Don't Bring God Cows

According to the liturgical calendar, today is the 3rd Sunday of Easter. Yes, there is more than 1 Sunday of Easter. As I have said in the past, while we should be living out the truth of the resurrection every Sunday (after all, Christians moved the Sabbath to Sunday because of the resurrection), Easter can be a time to reflect on how much we actually do live out the resurrection, and if we're not, a time to get us back on track. Clearly, doing so will take more than 1 Sunday or 1 week, so Easter needs to extend beyond 1 Sunday. This 3rd Sunday of Easter, let's take some more time to reflect on what the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus did for us. Today, we're going to look in the most unusual place - the life of King Saul, as found in 1 Samuel.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (ESV)-

14 “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. 18 “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.

Before heading into 1 Samuel, I'd like to take a quick pit stop in Deuteronomy, more specifically, Deuteronomy 17. The first question that arises when examining King Saul is, "Did Yahweh really want Saul to become king?" Before asking that question, however, a better question to ask would be, "Did the Lord want Israel to have a king in the first place?" Well, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 has laws for a king, but your interpretation on why those laws exist all depends on whether you're a Calvinist or Arminian, whether you fall more on the side of predestination or free will. If you're Calvinist or believe in predestination, you believe God did predestine Israel to have kings, best proved by the fact that Yahweh established laws for a king centuries before a king takes the throne. The point of the Judges was to prove why Israel could not establish a theocratic government in which the Lord directly ruled over the people. Simply put, according to the Calvinists, the book of Judges proves why Israel can't have nice things. If you are Arminian or believe in free will, you believe God did want to rule directly over his people in a theocratic government, like in the book of Judges, but he foresaw the people of Israel asking for a king. Therefore, Yahweh got ahead of the people by establishing laws for a king, so he could grant their request in a way that was mutually beneficial to both sides. Simply put, according to the Arminian, it is as if the Lord is saying, "I don't like kings, but I will allow kings, as long as I can put up safeguards." Either way, these laws in Deuteronomy 17 prove that God did not disprove of Saul merely because he was a king. If you were to ask me which side of the debate I fall on, however, I would probably say the Arminian or free will side, for I think the life of Saul would support that side of the argument.

So did Yahweh really want Saul to become a king, especially when David is a man's after God's own heart, whereas Saul had no heart for God? After all, if you do the math, David would have been 18 years old when Samuel anointed Saul king of Israel. Surely the Lord could have Samuel anoint David instead of Saul. The best answer to that question is, again, simply put, to prove to Israel why it can't have nice things. Yahweh picks the first king according to Israel's standards. The fact that 1 Samuel 10:23 mentions that Saul was a head above the average Israelite meant that Saul looked the part of a king - he was tall, dark and handsome. The Lord picks the second king in accordance to his standards. David might be ruddy, as stated in 1 Samuel 16:12, but this ruddy boy becomes the man after God's own heart. Yahweh has to remind even his own prophet Samuel to look beyond the boy David's looks to see the heart of a king, as found in 1 Samuel 16:7. Therefore, I would not say God predestined Saul to fail as king, but rather, God foresaw Saul would fail, so he made it an opportune time to teach the people of Israel a lesson.

Indeed, I do believe Yahweh gave Saul a fair chance to serve both Yahweh and Israel as king, as evident in the book of 1 Samuel. To borrow baseball terms, reading through 1 Samuel, it becomes apparent that the Lord gave Saul 3 strikes before he was out, and each strike came with discipline or a punishment. The first strike resulted in loss of a dynasty, as evident in 1 Samuel 13:8-15. The second strike resulted in loss of kingship, as can be read in 1 Samuel 15. The third strike results in loss of life, as recorded in 1 Samuel 28. Of those 3 passages, I imagine most people are most familiar with 1 Samuel 28, as that chapter is the famous (infamous?) Witch of Endor passage, in which Saul consults a medium. The other 2 passages are less familiar, but they are both important passages for Saul's life, for upon closer examining, they reveal the same truth about Saul. Without further ado, take a closer look at Saul in 1 Samuel 13:8-15 and 1 Samuel 15.

1 Samuel 13:8-15 (ESV)-

8 He waited seven days, the time appointed by Samuel. But Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and the people were scattering from him. 9 So Saul said, “Bring the burnt offering here to me, and the peace offerings.” And he offered the burnt offering. 10 As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came. And Saul went out to meet him and greet him. 11 Samuel said, “What have you done?” And Saul said, “When I saw that the people were scattering from me, and that you did not come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines had mustered at Michmash, 12 I said, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the favor of the Lord.’ So I forced myself, and offered the burnt offering.” 13 And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the Lord your God, with which he commanded you. For then the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. 14 But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” 15 And Samuel arose and went up from Gilgal. The rest of the people went up after Saul to meet the army; they went up from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin

1 Samuel 15 (ESV)-

1 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ” 4 So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. 5 And Saul came to the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the valley. 6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart; go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. 7 And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction. 10 The word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the Lord all night. 12 And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. And it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned and passed on and went down to Gilgal.” 13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction.” 16 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the Lord said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Speak.” 17 And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ 19 Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” 20 And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the Lord. I have gone on the mission on which the Lord sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. 21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the Lord your God in Gilgal.” 22 And Samuel said, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 23  For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.” 24 Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. 25 Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the Lord.” 26 And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel.” 27 As Samuel turned to go away, Saul seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore. 28 And Samuel said to him, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. 29 And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” 30 Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the Lord your God.” 31 So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul bowed before the Lord. 32 Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal. 34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. 35 And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.

In both passages, Saul has received commands from Yahweh, in written in the Law or spoken by the prophet Samuel. In both passages, Saul instead does what is right in his own eyes, and he attempts to justify it. It is as if Saul is saying, "No, God really wants this" or "No, I got something better for God that he'll enjoy more." It's like Saul thinks he know God better than God knows God! In both passages, instead of Saul truly confessing and repenting of his sin, Saul opts for doing penance. In other words, whereas Saul should have said sorry, learned his lesson and stopped his disobedience to the Lord, Saul instead tries to do something good in its place, hoping that the Lord will forget about the sin or no longer care about the sin. In both passages, God punishes Saul's kingship, in hope that the discipline would make Saul learn a lesson, but Saul does not learn his lesson. The message should have been clear to Saul: You can't pay off the Lord!

While the message was not clear to Saul, the message became very clear to David, Israel's next king. David saw the mistakes his predecessor made, and he must have vowed that he would not repeat those mistakes. That's why Saul was the man who had no heart for God, and David became the man after God's own heart. One of those ways was the handling of sin. David was by no means perfect. He too sinned. Where David improved from Saul, however, is he knew what do when he sinned. Whereas Saul would attempt to justify his sin or try to do penance for his sin, David knew what the Lord really wanted him to do when he sinned: confess and repent. Just read about it in Psalm 51:16&17.

