorrow in heaven that do work. Part 2 addresses just the issue of parents knowing adult children are in hell. Part 3 addresses any unsaved loved ones.

Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children? Part 1: 3 Common Approaches that Don't Work Share on X

In This Series on “Will there be Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children?”:

3 Common Approaches that Don’t Work (Part 1)
3 Ways the Parent-Child Relationship Changes in Heaven (Part 2)
2 Ways the Judgment Affects Sadness in Heaven (Part 3)

June 29, 2017/3 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Bible Study, Psalms

Does God send good people to hell?

A reader asks this about good people:

There seem to be a lot of good people doing kind things out there; it’s hard to believe they will be condemned to hell because the only way there is Jesus. I reconcile myself with knowing my Savior is 100% good. But does God send good people to hell just because they don’t accept Jesus as Savior?

To paraphrase R. C. Sproul, “Nothing happens to good people because good people do not need salvation.” Of course, the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments is that although some people appear outwardly good, there are no truly good people:

The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Psalm 14:2-3

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:23

Now, the Biblical notion that no one is good puzzles people, especially Americans. A 2006 Barna survey found that Americans “generally see themselves as good people, spiritually stable, and living a good and honorable life.” They “hold a generally favorable impression of themselves”: 97% think they are “a good citizen,” 94% think they’re “friendly,” and 90% say they’re “generous.”

Fallen fence stripped of ivy that hid termite infestation

So why the disparity between what Americans think about themselves and what the Bible says? I think that’s best explained with an analogy.

Fifteen-foot New Zealand tea trees with ruby red flowers screened and shaded our yard for twenty-five years, until they died suddenly a few weeks ago. When we pulled them out, our five-foot wood fence covered in English ivy stood visible for the first time in decades, swaying a bit. That night, the wind knocked the fence over, stripping away ivy as it fell and exposing extensive termite damage and decay.

A fence can look good without actually being good.

So can people. Here are seven reasons why.

1) Looking Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

Today in America, we’ve got a “fence” of laws and etiquette rules. We tend to think that those who stay on the law-abiding side of that fence are good people.

In Jesus’ day, there was a group of people who likewise had a “fence” of rules that went beyond what God commanded, rules that, if you followed them, most people would say that you’re a good person. Though we think negatively about them now, in Jesus’ day most everyone thought the Pharisees were the epitome of good. Except Jesus: Jesus knew their hearts weren’t pure.

Americans are like Pharisees: We think law-abiding, charitable people are good, because we forget the heart.

Termite damage

The English ivy covering our fence hid the infestation of termites beneath; we had to look closely and peel back the ivy to see the true condition of the fence.

In the same way, outwardly following decent laws and rules can cover what’s in our hearts and can hide an infestation of hatred, lusts, self-indulgence, and greed within. We need to look closely and peel back our outward good deeds to see the true condition of our hearts.

For example, Jesus explained that fantasizing things you want to do but don’t want to get caught doing—such as hurting someone you hate or sleeping with someone other than your spouse—is sinning in your heart and taints you (1 John 3:15; Matthew 5:28); after all, if the only reason you don’t do what you want to do is you don’t want to get caught and suffer the consequences, then you’re refraining out of self-interest, not goodness. Jesus called controlling outward actions while letting the heart run amok to be equivalent to splashing white paint over a sepulcher of decay, stench, and rot (Matthew 23:27-28).

2) Mere Looking Good has to Go

Although Clay had often examined the fence closely and knew of the termite damage for years, the neighbor who planted the ivy declined replacing the fence because it meant losing the ivy he liked so much. Similarly, we can decline to fix our heart issues because it may mean we’ll lose the outward trappings we think make us look good.

3) Doing Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

Rufous hummingbird perched on orange honeysuckle vine that hid fence’s damage

In a narrow stretch where the tea trees didn’t grow, our fence started curving awkwardly beneath its green ivy load a few years ago, letting us know something was amiss. But an orange honeysuckle vine took root and quickly shot up a dozen feet, hiding the evidence that anything was wrong with the fence while displaying gorgeous orange trumpet flowers that delighted rufous hummingbirds and bright yellow orioles.

Likewise, if we donated money to help Hurricane Katrina victims and watch our neighbors’ yards while they vacation, these good deeds shoot up, look gorgeous, and delight those they help. But just as the honeysuckle hid the termites but didn’t remove them, so our good deeds may hide our sins but can’t remove them.

4) What Darkness Hides Decays

The variegated ivy that clambered up the fence and tea trees grew so thick that sunlight couldn’t break through. In the dank darkness, the fence decayed.

In the same way, Jesus said those who thought they were good—“who trusted in themselves that they were righteous”—wouldn’t bring their deeds to God’s light because “anyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed” (Luke 18:9-14; John 3:20). Because they didn’t acknowledge their sins, they didn’t ask for forgiveness and so they were left unjustified, with their moral decay spreading in spiritual darkness (Luke 18:14, 16:25; Matthew 23:27).

5) What Darkness Hides Breeds

‘Aventures de la famille Raton’ by Felicien de Myrbach-Rheinfeld (1853—1940) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The darkness under the thick ivy drew rats that nested and bred more rats. Ugh.

Similarly, those who believe they’re good have the dark environment that draws hypocrisy and lets it nest and breed. Here are hypocrisies Jesus identified in outwardly good people

Publicly giving donations and offering showy prayers to gain others’ admiration (Matthew 6:1-6)
Showing contempt towards others (Luke 18:9-14)
Making a show of following some of God’s commands while ignoring the greater—but less eye-catching—commands of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23)
Excusing in ourselves what we condemn in others (Matthew 23:28; Matthew 7:1-5)
Using human laws unjustly (Mark 7:9-13)

6) Unfallen Sometimes Means Untested

New Zealand tea trees on left supported fence for decades

When our tea trees came down, the fence couldn’t stand on its own against the wind. Though it survived strong winds with the tea trees’ help, by itself it fell to minor gusts.

Sometimes we think the reason we haven’t fallen to a particular sin is our goodness, when really it’s just that we’ve never been tested without supports such as health, steady income, strong relationships, dutiful children, success, peace, security, etc.

For instance, the Pharisees claimed they would never have committed their ancestors’ sins, such as killing prophets; they were too good for that. Not true, Jesus said (Matthew 23:29-36). Their “goodness” was being upheld by their positions of authority and popular opinion. When Jesus’ popularity caused those to fall, jealousy and rage set them to do the very deeds to which they were sure they’d never stoop.

7) What’s Perishable Perishes

The trouble with wood fences is that wood by nature is susceptible to termites and decay, so it’s not eternal.

Our bodies are susceptible to sin and decay too. In fact, “all have sinned” and no one is truly good (Psalm 14:3; Romans 3:10, 12, 23).

But there’s good news. Jesus told Nicodemus—an outwardly good Pharisee—that without Jesus all stand condemned, but with Jesus we can born again and have eternal life (John 3:1-21). Our present bodies will die, but we’ll enter God’s kingdom with a new, imperishable body that’s neither sinned nor been sinned against (1 Corinthians 15:42, 50-54).

That’s very good news.

Americans are like Pharisees (but not in the way you think!) Share on X

Does God send good people to hell? Share on X

Why even 'good' people need Easter's message Share on X

March 23, 2016/6 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Jesus in the Old Testament, Message Series

Was Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 1

Does conscience require us to stamp the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac as unhistorical or Abraham wrong and a moral failure?

Was Abraham wrong in the binding of Isaac?

“The Sacrifice of Abraham” by Rembrandt, 1635: In this earlier work, the angel knocks the knife from Abraham

Best-selling author Rachel Held Evans has a popular blog, speaks frequently, and has published three books through the Christian publishers Thomas Nelson and Zondervan. One of her blogs garnered a lot of attention: “I would fail Abraham’s test (and I bet you would too).” You may recall that in Genesis 22, God tests Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac on a mountain. The aged Abraham and young man Isaac go to the mountain. Isaac allows his father to bind him and lay him atop a stack of wood, but as Abraham takes up his knife, an angel stops him. Abraham then sees a ram caught in a thicket behind him and sacrifices it instead.

Rachel Held Evans’s Reimagined Text

Here’s what Evans wrote about Genesis 22 (emphases hers):

It’s a test I’m certain I would have failed:

Get your son. Get a knife. Slit his throat and set him on fire.

I’d like to think that even if those demands thundered from the heavens in a voice that sounded like God’s, I’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed them.

Regardless of one’s interpretation of this much-debated and reimagined text (which makes a bit more sense in its ancient Near Eastern context), the story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac should unsettle every parent and every person with a conscience. Yes, God provided a lamb, but only after Abraham gathered the wood, loaded up the donkey, made the journey, arranged the altar, tied his son to the stake, and raised the knife in the air.

Be honest. Would you have even gathered the wood?

I think I would have failed Abraham’s test. And I think you would have too.

And I’m beginning to think that maybe that’s okay….

Evans’s “reimagined text” has God callously barking out orders and Abraham tying his son to a stake—embellishments that make a difficult text more difficult, that create a straw man that’s easier to defeat than the actual text, and that obscure the text’s real meaning.

straw man fallacy: Arguing against a distortion, an exaggeration, or a misrepresentation of someone’s position rather than against the actual position.

Alternative: Not Historical Reality

Evans later brings up Joshua driving the Canaanites out of the Promised Land to show why the two stories may not be true:

Those who defend these stories as historical realities representative of God’s true desires and actions in the world typically respond to challenges to that interpretation by declaring: “God is God, and … we have no business questioning [what he commands]”

Here Evans is not among those who “defend these stories as historical realities”; in other words, she thinks Genesis 22 may be false.