Psalm 51:16&17 (ESV)-

16  For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. 17  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Psalm 51:16&17 is a psalm David wrote after he commited adultery against Bathsheba, murdered Uriah and was confronted by Nathan. David had an affair with Bathsheba, got her pregnant, tried to cover it up with Uriah, and then murdered Uriah when the cover up did not work. If Saul would have committed the same sin, Saul probably would have justified as his right as king, or he would have made sacrifices, hoping the sacrifices would make everything go away. Again, David realizes the mistakes Saul made and decides not to make the same mistakes. Instead of justifying it, or making a sacrifice or a burnt offering, he merely confesses and repents. that's why David ends up the man after God's own heart, despite the sins he committed against Bathsheba and Uriah. David's attitude is again reflected in the previous psalm, Psalm 50. Now Psalm 50 is written by Asaph. While not everybody agree with this, I believe Asaph was David's worship leader for the tabernacle and eventually the temple. Therefore, I imagine David and Asaph shared ideas, such as David learning from Saul's mistakes and not making the same mistakes. The lesson David learned from Saul to not make sacrifices or do penance for sins must have stuck with Asaph, for he has a similar reflection.

Psalm 50:7-11 (ESV)-

7  “Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, I will testify against you. I am God, your God. 8  Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you; your burnt offerings are continually before me. 9  I will not accept a bull from your house or goats from your folds. 10  For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. 11  I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.

Asaph understood why you can't pay off the Lord - because the Lord already owns everything! Since Yahweh created everything, he is the owner of everything in the world, including all the wealth of the world. There is nothing that a human being can give God that God does not have because he made it all. Psalm 50:7-11 not only teaches why it is impossible to pay off the Lord, but it also reminds the reader the reason the sacrificial exists in the first place. Sacrifices were never meant as a penance to sin. The point of offerings were to recognize that there has been a loss on the victim's side (even if that loss is a loss of relationship trust, which would be the case for sins against God), which has brought about pain. Thus, the sinner, by performing the sacrifice, was personally and voluntarily taking on a loss himself or herself, which would bring pain upon sinner. Not only would this voluntarily sacrifice allow the sinner to emphathize with the victim, the pain of loss on the sinner's part would deter the sinner from ever committing the sin again. In short, the point of offerings was to provide a way to show how you were sorry or to show how sorry you were, not to be a way do penance or make up for your sin. Therefore, by doing sacrifices or giving an offering, you are not paying off the Lord, but rather, you are disciplining yourself before God to demonstrate your repentance.

Not only does David reflect on how his predecessor Saul made the mistake of attempting to pay off the Lord, the prophets, both major prophets and minor prophets, make the same reflection in the hopes of communicating to the respective audiences how much Yahweh wants them to stop sinning instead of giving offerings and sacrifices alongside sinning. To start, check out the words of the major prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isaiah 1:11-17 (ESV)-

11  “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. 12  “When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? 13  Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. 14  Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. 15  When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16  Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17  learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

Jeremiah 7:22-24 (ESV)-

22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

This Jeremiah passage I have to pause to comment on briefly because I myself did not believe. Yes, I fact checked the Lord by briefly skimming over Exodus, and indeed, in the book of Exodus, God does not command anything concerning burnt offering and sacrifices. Yes, in Exodus 10:25, Moses casually mentions to Pharaoh that the people of Israel need their livestock for sacrifices and burnt offering, but this line is more of Moses informing Pharaoh of the purpose of going out into the desert to worship, and it is less of Yahweh commanding the the people of Israel how to perform the sacrifices and burnt offerings. True, Exodus 20:22-26 provides laws on how to build altar, which verse 24 states has the purpose of sacrificing, but in the passage, the Lord never goes into detail how the Israelites are to perform these sacrifices and offerings. God holds that all off until the book of Leviticus. In the book of Exodus, all the laws and instructions center around loving God and loving your neighbor, not performing sacrifices and offerings. Clearly, God holds in preference obedience over sacrifices, as the minor prophets will continue to demonstrate.

Hosea 6:6 (ESV)

6  For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Amos 5:21-24 (ESV)-

21  “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. 22  Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. 23  Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. 24  But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Micah 6:6-8 (ESV)-

6  “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7  Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8  He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Notice the words of the major prophets and minor prophets sound very similar to what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul. I would argue that the major prophets and the minor prophets here are purposely alluding to or echoing the former prophet Samuel. When the major and minor prophets prophesied these words, they are thinking about what the former prophet Samuel said to King Saul, and they realized that the people of Israel and Judah are acting no different than their king from antiquity. It is as if the major and minor prophets are prophesying to the people of Israel and Judah, "You should have learned from your former king of old that you can't pay off the Lord!" More specifically to Isaiah, Amos and Micah, notice how these prophets substitute Samuel's words of obeying with justice. On the surface level, I believe that this is God, in his grace and mercy, revealing to Israel and Judah their specific sin, so they know what exactly sin from which they need to confess and repent. It is like Yahweh is crying out the people of Israel and Judah, "I don't need sacrifices and offerings because of your sin of injustice; I just need you to stop the injustice and start the justice!" On a more deeper level, however, the prophecies of Isaiah, Amos and Micah teach why you can't pay off the Lord - a God that can be paid off is an unjust God, for a God that can be paid off favors the rich and shows partiality against the poor. Think about it. If somebody can pay off God and is rich, that somebody can afford to sin. It doesn't matter if the rich person has a wild and crazy night of sinning, as long as he or she makes the correct offerings or sacrifices the next morning, that person is fine, and that person can continue the pattern for all his or her life and end up in heaven. If someone can pay off the Lord, but that someone is poor, he or she doesn't dare to sin because he or she cannot afford to sin. If that poor person does sin, that person will be in debt all his or her life, become even poorer and still worry about going to hell because he or she could not afford to give God the payment for sin. This isn't fair; this isn't just. Nobody should be able to afford to sin; no one should fear to sin because they don't have wealth. Everybody should have access to way to repent from sin and seek forgiveness and reconciliation, despite money, assets or other wealth. That is the just God we worship, not an unjust God that can be paid off. We need to worship God in a way that reflects that. Any attempts to pay off God does not reflect that.

So far, all the Bible passages covered have all come from the Old Testament, so the question that then arises is if the 1st century church of the New Testament ever struggled with this sin of attempting to pay off God. As far as my recollection of the New Testament stands, I cannot think of such of an example. Some may bring up Simon the Magician/Sorcerer in Acts 8:9-24, but he's trying to pay John and Peter for the power of the Holy Spirit, not because of sin. Others might bring up Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, in Acts 5:1-11, but their sin is lying about the amount of money offered to the church, not paying off the church for sin. No, the 1st century church does not seem to struggle with this sin, or even is tempted with the sin. This does not mean, however, the church has been immune from this sin. Going through church history will reveal that the church has struggled with this sin.