“Abraham’s Sacrifice” by Rembrandt, 1655: In this later work, the angel tenderly wraps his arms around Abraham

Why does Evans doubt these passages are real events? She says that “God … imprinted us all with a conscience—with a deep sense of right and wrong,” and to accept “as just … actions I believe are evil” would be “to deny that conscience.” One of the actions her conscience tells her is wrong is God’s command to Abraham, because she (like atheist Richard Dawkins) thinks the command looks like abuse:

… it doesn’t make sense to me that a God whose defining characteristic is supposed to be love would present Himself to His creation in a way that looks nothing like our understanding of love. If love can look like abuse … everything is relativized! Our moral compass is rendered totally unreliable.

Alternative: God Doesn’t Exist

She explains that she doesn’t want to accept these stories as true because if they are

This is a hard God to root for. It’s a hard God to defend against all my doubts and all the challenges posed by science, reason, experience, and intuition. I once heard someone say he became an atheist for theological reasons, and that makes sense to me. Once you are convinced that the deity you were taught to worship does evil things, it’s easier to question the deity’s very existence than it is to set aside your moral objections and worship anyway.

Alternative: Abraham Wrong & Failed the Test

So far she’s presented two alternatives: the stories are not historical realities or God doesn’t exist. Evans ends with a third alternative:

I am not yet a mother, and still I know, deep in my gut, that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion.

Maybe the real test isn’t in whether you drive the knife through the heart.

Maybe the real test is in whether you refuse.

So if God is good and did ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, then, in Evans’ mind, the test was in whether Abraham would refuse, and since Abraham didn’t refuse, he failed the “real test.” This alternative makes Abraham wrong and a moral failure.

***

Those strong statements contradict the Bible’s estimation of Abraham being an exemplar of faith for this very deed. And Evans’s first alternative—pitching perplexing Bible passages—always leads to bigger doubts about the Bible as a whole and about whether any of it can be trusted.

Should Christians follow Evans’s lead? Do we need to reject the Bible’s assessment of Abraham or call the chapter fiction?

Not at all.

My husband tried to contact Evans through her publicist and referenced my 2011 post, “Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice,” and the publicist said Evans would get back to him, but she never did. Her post poses questions I didn’t address, so I’ll address them here in a series, beginning today by defining and examining Evans’s main argument. Although Evans flits from Bible story to Bible story as she presents her reasons for doubting this one, for this series I’ll address the questions as they pertain just to the story of Abraham binding Isaac.

Rachel Held Evans’s Main Argument

Evans is right to ask questions and seek answers. Of course she should not “disengage my emotions and intellect and keep them a safe distance from my faith.” It saddens me whenever I hear anyone has been told that.

The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham wrong?

“The Sacrifice of Isaac” by Juan de Valdes Leal, 1659

But there are good, solid answers to the Abraham-Isaac questions that don’t call for discarding parts of the Bible and historic Christian doctrine.

Let’s look at Evans’s main argument. As I understand it, it goes like this:

The conscience “God … imprinted us all with” tells her “that I would sooner turn my back on everything I know to be true than sacrifice my child on the altar of religion” as Abraham almost did; therefore, either

- God’s “real test is in whether you refuse,” or
- “stories” such as these are not “historical realities,” or
- the “deity you were taught to worship does evil things” so “it’s easier to question the deity’s very existence than it is to set aside your moral objections and worship anyway.”

To summarize:

Her conscience tells her sacrificing an offspring is wrong; therefore, either

- God meant for Abraham to refuse to obey, or
- the story about Abraham and Isaac is historically false, or
- the God revealed in the Bible does not exist.

Let’s look at that first option.

Was Abraham wrong? Did he fail the test?

Evans says, “Maybe the real test is in whether you refuse,” proposing that Abraham failed the test. Here obedience made Abraham wrong. In her follow-up post the next week, she quotes a rabbi who says that Abraham failed the test because he should have protested.

Is this interpretation valid?

No, because it doesn’t fit the text.

Both the OT and NT affirm that Abraham’s obedience was what God wanted.

First, Genesis 22 says God neither rebuked nor corrected Abraham; rather, he blessed him for his action: “because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you … because you have obeyed my voice” (Genesis 22:15-18, emphasis mine).

Second, the New Testament repeatedly praises Abraham for the offering. James writes that Abraham was “justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar” and that this act fulfilled the Scripture that said, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness (James 2:21, 23). The author of Hebrews tells us, “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac” because he “considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead” (Hebrews 11:17-19).

Both the Old Testament and New Testament, then, affirm that Abraham’s obedience was what God wanted. His obedience did not make Abraham wrong and a moral failure.

So the first option—that Abraham should have refused to obey—doesn’t at all fit the text. Let’s look at Evans’s second option: the story about Abraham and Isaac never happened.

Is Rachel Held Evans right that Abraham failed the test when he bound Isaac? #apologetics Share on X

Is the story not “historical reality”?

The main trouble with this view for Christians is that, as we saw above, the New Testament treats the story as something that actually happened. Jesus himself honored Abraham and praised his works (John 8:39).

Moreover, Paul writes that Genesis 22 “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham … the man of faith” (Galatians 3:8-9). How? The prophets Abraham and Isaac were acting out a future event—the Father sending the Son as a sacrifice for sins—so that the Jews would recognize the significance of the future event when it happened (more on this in a coming post).

New Testament scholar D. A. Carson says that when Jesus said, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad” (John 8:56), he referred to the binding of Isaac and the promise resulting from it of the blessing of all nations:

Even if ‘to see my day’ does not mean some prophetic vision of the literal fulfilment of prophecy in Jesus and his ministry, but some vision, however vague, of the promise inherent in the binding of Isaac or (better) of the covenant promising that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed …, the fact remains that Jesus identifies the ultimate fulfilment of all Abraham’s hopes and joys with his own person and work.[ref]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 357.[/ref]

“Sacrifice of Isaac” by Caravaggio, 1603

Besides the New Testament’s testimony to the binding of Isaac being an actual historical event, there’s the difficulty that atheists will consider it cheating that Evans claims that the parts of the Bible she likes are true and the parts she doesn’t like are false. Tim Keller calls this making a God in your own image, and, ironically, Evans agrees that “we can’t go …bending God into our own image.”

This course of action doesn’t ultimately console Christians either, because they know that once you toss out passages you don’t like, you’re going to wonder whether you have any logical reason to keep the passages you do like.

Such as salvation by grace.

Is Rachel Held Evans right--the story of Abraham binding Isaac isn't historical? #apologetics Share on X

Does a good God exist then?

Are we stuck then with Evans’s final alternative: a good God doesn’t exist?

Certainly not.

This is a faulty dilemma. There are at least two more alternatives: (1) we could be missing facts that clear up the issues, or (2) we could have a mistaken conscience. We’ll look at those options in the rest of this series. There we’ll see the bigger context of what God was doing in Abraham’s life and what the Scripture means when it says Scripture “preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham.” We will see why this story is an integral part of the gospel and how it served to bring people to know him.

faulty dilemma: presenting two (or three) views, options, or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only alternatives.

***

Next, part 2 of this series addresses Rachel Held Evans’s main argument by explaining missing cultural facts that clear up parts of the story.

Does conscience force us to reject the story of Abraham binding Isaac? #apologetics Share on X

Abraham & Human Sacrifice? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 2: Did Rachel Held Evans miss cultural facts?
What Made Abraham Different? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 3: Rachel Held Evans said she’d sooner be struck dead than obey, so why did Abraham nearly sacrifice Isaac?
Do God’s Motives Matter? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 4: If God’s defining characteristic is supposed to be love, why would he ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?
Conscience says Abraham Wrong? Answering Rachel Held Evans, Part 5: Does God expect us to deny conscience by accepting the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac?
Abraham, Isaac & Child Sacrifice: A short version of this series
Jesus in the Old Testament

October 27, 2015/8 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Bible Perplexities, Psalms, Spiritual Practices

How to Understand Psalms

I used to dislike the Book of Psalms because the psalms kept repeating themselves instead of proceeding point-by-point to a nice conclusion in the first line of the last stanza. After all, essays put the main point in the first sentence of the last paragraph. That’s why we call it a “conclusion.” The psalms didn’t do that.

The problem was that I didn’t understand Psalms’ genre. Not understanding the genre of a book of the Bible leads to not understanding the book. You see, every kind of writing has a genre. We read a newspaper differently than a love note or a poem or a bank deposit slip. We read Philippians differently than Proverbs.

It wasn’t until I learned a bit about Hebrew poetry that I began to not only appreciate, but love, Psalms. Here’s what I needed to know.

To Understand Psalms, Find & Compare Parallel Elements

The psalms are Hebrew poems. A Hebrew poem’s basic unit is a poetic line. Most lines have two segments, though some have three or four, and a few have only one.

Most line segments in Hebrew poetry use parallelism. They often say something similar in multiple ways, giving us different ways to grasp the poet’s meaning. The best part about parallelism is that it translates well, so we don’t have to know Hebrew to enjoy it. God was planning ahead when he helped the Hebrews develop their poetry!

Here are the parallel elements of Psalm 1:1 lined up:

Parallel elements in Psalm 1:1 are below each other

What I thought was pointless redundancy was an invitation to compare the parallel elements to see how they relate. In this case, they intensify, which lead me to ponder how to avoid the progression by not taking the first step.

In the verse above, the parallelism is illustrated like this: ABCD/B’C’D’/B’’C’’D’’. Sometimes the parallel elements are placed in a pattern like this: AB/B’A’. This is called a chiasm (KEY-asm; chi is the Greek name for the letter “X”). In the chart below, the lines drawn between the parallel elements of Psalm 1:2 cross in the shape of an X:

Parallel elements in Psalm 1:2 form an X shape

When I compared the parallel elements in this verse and considered what delight and meditation have to do with each other, I realized that the righteous so delight in the Lord’s instructions that they meditate on it all the time. We naturally think about that which delights us. Delight brings meditation, and meditation increases delight.

By this time I was delighting in parallelism.

To Understand Psalms, Note the Type of Parallelism

Knowing the most common types of parallelism helps us interpret psalms.

In synonymous parallelism, the parallel units use words with similar meanings to express the same idea in a similar way. Both of the above verses use synonymous parallelism, and I showed you how pondering on how the units are similar brings greater understanding of the verse.