In the 900s AD, the church began the practice of indulgences, which is a monetary payment paid to the church for the forgiveness of sins. Some church historians have argued this practice of indulgences began in the 600s AD, but at best, this practice of indulgences indirectly exchanged money for the forgiveness of sins. For example, a person could donate a large sum of money to a charity, and the church would recognize this donation to charity as an act of penance. As another example, a person would go to confessional to confess their sins, the priest would tell them, "You need to pray 50 unique prayers as your act of penance," and it would just so happen that the church is selling a book of prayers. Again, this person would be paying for a book of prayers, not paying the church specifically for the forgiveness of sins. No, it's not until the 900s AD that the church would allow a donation of money directly to the church as an act of penance, but even then, indulgences was just 1 of many ways a person could do penance. It's not until the 1500s that the practice of indulgences became a sin the church struggled with, thanks to Pope Leo X. See, Leo X was born into nobility, so he's next in line to become a king of a kingdom, but he gets stuck with the assignment of pope. That wasn't going to stop Leo X from living like a king. He would not only redecorate the Vatican and the papal palace with the best artwork of the day, he would constantly host parties with kings and other nobility to prove he was one of them. Naturally, doing so racked up a big bill, one that dried up the Vatican's funds, which is hard to do, but Leo X did it. Leo X found the solution to the lack of money problem in pushing the sales of indulgences, so much so that many friars and monks pretty much became indulgences salesmen. Things were going smoothly until Martin Luther appeared on the scene. The sales of indulgences became one of the top targets of his 95 Theses. It's worth looking at some of the theses that do target indulgences, for they drive home the point of all the verses examined in 1 Samuel, the Psalms and the prophetic books. Before doing so, however, one other point is worth mentioning. Most Christians today know that putting money in the church offering plate does not forgive sins or bring about salvation. Even the Roman Catholic Church understands this, as they abolished the sales of indulges in the 1970s! Many Christians, however, still sometimes think that God will forgive their sin, or at least forget their sin or ignore their sin if they do some good work or practice some spiritual discipline. With that in mind, I encourage you, as you're reading these theses, replace the word indulgences with a good work or a spiritual discipline that you or some Christian might think they can do as penance for the forgiveness of a sin or to bring about salvation from sin. Without further ado, take a look at these theses from Martin Luther against indulgences.

41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

The 613 Laws can be summarized in the greatest and second greatest commandment, the greatest being to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and the second being to love your neighbor as yourself. As Samuel said to Saul, the Lord will always desire obedience to the Law over any offering or any sacrifice. Put it together, and God will always want you to love him and to love others over any offering ans sacrifice. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual discipline will ever become more important than loving the Lord God and loving your neighbor.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

Again, reflect back on the words of Isaiah, Amos and Micah. The Lord revealed through these prophets that people of Israel and Judah angered him by thinking they continue acting merciless and unjustly towards other people, especially the poor, if they continued the offerings and sacrifices. Instead, God would have been more satisfied if they turned around from merciless to merciful and from injustice to justice. Again, the Lord God will always prefer bringing justice to injustice over any offering, any sacrifice, or any spiritual discipline. No offering, no sacrifice, no spiritual will ever become more important than justice and mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observed people passing poor beggars on their way to pay large sums of money for indulgences. This fact carries a sense of irony, for this practice of receiving indulgences for giving money began as a practice of giving alms to charities, not the church! Those poor beggars needing the money more than the pope, for the poor beggars needed the money to survive, whereas the pope needed the money to continue living in luxury. Once again, this fact calls back to the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. The poor and needy should not live in poverty, so the church can become rich. If so, then the church becomes guilty of the injustice of which Isaiah, Amos and Micah spoke. If the church has its bank book balanced, and as long as the church does not spend its money wastefully, any offering to the poor will mean more to the Lord God than tithing to a church. If this fact offends the chuch, and the church still insists tithing has more importance than offerings to the poor and needy (and the charities that focuses on the poor and needy), then the church should dedicate a percentage of their tithes to the poor, the needy, the widow and the orphan.

44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

While the Lord does command tithing and offerings, tithing and offerings do not make anybody a good person. Anyone can give tithes and offering, yet that person can still live in sin. A person becomes less like the old, sinful self and more like new, Christ-like self by loving the Lord God will all his or her heart, soul, mind and strength, loving his or her neighbor like the self. That's the sanctification the Lord God requires of every Christian, not giving money. (For the record, I think the phrase "is merely freed from penalties" is Martin Luther attempting to compromise with the Roman Catholic Church)

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.

Since the first half of this thesis already has the same meaning has thesis number 43, the second half of this thesis will take on the main focus here. If anything, thesis 43 and 45 are two sides of the same coin. Thesis 43 puts it in a positive light. Those who give offerings to the poor and needy instead of buying indulgences please the Lord and make the Lord happy. Thesis 45 puts it in a negative light. Those who buy indulgences instead of giving that money to the poor and needy displease God and make God mad. If anybody thinks that good works or spiritual disciplines make the Lord happy enough to avoid the sin, quite the opposite is true. The wrath of God burns against anyone who use good works or spiritual disciples to cover up sin. Again, Martin Luther points out the irony that those people buying indulgences thought they just bought the Lord's pleasure instead bought God's wrath.

46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.

No joke - Martin Luther observe financially-stable families bring themselves to poverty buying indulgences, not just for themselves but also for their dead relatives (another way Pope Leo X expanded indulgences to get more income to the church)! The Lord had a reason for commanding the Old Testament Israelites to tithe ten percent, and not just because Abraham did so to Melchizedek. Whether rich or poor, anybody giving ten percent will always have ninety percent left to take care of the family. Giving tithes and offerings should never bankrupt a family, as the indulgences that Pope Leo X promoted and Martin Luther rejected did.

47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.

Tithing is mandatory; offerings are optional. Thanks to the New Covenant, the New Testament teaches that there is no tithing; there is only offering. In accordance with 2 Corinthians 8-9, Jesus only commands believers to give generously and give joyfully. Such a command does not excuse Christians from giving if they give neither generously nor joyfully, but rather, the command encourages Christians to develop a heart that desires to giving generously and joyfully. If you want to give money because you feel thankful for what Jesus did on the cross for your sins, that's amazing! If you want to give because you want your heart to match Christ's heart, and you want to work with the Holy Spirit to make yourself less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christ-like self, that's awesome! If you want to give money because you want to participate alongside the church in a worth cause that needs financial backing, that's excellent! If want to give money because your heart breaks for those suffering in their poverty, that's fantastic! No one, however, should give because they feel like their Savior demands it from them. As witnessed in Psalm 50, the Messiah already owns all the wealth of the world. He does not need yours.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

For the Roman Catholic reader out there, keep this statement as pope. For the Protestant Christian reader, change pope to pastor. A good pope or a good pastor knows more power exists in prayer rather than in money, and therefore, a good pope or pastor asks for prayer more than money. On the flip side, a bad pope or pastor asks for money more than asking for prayer. Thus, Pope Leo X was a bad pope. If you have a pastor who always seems concerned about the income of church, aside from numbers in the red (unless the church spends excessively), then you have a toxic pastor, and you don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.

Any good work or any spiritual discipline should bring the Christian closer to their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, not further away from him. The difference may lie in whether the Christian believes that the good work or the spiritual discipline determines whether the Christian has salvation and gets to go to heaven. If the Christian put his or her trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and eternal life, all good works and spiritual disciplines, including the giving of offerings, can be beneficial for spiritual growth. If the Christian thinks that good works and spiritual disciplines, including giving offerings, bring about salvation and eternal life, not a relationship with the Lord Jesus, then that Christian has taken a step back in the faith.

The list could go on and on, as Martin Luther mentions indulgences in 45 of his 95 theses, yet for the sake of time, the list stops here. While worth reading all 95 theses, especially the 45 that cover indulgences, these 9 theses testify to the same points the Scriptures mentioned. You can't pay off the Lord! God will always desire obedience, especially obedience in terms of justice, over any offering or sacrifice.