In antithetical parallelism, the parallel units use words with opposite meanings to contrast ideas. In Psalm 1:6, “knows” is parallel to “perish”; in the Bible, those whom God knows he watches over and keeps from perishing:

For the Lord knows the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.

In synthetic parallelism, the parallel units do something else, such as complete a thought. In Psalm 1:4, the first line segment tells us the wicked are not like the well-watered fruit trees from the previous verse, and the second line segment tells us what they are like. That invites us to compare the functions, value, and endurance of fruit trees with that of chaff.

The wicked are not so,
but are like chaff that the wind drives away

To Understand Psalms, Find the Theme from Parallelism

It’s not just segments within a poetic line that have parallelism. The entire poem may have parallel elements. Often the first and last words or lines are parallel, in which case they’re the clue to the theme. Psalm 1’s first word is “blessed” and its last word is “perish” (antithetical parallelism); both lines refer to “ways”; therefore, the theme is There is a way that is blessed and a way that perishes.

Sometimes the first and last stanzas are parallel, as are the second and second-to-last stanzas, and so on, forming a chiasm of stanzas in which the center is the psalm’s theme. Psalm 71 is such a chiasm:

Parallel stanzas in Psalm 71 form a chiasm

In other words, I’d been looking for the “conclusion” in the physical conclusion. But in Hebrew poetry, the central point is often in the center! Compare all the stanzas equal distance from the center to understand psalms with chiasm, and you’ll find the poet’s thought progressions.

As you can see …

If you want to understand Psalms, parallelism is the key Share on X

Adapted from Discovering Hope in the Psalms (Harvest House, 2017)

June 8, 2015/2 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Apologetics, Bible Perplexities, Psalms

Psalm 137 and Dashing Babies on Rocks

What does Psalm 137:8-9 mean: “O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”? Why would a supposedly righteous person use such an awful image? How can the psalmist call someone who does such a thing “blessed”?

Shocking, isn’t it?

Poets use gut-wrenching imagery to get others to feel what they feel. The Jews had watched Babylonian troops tear down Jerusalem’s walls, loot the temple, and burn their buildings. The invading soldiers slaughtered them with swords and dashed their babies on rocks.[ref] These and other horrific acts were meant to terrorize kingdoms into submission. ”The dark realities of warfare in the ancient Near East often doomed the innocent to destruction. While soldiers and men were often subject to dismemberment and impalement, women and children might also be ravished and slaughtered…. Pregnant women might be lacerated in order to extract the fruit of their wombs for sport, and infants were smashed on the ground….” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Volume 5, John H. Walton, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 432. [/ref] Then they shackled survivors and exiled them to Babylonia (today’s southern Iraq). [ref]Jeremiah 40:1.[/ref]

The writer of this psalm is one of those exiles. He’s grieving the loss of home and loved ones—perhaps even his own child. He’s written this psalm to help the community of exiles grieve.

The Imagery of Psalm 137 Symbolizes the Horrors the Jews Suffered

Of all the horrors the psalmist saw, he chooses one as emblematic of their suffering: murdered infants. The psalmist uses a common poetic device called synecdoche, in which a part of something represents all of it. The dashed babies is the one horror he most wants to see Babylon repaid for, and so he uses it as a symbol for the total repayment he knows is coming.

Synecdoche: a poetic device in which a part of something represents all of it.

Why did he think Babylon would be repaid?

Psalm 137:9 Quotes Prophets

The prophets who foretold Judah’s exile also said the exile would last just seventy years. Then the Medes would conquer Babylon, repay her for all she did to Judah, and send the Jewish exiles home. One of the things the prophets said would happen to Babylon is this: “Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes” (Isaiah 13:16). So the psalmist isn’t making some gruesome punishment up: he is quoting what the prophet Isaiah foretold. He uses one image from what the prophets said would happen to Babylon to stand for the whole of the oracles about Babylon. Thus, his statement is a proclamation of faith in God’s promise that Babylon would fall and the exiles would come home.

The Imagery Represents Eye-for-Eye Justice

The Jews’ concern with equal repayment may seem foreign to us, but it’s important to understand that they lived under a talionic (eye-for-eye) justice system where punishment matched the crime. One should be treated as one treated others. They had no problem wanting God to repay wrongdoers, especially when they knelt powerless before a cruel oppressor. Gordon Wenham explains: “The psalmist is asking for justice, not revenge. This will demonstrate to others that God hears prayer and intervenes on behalf of the poor and oppressed.” [ref]Gordon J. Wenham, Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 171.[/ref] The Jews wanted eye-for-eye justice because it showed God cared about righting wrongs.

Wenham adds an important note: “In these psalms there is no suggestion that the psalmist will personally intervene; vindication is left to God.” [ref]Ibid.[/ref] God always gets it right.

Additionally, in Psalm 137:9 it’s important to note that the psalmist is not asking God to have babies killed; rather, he is commenting on the state of those who fulfill the prophecies of Babylon’s fall.

The Imagery Symbolizes Ending a Dynasty

There’s another piece of symbolism here. Ending a reign in ancient days meant eradicating the royal line. Leaving an heir to the throne alive invited future rebellion. Psalm 137 speaks of the coming of the end of Babylon’s ruling dynasty.

Erich Zenger, who was Professor of Biblical History at the University of Münster in Germany, says this:

Psalm 137 is a political poem: It deals with the end of Babylon’s reign of terror. This is also important with respect to the image of the children of the daughter Babylon, who are to be smashed against the stone pavements of the capital city. “The children” are those of the royal house, that is, of the dynasty (cf. Isa. 7:14-16; 9:1-6). The horrible image means to say that this dynasty of terror ought to be exterminated completely (“root and branch”).[ref]Erich Zenger, A God of Vengeance? Understanding the Psalms of Divine Wrath, trans. Linda M. Maloney(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 50.[/ref]

But Why Call Him “Blessed”?

So the psalmist uses emotive imagery to symbolize the horrors that the Jews suffered, the whole of the prophecies about Babylon’s demise, the eye-for-eye repayment he considered just, and the end of a cruel dynasty.

Painting of Rembrandt's "Belshazzar's Feast," for Psalm 137:8-9

“Belshazzar’s Feast” by Rembrandt [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Still, why would the psalmist call the one enacting punishment on Babylon “blessed” or “happy”? It is not that he would be happy to kill babies. It is simply this: he would be happy to end a cruel and tyrannical regime.

On the night Cyrus the Great, King of the Medes and Persians, invaded Babylon, the Babylonian King Nabonidus was absent. His son Belshazzar was partying with holy vessels plundered from Jerusalem’s temple. The overthrow was relatively bloodless, but Belshazzar died that night (Daniel 5:30), and there is little doubt his children died too to prevent a future challenge to the throne.

Even the Babylonians were happy about the dynasty’s demise: “The inhabitants of Babylon greeted Cyrus not as a conqueror but as a liberator, and spread green branches before him.”[ref]Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 87. [/ref]

Blogs on other Bible questions

Was Martha’s sister Mary a prostitute?

Was Martha’s sister Mary a prostitute? What about Mary Magdalene? Was Martha’s sister Mary the same person as Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons were cast?

I hear these questions surprisingly often. Here’s why.

Stained glass of Martha and Mary: Was Mary a prostitute?

Stained glass of Martha and Mary in St. Nicholas Church, Orebro, Sweden. Public domain photo by David Castor.

The gospels have an account of Mary of Bethany—the sister of Martha and Lazarus—anointing Jesus’ feet and wiping them with her hair, and an account of a sinful woman doing the same. Many people wonder if both accounts are of the same event.

Additionally, popular culture often identifies the sinful woman as Mary Magdalene and depicts her as a prostitute. For example, medieval paintings, the musical Jesus Christ: Superstar, and Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ all show Mary Magdalene as a prostitute.

Thus it’s no wonder people ask if Mary of Bethany was a demon-possessed prostitute.

But was she?

The short answer: Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were different women and neither Mary was a prostitute. Let’s break this into separate issues.

Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were different women

The New Testament differentiates between about eight women named Mary by noting to whom they’re related or from where they come. The siblings Martha, Mary, and Lazarus lived in Bethany, a village in Judea. “Magdalene” means “of Magdala,” so Mary Magdalene came from the town of Magdala in Galilee.

Mary of Bethany: This Mary sat at Jesus’ feet while her sister Martha took care of guests. She watched Jesus raise her brother Lazarus from the dead. She anointed Jesus’ head and feet with expensive perfume. (See Luke 10:38-42; John 11; and John 12:1-7 for passages about this Mary.)
Mary Magdalene: Jesus cast seven demons from her. She traveled with Jesus and the disciples, taking care of their needs. Mary Magdalene was at the cross and was the first to see the resurrected Jesus. (Passages about Mary Magdalene include Luke 8:2; Mark 15:40; and John 20:11-18.)

Mary of Bethany and Luke’s sinful woman were different women

The gospels recount similar events in which a woman wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair at the house of someone named Simon. John’s account speaks of Mary of Bethany and Luke talks of an unnamed sinful woman. This is why people sometimes think Mary of Bethany is the sinful woman. But Luke’s account differs significantly from the others and must be a separate event:

Mary of Bethany	Unnamed “woman of the city who was a sinner”
wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair	wiped Jesus’ feet with her hair
after anointing his feet and head with expensive nard	after anointing his feet with her tears and an unnamed ointment
at the house of Simon the leper	at the house of Simon the Pharisee
in Bethany in Judea	in Galilee
offending Judas Iscariot because of wastefulness	offending Simon the Pharisee who wouldn’t let a sinful woman touch him
at the end of Jesus’ ministry	at the start of Jesus’ ministry
in preparation for his burial	as an illustration of Jesus’ ability to forgive sins
Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8	Luke 7:36-50

Additionally, Simon the leper and Simon the Pharisee cannot be the same person because a leper could not be a Pharisee.[ref]Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 1: 1:1-9:50, BEC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 690.[/ref] While it might seem odd that both foot perfumings happened in the house of someone named Simon, that name was extremely popular in Jesus’ day: The New Testament lists about nine men named Simon, including two of Jesus’ disciples and one of his brothers.