To conclude the way I introduced this topic, as we reflect back on Easter and the resurrection, I want everybody know that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid your debt of sin in full. There's is nothing more that you need to do. You don't need to pay off the Lord for your sin because Jesus already paid his Father with his life. Again, I repeat, Jesus paid it all. With that in mind, if you are a Christian, who believes Jesus paid it all, stop trying to pay off the Lord with your good works. If you're doing good works as a sign of thankfulness for the salvation Jesus has given you, that's amazing! If you're doing good works because you're working with the Holy Spirit to create that clean heart that's less like the old, sinful self and more like the new, Christlike self, that's awesome! If you do good works because you want to see the kingdom of God on earth, that's excellent! If you do good works because your heart breaks for those suffering in their sin, that's fantastic! If you're doing good works, however, hoping the Lord will ignore the sin in your life or to justify the sin in your life, you are attempting to pay off the Lord. Once again, you cannot pay off the Lord! If that's the case, stop doing good works and start confessing and repenting.

Easter has another importance. Easter marks the end of Lent. Many Christians choose to fast for Lent. This teaching should get you reflecting on why you fast during Lent. If you fasted from something during Lent because you realize you've made that something a higher priority in life than the Lord, and you chose to fast from it to put the Lord back in the number 1 spot in your life, you've done your Lent fast correctly. If you fasted from something during Lent because you were going to that thing for something when you really should have been going to God, and you fasted from it to put your dependency back in God, then you did your Lent fast right. If you fasted from something during Lent because you think it impressive God, then you did your Lent fast wrong. What "impresses" the Lord is a repentant heart, not spiritual disciplines.

In closing, for those disappointed that I did not use a New Testament verse, let me throw in 1 New Testament verse-

Matthew 4:17 (ESV)-

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

In the few couple theses of Martin Luther's 95 Theses, Martin Luther cited Matthew 4:17 as the start of the downfall of the church. No, it has nothing to do with what Jesus said, it has everything to do with St. Jerome said. Jerome is the man who translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate. When Jerome got to Matthew 4:17, he took Jesus's first word μετανοέω (metanoeo), which most English translations accurately translate as "repent," and Jerome translated it as poenitentia, or "do penance." This mistranslation got the ball rolling into a Roman Catholic church that accepted indulgences for a payment of sin, which Martin Luther saw deserving criticism. Still, the truth remains that the kingdom of heaven is not seen at hand when we give offerings, do good works or practice spiritual disciplines. No, the kingdom of heaven is seen at hand when people repent of their sin.

JESUS: The Prince of the Second Week of Advent (Isaiah 9:6&7)

Introduction 

In 2020, NBC rebooted the game show The Weakest Link. If not familiar with the show, think Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? meets Survivor. Like Who Wants To be A Millionaire, contestants bank money by answering trivia questions. Like Survivor, at the end of every round, contestants vote on who they would like to see removed from the game. The contestant with the most votes indeed gets removed from the show, and the last player standing wins the money. Most of the questions are basic, common, general knowledge (assuming you are somewhat familiar with pop culture). I highly doubt that anybody has any problems with any questions, but when you ask a question about the biblical languages, you might have a Biblical studies PhD candidate and former quizzer contest.

In one of the reboot episodes, one of the questions asked, “What Hebrew word means hello, goodbye, and peace?” The answer they were looking for was “shalom.” I really wanted to stand and yell, “I contest!” The word’s definition does mean peace, but the word’s definition within itself does not mean “hello” or “goodbye.” Rather, peace became both a salutation and valediction. In Old Testament times, a Hebrew running into a stranger did not know whether the stranger was friend or foe. By shouting “Shalom!” or “Peace!” the stranger made sure his peaceful intentions were made known, putting his fellow Hebrew at ease. On the flipside, shalom or “peace” became well wishes in leaving, like “Have a good day!” or “Have a nice week!” One could say, “Have a peaceful day!” or “Have a peaceful week!” To summarize, the Hebrew word shalom itself only means “peace,” but it became a greeting for arriving and departing.

The game show did get something right, though. The Hebrew word shalom does means more than just “peace.” As anyone fluent in multiple languages will tell you, rarely do words between languages have a perfect one-to-one correspondence. Translators end up picking the best, closest translation, with the insinuation that it may lack in some certain areas. Likewise, “peace” is the best, closest translation for shalom, but recognize that “peace” is an incomplete definition, lacking in some areas. Therefore, shalom needs a fuller definition.

In 2005, MennoMedia, a media agency of Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada, created the Peace DVD, a DVD with 6-sessions of youth Bible study to encourage youth to think about how they could bring peace to the world. If you’re doing the math, yes, that was 2 years after the United States of America entered into war/conflict with Iraq, but no, all 6 sessions did not merely rant about the evils of war. As a matter of fact, the DVD did not even touch war until session 5 of 6. Sessions included peace with God, peace with the earth and people within the community. At the beginning of every session, the leaders of the video would start off with a definition of peace, which actually works well with shalom.

"Peace is when everything is the best it can be." -Peace DVD

Now my Sunday school leaders had the class memorize this definition on top of our Bible memory. I came close, but I could never say it right. Every time I tried, I would say, "Peace is when the world’s all as it should be." If you didn’t recognize it, my definition comes from the contemporary praise and worship song "Blessed be Your Name." But isn’t that the same thing? If the world’s all as it should be, as God intended it, without sin, then everything would be at the best. That's shalom, that’s “peace.” Shalom appears in the garden of Eden. The garden has shalom because the garden had everything God planned, nothing wrong or out of place. Adam and Eve walked with God. They had shalom with their maker, with each other and the earth on which they lived. When Satan came in and Eve fell to his temptation, that peace was gone. When God promised them a messiah, not only was he providing a way to get out of the sin, but a promise of restoring the peace. Genesis 3:15 implicitly says that the offspring would restore the shalom once found in the Garden, but Isaiah 9:6-7 explicitly speaks of a chosen child ruling with peace.

Isaiah 9:6

In the previous chapter, Isaiah 8, Yahweh, through Isaiah, has pronounced judgment upon the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Assyrian Empire would conquer and subdue the Northern Kingdom, until they are no more. While such news sounds like gloom to Israel, Isaiah actually prophesies glory for Israel in Isaiah 9! The Lord would save and deliver Israel from their oppressors, bringing glory to both God and Israel. This salvation would come from the Messiah. Perhaps Isaiah can see even further than it, seeing the eschaton, in which Israel would never ever have to worry about foreign oppressors because all people and all nations fall in subjugation to Yahweh and his Messiah.

While Jewish scholars acknowledge Isaiah speaks prophetically about the future, Jewish scholars have attempted to argue this prophesy has fulfillment in the immediate or near future, prophesying the birth of one of Isaiah’s sons or Ahaz’s sons (or descendant). Christian scholars, however, have proven none of those work, meaning it has to refer to the Messiah. At best, the Jewish scholars can argue that one of Isaiah’s or Ahaz’s son might have partially fulfilled the prophecy, but the prophecy will only have complete fulfillment in the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 9:6 begins with “for” (כִּי, kî), the third of a chain of three. Primarily, the conjunction “for” links together Isaiah 9:6 all the way back Isaiah 9:3. Back in Isaiah 9:3, Isaiah declares that Yahweh has given the nation joy. The joy is possible because the Lord has freed the nation from oppressing. The freedom of oppression is possible because God brought an end to war. The end of war is possible because someone is coming to end it. Thus, the grand conclusion of all God’s plan for his people come down to not to a place, a thing, an event or an idea, but a person.

In this passage, the conjunction “for” has a secondary function of indicating a feature of salvation, so the chain of three “for”s marks three traits of salvation. From the third “for,” Isaiah 9:6 teaches that a part of salvation involves a coming chosen one, the Messiah. In the times of Isaiah, messianic hopes included that the Messiah would reunite the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Kingdom of Judah into one nation. The Messiah would rule over all the tribes, just like his ancestors David and Solomon did. Therefore, the “us” that follows the third “for” includes all the tribes of Israel. Some scholars, like Jameison, Fausset and Brown, notice Isaiah says “us” instead of “you,” as in his fellow Jew, so the “us” must refer to the Jews and Gentiles alike. Other scholars, like J.M. Roberts, take even a step further, claiming the “us” refers to all God’s creation, in heaven and in earth. The coming Messiah is the Messiah for all of humanity, both Jew and Gentiles, and all of creation, both in the heavens and on the earth!

This human God has in mind will not descend from the heavens as fully-grown adult. No, he will be a child, or more specifically, a son. For the two previous chapters, Isaiah has implied child, not adult. Now in this chapter, Isaiah emphasizes child, and he will do so again in the eleventh chapter. So much emphasis on a child, not an adult, has a two-fold meaning. First, the coming one is not solely divine. Rather, he is fully human, including experiencing birth and childhood. The coming one is both divine and human. Second, it reveals how the coming one will rescue the nation from oppression and war. If the coming one solely came as divine, he would simply overpower the oppressors, which could come off as making God look like the oppressor and the Warhawk. God’s way involves humility, submission and love, thus breaking the cycle of violence.

The verbs “is born” (ילד, yālǎḏ) and “is given” (נתן, nāṯǎn) may seem like a synonymous parallelism, but here it functions better as a synthetic parallelism. The second verb prophesies that the birth of the child is not a fluke, but rather, the son come from the Lord’s sovereign plan.

Isaiah 9:6 gives a clue to who or what type of person this may be. Notice all the political words throughout Isaiah 9:6&7 – government, prince, throne, kingdom (even “justice” could be considered a political term if “justice” is considered the job of the government). Interesting enough, the political term “king” seems absent. Some scholars, like Harrelson and Von Rad, believe that Isaiah sees the kings of Israel and Judah so wicked that for this person to share the same time as these evil men would be an insult!

The first of these political phrases announces this born child, this given son, will have the government upon his shoulders. The Hebrew term “government” (מִשְׂרָה, misrah) is actually a rare word in the Hebrew Old Testament, only appearing here in Isaiah 9:6 and next in Isaiah 9:7 verse out of the entire Hebrew Old Testament! Isaiah 9:6 uses this rare word in very poetic imagery of being or resting “upon the shoulders” (עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ, al shekem). Quite possibly, this poetic imagery comes from the king’s robe. A king’s robe, rested on the wearer’s shoulders, indicated that the wearer ruled over the nation. More likely, however, this poetic imagery paints the picture of a burden, like a yoke, placed on the shoulders. A king bears a burden to rule a people, like sustaining the nation and keeping the citizens safe and at peace, free from oppressors. How fitting that, instead of the king taking on the burden of protecting the people from foreign countries, the foreign nations have put on burden on Israel. The figurative language relays the message that this born child, this given son would be the true king of Israel. Again, whereas the wicked kings of Israel and Judah failed to reign as a godly king, this child would succeed as a good, godly king. He would throw off the oppressive burdens and give the people peace.

At the end of Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah gives this coming child four titles. Some scholars, like Wilberger, attempt to parallel to the Egyptian coronation ceremony, in which the new king receive five titles to reflect five divine attributes. This parallel falls flat on a few factors. First, Egyptian kings received five titles, but Isaiah 9:6 only has four. Second, Isaiah announces a birth, not a coronation. Third, the five divine titles of the Egyptians recognized the new king as becoming divine, as the Jews would have seen this practice as blasphemy. Other scholars, like R.A. Carson, believe that these titles intend to mock the Assyrian kings, who would give themselves exaggerated titles. While more possible than the Egyptian titles, this option still seems less likely, as Israelite kings normally didn’t practice anything similar, knowing their God preferred humility in his kings. This part of Isaiah 9:6 hints at the divine nature of the coming son. If an Israelite king would not receive such titles, then the coming child must be greater than just a king, like God.

The first two titles define who this Messiah is, like his attributes, characteristics and personality. The last two describe what the Messiah will do, like how he will rules as a king. Now all four titles deserve attention on their own, so much so that each title deserves its own sermon! For the sake of the topic at hand, the second week of advent, let’s jump to the last title, the prince of peace.

The “prince of peace” (שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם, sar-shâlōm), a phrase combining peace with a political word, should come as no surprise. Any good king would want peace for his people. Kings would try to appeal to their people by promoting peace in their campaigns. At the surface level, peace means the opposite of war. Such thinking draws to the ancestors of the kingly line, David and Solomon. While a man of war, David secured solid borders for Israel, giving the Israelite people within those borders peace from oppressors or raiders. Solomon, a man of peace, achieved peace with the surrounding nation by entering into alliances and peace treaties with the rulers of the surrounding nations. The people of Isaiah’s time long for those times to return because, in their days, they constantly experienced oppressors and raiders. For this reason, the prophecy in Isaiah 9 cannot refer to a son of Isaiah or Ahaz, for  God had promised David in the Davidic covenant that the people under the Davidic would experience peace from their foes (see 2 Samuel 7:10&11). The true Messiah would have to champion peace for his people! He would have to remove anyone or anything that would threaten peace to truly bring peace on the earth, to his country and the surrounding nations.

Isaiah may have left the Prince of Peace for last on purpose. It works kind of climatically. This coming child will not become an oppressing king or a Warhawk king, like so many kings before him. He will turn into a peaceful ruler, bringing peace by means of peace, not of oppression or war. No one will defy him because his transparency and vulnerability will reveal him of innocent of any wrongdoing. In essence, the Prince of Peace has to be the personification of peace. Not only will he bring peace by ending oppression and war, he will bring peace by bring reconciliation between God and man through love. To simply limit the Prince of Peace as the Prince of the opposite of war, however, would do the prince a disservice. Peace means more than that. Peace means calmness and success. This prince’s reign will not only bring a calm to the land, the calm will allow the people to shift from surviving in a hostile world to thriving in a calm world. Again, the Prince of Peace has to become the champion of peace, a leader of spiritual peace and calmness.

Isaiah 9:7

It only makes sense that a Prince of Peace will establish a government of peace. Isaiah 9:7 reveals a few elements of this government of peace. Not only will the prince of peace create a government of peace, but he will establish it so that it increases into all of eternity. The kingdom will have limitless growth increase in quantity and in quality. It shall touch all the land on the earth, and it will last for all time into eternity. Earthly kingdoms come and go, but this kingdom, the kingdom of heaven on earth, will last forever. Again, this means that Isaiah cannot think of new or recent person, like Ahaz’s son or grandson, for this kingdom extends into the distant future. The prince of peace will the final king, not just final in the sense of last, but also final in the sense that he is the best. No other king will need to come because no greater king would come than the Prince of Peace. The Prince of Peace will become the ideal Davidic king Yahweh envisioned for Israel. While the Lord may have rejected the current kings, he had not rejected David or his descendants. As a matter of fact, God fulfilling his promise by having the Messiah come from David’s line proves that God still faithfully loves David and his descendants. Dynasties of the earthly kingdoms come and go, but the Davidic king will reign forever.