The Bible calls neither Mary a prostitute

No Scripture portrays Mary of Bethany as a prostitute. It’s only when people confuse her with Luke’s sinful woman that this becomes a question.

Luke’s account does not name the forgiven sinful woman’s sin, but the possibilities include prostitution, adultery, debt, and being married to someone with a dishonorable occupation (such as tax collecting).[ref]Bock, 695.[/ref]

It’s popular to identify this unnamed woman as Mary Magdalene and to see her as a prostitute. But the Bible nowhere links Mary Magdalene to her. In fact, there is no Scripture anywhere suggesting Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.

What drove calling Mary a prostitute?

How did the idea become so prevalent? One reason, according to AmericanCatholic.org, is this: “Pope Gregory, who became pope in 590 A.D., clinched Mary’s mistaken reputation as sinner when he delivered a powerful homily in which he combined Luke’s anonymous sinful woman (Lk 7:36-50) with Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene.” Vatican II corrected this notion and confirmed Mary Magdalene was neither the forgiven sinner of Luke 7 nor Mary of Bethany.[ref]Carol Ann Morrow, “St. Mary Magdalene: Redeeming Her Gospel Reputation,” The Catholic Update, AmericanCatholic.org, May 2006,http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0506.asp [accessed 2/15/2014].[/ref]

Bottom line: neither Mary a prostitute

So there we have it: The Bible depicts neither Mary as a prostitute, but all three women as forgiven of their sins and followers of Jesus the Christ.

February 17, 2014/46 Comments/by Jean E. Jones

Bible Perplexities

Why did Jesus say, “Eat his flesh”?

“The Feeding of the Five Thousand” by Jacobo Bassano

Question: I was chewing on the passage where Jesus says we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. How would you approach why Jesus would use these words?

That is a great question. After all, Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 caused many people to stop following him. Let’s look first at the context of what Jesus said, then at what the words mean, and finally at why Jesus would use such a distasteful phrase.

The Context

The day before, Jesus fed 5,000 men and an unknown number of women and children from five small barley loaves and two fish. This miracle reminded them of the miracle of manna that their ancestors ate in the desert when Moses led them out of slavery. Many Jews of Jesus’ day were expecting “the Prophet”—someone God would send who would be like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)—and this supper caused them to exclaim: “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”

They planned to force Jesus to be king (5,000 men were plenty to start a rebellion), but he slipped away. The next day they found him on the other side of the sea. Jesus warned them that they sought him not because of what the sign signified, but because they wanted full bellies (John 6:26). He refused to give them more bread and instead made claims they considered outrageous: he was the bread of life; he came from heaven; he could grant eternal life; and he could satisfy spiritual hunger and thirst.

This was not what they wanted. They wanted Jesus to lead a rebellion against Rome and keep filling their stomachs.

When they argued, Jesus proclaimed:

I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:53-54 (NIV)

They replied, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” Many not only stopped listening to him, they stopped following him.

What does “eat his flesh” mean?

Jesus’ initial point is that Jesus is the bread of life in that he satisfies spiritual hunger and gives eternal life, just as barley cakes and manna satisfy physical hunger and give physical life (6:35, 48-51).

Continuing the bread of life motif, “eat his flesh” is equivalent to believe in Jesus and thereby partake of all that his body’s death on the cross offered, including payment for sins and eternal life. As research professor of New Testament and commentator D. A. Carson puts it, It is appropriating Jesus through faith. [ref]Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1991), 305.[/ref] (If you’d like to see the verses that explain this, see “A Little Deeper: Equivalent Expressions” at the end of this blog.)

Why would Jesus say something so offensive?

Still, referencing cannibalism and drinking blood was offensive to Jews. Why would Jesus say something which would cause so many to abandon him? Here are three considerations.

Jesus wanted people to seek understanding

Jesus often used words with spiritual meanings that could be misunderstood if taken literally. Those who believed he was the Messiah could seek to find out what he truly meant, while those who weren’t listening for spiritual truth could shake their heads and walk away. Jesus often said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”—those without ears to hear he didn’t pursue.

Jesus wanted true followers

Those who left were at odds with Jesus’ mission: they wanted him to lead a political rebellion and perform daily miracles to meet their physical needs on earth. Presenting a difficult teaching drove away the distraction of false followers attempting to mold him into what they wanted rather than accepting from him what he offered.

Jesus’ metaphor would stick so they might later understand

The words were so graphic that the hearers would never forget them. Jesus spoke mainly in figures to the crowds, and when he plainly told the Twelve about his coming death and resurrection, they didn’t understand (Luke 9:21-22, 44-45). After the resurrection, Jesus’ disciples understood the significance of the crucifixion and openly preached that Jesus had died for the sins of the world. Those who quit following Jesus on this day who later heard of Jesus’ death and resurrection would be able to then understand that Jesus was saying that they needed to partake of his eternal sacrifice for them—if they finally had ears to hear.