Unlike David, though, the Prince of Peace will not establish his government through brute strength, conquering, intimidation or bloodshed. Instead, the Prince of Peace will establish his throne through justice and through righteousness. “Justice” (מִשְׁפָּט, mishpât) and “righteousness” (צְדָקָה, tsedâkâh) will become anchors to this kingdom. Everything that the Prince of Peace orders for his kingdom and his people rest in justice and in righteousness. The Prince of Peace himself will live under those standards of justice and righteousness, too. Just as the kingdom itself will last for eternity, as just the Davidic king will last for eternity, so will its justice and righteousness last for eternity.

The final colon of Isaiah 9:7 explains how Yahweh will fulfill what Isaiah just prophesied. The Hebrew term קִנְאָה (qēnā̊́) gets translated into both “jealous” and “zeal.” If you think about it, both terms have the same denotation, but they have different connotations. Both terms connotate wanting a person’s affection and attention. Jealousy denotes a selfish desire, wanting to make others’ affection and attention centered around the self. Zeal denotes actively pursuing others for the benefit of the other person’s sake. The Lord loved his people passionately. This strong love for his people would drive God to make sure his people lived safe and peaceful lives. If only a Messiah could give his people the good life he wanted them to have, then God would see it through that the Messiah would establish a government of peace. God’s glory links to the fate of his people. When God’s people live in a peaceful kingdom, his glory will shine the brightest. No matter an Israelite in the Northern Kingdom of Israel or a Jew in the Southern Kingdom of Judah, all hoped for the Prince of Peace to establish his government of peace, and Yahweh’s zeal assured their faith. What blessed assurance that the fulfillment of the promise comes down to the Lord’s work, not Israel’s work. If dependent on Israel’s intercession, not God’s, the kingdom would never come. All Israel had to do was put their faith and hope in Yahweh.

Concluding the exegesis of Isaiah 9:6&7, the fact becomes evident that it was necessary for the Messiah to be a Prince of Peace. It was not optional, it was not voluntarily, it was not something the Messiah could do if he had extra time or when he got around to it. The Messiah must be a Prince of Peace. It was mandatory; it was required. Anyone who claims to be the Messiah but is not a Prince of Peace is a liar. He is a false messiah, an antichrist. As a Prince of Peace, the Messiah must reflect the embodiment of peace. He must become the best a peace, a champion of peace. He must demonstrate peace and lead by an example. He must also rule by peace, establishing a kingdom of peace. By doing so, the Messiah will return his people to the shalom that God intended the world to have, as seen in the Garden of Eden.

The New Testament

The New Testament apostles understood the importance of the Messiah as the Prince of Peace. Therefore, the New Testament authors made sure to portray Jesus as the Prince of Peace that he was. That is why Luke records the angels announcing at the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” The angels recognized that the coming of the Christ was the coming of the Prince of Peace, and they wanted the shepherds to realize this, too. One of my favorite Christmas carols, if not my absolute favorite Christmas carol, is “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” because Charles Wesley has packed it so full of theology. The hymn "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" rewords the words of Luke 2:14 when it says "Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconcile." Wesley has captured both what Luke 2:14 says and means. When God promised them a messiah, not only was he providing a way to get out of the sin, but a promise of restoring the shalom.

That is why John records Jesus declaring in John 16:33, “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” Jesus himself acknowledge the missing shalom on the earth, and he knew it would not get any better for disciples who decided to follow him. In exchange for the chaos and disruption the world would give them, Jesus offered them shalom, through him and through his kingdom. As crazy and as hectic as this world may get, shalom always existed within Jesus and within the kingdom of God.

That is why Peter proclaims to Cornelius and his family in Acts 10:36, “As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all).”  Notice how Peter adds peace to the good news or gospel. Cornelius would have known what gospel meant, so why bother to add peace to it? Peter wanted Cornelius, and Luke wanted the readers of Acts, to know the importance of peace to the gospel and that Jesus, as the Christ, was that Prince of Peace. That’s good news indeed!

That is why Paul says in Romans 5:1, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Again, Paul tells the saints in Ephesus it in Ephesians 2:14, “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.” This last one probably stands out the most of all these New Testament verses, for in this Ephesians 4 passage, Paul speaks of how Jesus removed the division between Jews and Gentiles. Connecting Isaiah 9:6 to Ephesians 2:14 solidifies that the “us” in Isaiah 9:6 cannot merely refer to the Jews. It must refer to at least all humanity and at most all of creation.

Conclusion

Since Jesus is the Prince of Peace, people have a few ways they should respond. First, recall that Israel’s judgment, told in the previous chapter and some of the current chapter, came about because Israel refused to submit to Yahweh. Because Israel refused to submit to the Lord, the found themselves submitting to foreign powers. When Jesus comes again, he will ultimately bring peace by uniting the people, tribes and nations into his kingdom, the kingdom of God, under him. Those who refuse to surrender to Jesus are antagonists of the peace, and Jesus will not tolerate that in his kingdom. They will not experience the glory that Israel will experience in the future. They will experience the gloom Israel experienced in the past. Submit to King Jesus to experience his glory, or else you will experience gloom.

Second, a nation of peace and justice will never come about through a king, an emperor, a president or a prime minister. It will not come from any politician or any political party. A nation of peace, justice and righteousness will only come from Yahweh and his Anointed One, the Messiah,  Jesus Christ. That nation of peace, justice and righteousness must come about through God’s plans, not man’s plans. Only the foolish trust in politics, but the wise and mature Christian will trust in the Lord, not a man.

Third, remember that the Beatitudes in Matthew 6:9 reads, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” You know who else is a peacemaker and a Son of God (notice the capital S and capital G)? Jesus, the Prince of Peace! God has called all disciples of Jesus to reflect Jesus. In fact, the term Christian means “little Christian.” To call oneself a Christian, one must become a little prince of peace. To become a little prince of peace, Christians must become peacemakers. As the Peace DVD challenged Mennonite youth fellowships back in 2005, Christians should think about how they could bring peace to the world and then do it! David put it best when he penned in Psalm 34:14 “Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.” Peter found David’s words as such good advice that he wrote it again in 1 Peter 3:11.

Speaking of Peter, notice how Peter opens his second epistle in 2 Peter 1:2, “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,” and he closes his second epistle in 2 Peter 3:14, “Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.” Just like Peter, may peace be the first thought as you begin your days, and the last thought as you end your days. May you feel the peace of the Prince of Peace in your life, and may it encourage you to pass that peace to others.

Bibliography

Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016.

Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition Notes. Biblical Studies Press, 2006.

Brooks, Keith. Summarized Bible: Complete Summary of the Old Testament. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

Cabal, Ted, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, and Doug Powell. The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007.

Carter, James E., and Peter McLeod. “Isaiah.” The Teacher’s Bible Commentary. Edited by H. Franklin Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1972.

Chisholm, Robert B. “The Major Prophets.” Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.

Hughes, Robert B., and J. Carl Laney. Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary. The Tyndale reference library. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Martin, John A. “Isaiah.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

Kidner, F. Derek. “Isaiah.” Pages 629–70 in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Edited by D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham. 4th ed. Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Longman, Tremper, III. “Isaiah.” Pages 1039–1136 in CSB Study Bible: Notes. Edited by Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017.

Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.

Richards, Lawrence O. The Bible Reader’s Companion. Electronic ed. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991.

Smith, Gary V. Isaiah 1–39. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. The New American Commentary. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007.

Smith, James E. The Major Prophets. Old Testament Survey Series. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1992.

Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. Isaiah. Vol. 1. The Pulpit Commentary. London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1910.

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. Vol. 24. Revised Edition. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc, 2005.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Comforted. “Be” Commentary Series. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996.

Willmington, H. L. Willmington’s Bible Handbook. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1997.

Living Stones (1 Peter 2:4-8)

In August 2016, the 31^st Summer Olympic games took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. One of the first games to launch the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics was cycling. Early on in the cycling route, one of the struggles the cyclists had to deal with was cobblestones. The cobblestones caused quite the havoc. They were breaking bikes. They made the water bottles fall out of their holders, giving the cyclists additional obstacles to dodge. The cobblestones caused such a hassle that when a stretch of the cobblestone part had pavement, a majority of the cyclist went out of their way to bike on the paved part than to continue on the cobblestone part. The Bible doesn’t talk about cobblestones, but it talks about another stone that starts with a c: the cornerstone. If you’re not on the right side, the cornerstone will cause you trouble, just like bikers on cobblestone, but if you’re on the right side, you’ll find attitudes and behaviors worth imitating.

I invite everyone to turn in their Bibles to 1 Peter. You’ll find 1 Peter near the end of your Bibles. In fact, it’s the 7^th to last book of the Bible. It is an epistle, meaning it’s a letter, and it’s a general epistle, which simply means this epistle is not written by Paul. It’s written by Peter to churches in what they knew back then as northern Asia Minor, but today we know as northern Turkey. Peter was probably a bishop, or overseer, of these churches. To set the scene, a new emperor has come into power, and he’s not too fond of Christians. A new persecution has broken out across the land. Peter provides hope so the Christians in northern Asia Minor can stay strong, and he also gives them instruction how to behave in such a time. Let’s look at 1 Peter 2:4-8.

While I have much to disagree with when it comes to the theology of John Calvin, one thing I do appreciate about his hermeneutics, or the process he interpreted Scripture, is that he always put God first. It’s a hermeneutic I have adopted myself, but I give it an Anabaptist-Mennonite twist. I believe the best application starts with understanding what the passage teaches about Jesus, and then to apply it, I ask myself, “How do I respond to that?” I believe Peter is thinking the same way. Peter wants all who are reading his letter to understand they are living stones. In order to understand what it means to be a living stone, Peter first wants us to understand that Jesus Christ himself was the ultimate living stone. To prove Jesus is the living stone, Peter does not turn to the life of Jesus, but rather the Old Testament. After looking at these 3 proof texts from the Old Testament, you too will believe Jesus is the living stone.

Before we get into any of proof texts, we need to talk about cornerstones, for the cornerstone are found in both texts. The cornerstone typically was a big stone that supported two walls coming together to form an angle. And when I say big, I mean big. Archaeologists found cornerstones of public buildings measuring up to 37 feet long and weighing over one hundred pounds! The whole foundation rested on the cornerstone. The whole building’s strength and stability relied on a strong, durable cornerstone. The building’s structure and design started at its cornerstone, and it worked around the cornerstone. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the 2 proof texts.

This is the Western Wall inside of the tunnels. The Wailing Wall you are familiar with are in the southern part of the Western Wall. This is more of the northern part. This specific part, the lower part of the walk on the picture, is believed to be the cornerstone of Western Wall. It is the biggest stone on the Western Wall. It is 40 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 15 feet deep. It is estimate to weigh 570 tons. Not only in this the biggest stone on the temple mount, but the biggest stone in Israel.

As a proof text that Jesus is indeed the living stone, Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16. I’m going to turn to the actual Isaiah 28:16, for the wording a little bit different. I’m not going into all the details of textual criticism, but let’s just say that Peter is most likely quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which might have paraphrased and abridged this passage. Since our English Bibles looked at the Hebrew manuscripts first, it has the full text, so I’m going to read out of that one. In Isaiah 28, Yahweh, through the prophet Isaiah, pronounces judgment on the nation of Israel in order to warn Judah they could face the same impending doom. Assyria was on its way to conquer Israel, and Judah would be next on the hit list if they too did not turn back to the Lord. Of course, the response God wanted was a response of repentance and obedience. Instead, Judah turns to making alliances, from alliances to the foreign nations to alliances with the foreign gods. Their latest alliance was with a foreign god, the god of the death. The people of Judah believed that their alliance with the god of death would hold off their time with death. Yahweh informs Judah, through the prophet Isaiah, that if anything, by turning to the god of death, they have hurried along their own death. Rather, the Lord God calls on Judah to trust him instead of trusting in foreign nations or foreign gods. The Lord assures Judah that Judah can trust in him because he has laid a stone which will become the cornerstone and foundation. Those who believe in it, God promises, will not be in haste. Whereas the god of death will hasten Judah’s death, the living God, who has the laid the foundational cornerstone will bring salvation and not hasten death.

Now this is the part where I’d like to pause and tell you what the cornerstone is in original context (that is, how the Jews living in Judah during Isaiah’s lifetime would have understood the cornerstone to mean), but to be honest with you, no one knows! Jewish and Christian scholars alike have debate what it means. They have hypothesized the cornerstone refers to the temple, the Law, the covenant, the city of Jerusalem, the nation of Judah, faithful Jews, the Davidic king, or even Yahweh himself, but no hypothesis has brought up enough proof or evidence to stand out as the leading theory. Yet when Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:6, and Paul quotes it in Romans 9:33, they declare, without batting an eye or breaking a sweat, “This is about the Messiah, Jesus Christ.” Therefore, many Christian scholars have sided, stating this text to be purely messianic, simply because Peter and Paul said so.

When Peter reads Isaiah 28:16 and he quotes it 1 Peter 2:6, Peter only mentions certain parts of the verse because he wants to highlight those certain parts. Peter chooses to focus on the two words used to scribed this stone: chosen (or elect) and precious (or honored). The Greek word for chosen more specifically refers to a specific one chosen out of many because it is special. The Greek word for precious means to be held in high honor. Together, the emphasis is on God’s master plan. God’s master plan always had Jesus chosen as Messiah, and his death and resurrection honors him as precious. God’s actions also differed from that of the Jewish religious leader. Where God chose Jesus and held him in honor as precious, the Jewish religious leaders of the day rejected Jesus and declared him worthless. More on that later. Instead of closing with the believers “not being in haste,” Peter closes with the phrase “will never be put to shame” as the NIV puts it (I prefer the NIV here. The Greek uses a double negative of the word “no,” which in English, best translates to “never”). The Septuagint chose a more generic word for “haste,” kataischunthēi It best translates to the word “shame,” but it could also mean disappointed, dishonored or humiliated. Put it all together, Peter makes a strong theological statement. Never has the cornerstone brought shame, disappointment or humiliation in the past, and the cornerstone will never do so in the future. God has always been victorious in the past, and so he will be in the future. Therefore, the believer will never be disappointed or ashamed for having faith in the cornerstone. The believer has nothing to fear, for security in Jesus is secured.

As another proof text, Peter quotes Psalm 118:22. From a plain reading of the verse alone, the verse already carries a great irony. The word “rejected,” used here to describe the stone, carries this idea that builders saw it and decided it was useless and good for nothing. What a twist of fate that the stone would go on to become the cornerstone, a very important and significant stone.