***

A Little Deeper: Equivalent Expressions

How do we figure out what Jesus meant in this passage? First, John 6 is rich in imagery and metaphors that mean similar things. Looking at which expressions in Jesus’ sermon are equivalent helps us understand what he means.

Jesus equated laboring “for the food that endures to eternal life” to believing in him (John 6:27, 29), so we obtain the bread of life by believing in Jesus.
“The bread of life” is also “the food that endures to eternal life”; “the true bread from heaven”; “he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world”; and Jesus’ “flesh” that he would “give for the life of the world” (6:35, 27, 32, 33, 51).
Jesus gives eternal life to and raises from the dead those who (a) believe in him; (b) eat the bread of life; and (c) feed on his flesh (6:40, 51, 54), so all three are equivalent.

Second, “eat” is clearly metaphorical. Just as you used “chewing on” in your question and I used “distasteful” in my first paragraph, so we often use phrases related to eating metaphorically: we drink in a sunset, taste the good life, swallow the hard truth, and eat humble pie. We usually mean something like partaking of or participating in.

Third, John 1 tells us Jesus was the Word who “was with God” and “was God” and “became flesh”; this flesh is what he would give for the life of the world (John 1:1, 14, 6:51). He offered his body to be sacrificed in place of ours in order to pay for our sins, and thus showed himself to be “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Hebrews 9:28, 10:10; John 1:29).

Fourth, Jesus explained his meaning further during the Last Supper when he instituted communion so that his followers would eat bread and drink wine in memory of what he accomplished on the cross (Luke 22:17-20).

February 3, 2014/1 Comment/by Jean E. Jones

What Triggered “The Virgin Shall Conceive” Prophecy

The Lord’s Offer

The Promise That the Virgin Shall Conceive

“Virgin,” “Immanuel,” Curds, and the Child’s Age

Ahaz Openly Rejects God

Prophecies about Isaiah’s Child

Immanuel’s Land

For to Us a Child Is Born

The Initial Fulfillment of “The Virgin Shall Conceive”

The Later Fulfillment of “The Virgin Shall Conceive”

A Potato Portent

Prophecies and Portents

Fulfilled Prophecy as Portents

Deep as Sheol or High as Heaven

Related Posts

Books You Might Like

1. Jesus’s kingdom was not of this world.

The Jews expected an immediate reign on earth.

Jesus fulfilled some prophecies about the messiah in his first coming.

Jesus did not fulfill all prophecies about the messiah in his first coming.

Jesus will fulfill remaining prophecies in the future.

2. Jesus was both messiah and the prophet like Moses.

Some Jewish leaders desired neither a messiah nor a prophet.

Many Jewish leaders expected a messiah submissive to them in spiritual matters.

Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ authority to interpret the law of Moses.

The crowds embraced Jesus as both messiah and prophet.

3. The messiah was the suffering servant.

Isaiah gave clues that the suffering servant was the messiah.

Jesus fulfilled prophecies about the suffering servant.

4. The prophet was also the suffering servant.

Conclusion

Related Posts

Books You Might Like

1) Omnipresence means God’s presence fills the universe.

God is Spirit

What this means for us

2) Creation is not God.

What this means for us

3) God has sometimes made his presence known via theophanies.

What this means for us

4) God limits how much his presence is experienced by humans.

What this means for us

5) God will one day dwell with humans in a greater way.

What this means for us

Related Posts

Books You Might Like

2) Revelation will Lessen Sadness in Heaven

Sometimes We Love a Facade

The “Remains” of the Unsaved will Differ

3) Joy and Sadness can Co-exist

Joy and Sadness in Scripture Together

Joy and Sadness on Earth Together

Joy and Sadness in Heaven Together

In This Series “Will there be Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children?”:

For further reading:

3 Helpful Considerations About Sorrow in Heaven

1) Blood Relationships with Saved & Unsaved Children Will Change

a) The Instinctual Part of the Parent-Child Bond May Cease

The Mama-bear Instinct May Cease

b) Corruptions of Parental Love Will Cease

c) A Sibling Relationship Will Replace the Parent-Child Relationship

In This Series “Will there be Sorrow in Heaven over Una)a)saved Children?”:

The Problem of Sorrow in Heaven

God’s Heart on Sorrow in Heaven

3 Common But Unworkable Approaches to Sorrow in Heaven

Sorrow in Heaven Approach 1: Universalism

Sorrow in Heaven Approach 2: Memory Loss

Sorrow in Heaven Approach 3: Beatific Vision

In This Series on “Will there be Sorrow in Heaven over Unsaved Children?”:

1) Looking Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

2) Mere Looking Good has to Go

3) Doing Good Doesn’t Make Us Good People

4) What Darkness Hides Decays

5) What Darkness Hides Breeds

6) Unfallen Sometimes Means Untested

7) What’s Perishable Perishes

Rachel Held Evans’s Reimagined Text

Alternative: Not Historical Reality

Alternative: God Doesn’t Exist

Alternative: Abraham Wrong & Failed the Test