Let’s talk about Psalm 118:22 in its original context. Psalm 118 is what Bible scholars call a “declarative praise psalm,” meaning that the psalm is praising and thanking God for his rescuing. Both Jewish and Christian tradition states the psalm was written after the Jews returned from exile, and it was written for the first Jewish holiday the Jews could celebrate back in their home land. How fitting that holiday was the Feast of Tabernacles! Not only does the Feast of Tabernacles celebrate God’s provision of a bountiful harvest, but it also celebrates God rescuing Israel from Egypt, pulling them out of wandering in the desert and putting them in a land of their own, where they could go from hunting and gathering to growing crops, from living in tents to living in houses, and from worshipping in a tabernacle to worshipping in a temple. The Jews returning from the exile must have felt the same way. Coming out of Babylon and coming back into Israel, the Jews had many reasons to celebrate God giving them a home of their own. Coming down to Psalm 118:22 specifically, the worship leader (probably a prophet, priest or king/governor) marvels at the Lord’s decision for a people of his own. Of the great nations and empires of the world, the Lord picked the smallest. While so many of those great empires have dismissed Israel as a bunch of useless people wasting a good land (or maybe won’t even recognize them as a sovereign country!), God has made that nation the foundation of history.

When Peter reads Psalm 118:22, he reads it as if the Psalm 118:22 is looking forward to Jesus Christ, what later theologians would call reading it cristocentrically. So when Peter reads Psalm 118:22, he’s not just thinking about Israel in general, but he’s think about a specific part of Israel, specifically the Davidic king. While the foreign nations and empires rejected Israel as a nation in general, they have also rejected its Davidic king, not seeing him as a legitimate ruler. Centuries later, during Peter’s lifetime, even the rejected nation of Israel would reject their own Davidic king, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Instead of the foreign rulers rejecting the Davidic king, now the Jewish religious leaders reject him. Little they know that the man they rejected as useless and good for nothing would become the king of the kingdom of God. On the flip side, we know Jesus ministered to Gentiles: a Syrophoenician woman, a Roman centurion, even some Greeks, just to name a few. Therefore, Peter concludes the issue no longer lies in the nationality of the person, but rather in their faith. In fact, I believe a better translation of the Greek should start out 1 Peter 2:7 by saying, “It is precious to the believer, but to the unbeliever…” Those who believe will find Jesus, as the living stone, as precious. Those who do not believe, the like foreign rulers and the Jewish Sanhedrin, will find themselves in the same judgment.

For a third proof text, Peter goes back to Isaiah, but this time, he goes to Isaiah 8:14. Once again, Peter uses only the part of the verse relevant to him, so let’s read the passage in its original location, and let’s look at it in its original context. Remember that Israel has chosen to side with foreign nations and foreign gods over the true living God. By doing so, they have made themselves enemies of the Lord. So many Jews have done so, even the prophet Isaiah needs a reminder from God himself not to fall into peer pressure and do the same. In Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah describes the Lord using the metaphor of a rock, and he uses it both ways. When a rock or stone come together to make a sanctuary, that sanctuary can become a fortress of protection and security for someone. On the flip side, a rock or stone can also bring harm to a person when used as a weapon or a trap. Those who side with the Lord find themselves protected, while those who side against the Lord find themselves in danger.

Peter links the stone or rock mentioned in Isaiah 8:14 to the cornerstone mentioned in Psalm 118:22. Not only has the stone builders rejected become cornerstone, but it has also become the stumbling stone and the rock of offense. Not only has the Jesus that the religious leaders rejected become the foundation of the faith, the Jewish religious leaders’ disbelief and disobedience towards will be their downfall, just like the Jews disbelief and disobedience in the Old Testament led them to exile in Babylon.

Now it’s time to put our 3 proof texts together. Remember our hermeneutic process. We start by asking “What does this passage teach me about Jesus?” and we end by asking, “How do I respond to that truth?” What did we learn about Jesus from 1 Peter 2:4-8? Overall, we learn that Jesus is chosen and precious, or elect and honored. Yahweh chose/elected Jesus as Messiah and King of the kingdom of God, so Yahweh held Jesus as precious and honored. No shame, disappointment, dishonor or humiliation can fall on Jesus. Even when governors, kings, emperors or rulers reject Jesus, Jesus will always have the victory. All 3 proof texts defend Peter’s position that Jesus Christ is the Living Stone.

How do we respond to this truth that Jesus is the Living Stone? 1 Peter 2:5 makes it clear. If Jesus Christ is the ultimate Living Stone, then if we as Christians believe in Jesus, we too are living stones. We are precious and honored in sight of God. God holds us in high esteem. We too have been chosen and elect. God has big plans for us, better than the best we could have ever imagined. But that means we have to take the good with the bad. Just as Jesus faced rejection as the Living Stone, so we too, as Christians and living stones, must also face rejection, persecution and maybe even martyrdom. But that bad side even had a good side on the flip side. By believing and trusting in Jesus as the Living Stone, we find our protection in Him. The enemies of Jesus, however, will find themselves in harm’s way.

How do we act in response to this truth that we, as Christians, are living stones? Once again, I point you to 1 Peter 2:5. The only active verb in 1 Peter 2:5 is “offer” as in “offer living sacrifices.” How do we live as spiritual sacrifices? The other place that mentions spiritual sacrifices in the New Testament is Romans 12:1, so I suppose we go could there for more instructions, but I believe a more immediate context gives better instructions. Just look up at 1 Peter 2:1. The verse reads, “So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.” Then 1 Peter 2:2 goes on to say, “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation.” All those words in 1 Peter 2:1 have a negative tone to them, but the word “salvation” in 1 Peter 2:2 associates with the gospel, or the good news. Put it all together. The Christian, as a living stone, offers a spiritual sacrifice by rejecting all evil and other bad things, while growing in the gospel, or good things. 

While a plain reading of the text of 1 Peter 2:4-8 might have realized the same answer as looking deeper into the 3 Old Testament passages, the 3 proof texts give us an extra enlightenment. The Jews, God’s chosen people of the Old Testament, failed to live up to their role as livings stone. Not until Jesus came to this earth did God’s chosen one succeed and to live up that role. Let us, as Christians, not fail God again, but let us live up to that role as living stone.

John 12: Palm Sunday

Now that we’re entering the second half of the book of John, John’s writing is going to shift. He’s going to go from the 3-4 years of the ministry of Jesus to the Passion Week of Jesus. He’s going to shift from touring Galilee, Samaria and Judea with Jesus to just staying in the city of Jerusalem. He’s going to shift from action-packed miracles to solely focus on teachings of Jesus. Things are going to slow down, become more local, and become more focused. Since John is slightly changing up his writing style, I am going to do the same. I’m not going to be as concerned with staying inside the chapter boundaries, the section boundaries, the paragraph boundaries or the verse boundaries. One blog post might have a couple chapters in it or it might have only a section or two in it. I might focus a long time on certain paragraphs, a short on some other paragraphs and some paragraphs I might completely ignore. Why? Since John’s writing is more central in time and location, as well as style (teachings), I don’t have to continually set the scene. For the remainder of John, the setting will remain the same, so the context will remain the same. I’m only going to pull out things that are debated, in which all sides need to be heard, or things that need a deeper explanation to fully understand. My hope is to reveal things to you that you’ve never thought about. If there’s nothing new to reveal, it will skipped over.

The first pericope (story) in John 12 stills has Jesus in Bethany. Now since we’re still in Bethany, it is important to set the scene because it’s debatable. Matthew and Mark also tell this story…or so most believe. The stories in Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9 and John 12:1-8 have many commonalities. All take place at Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper. All have a woman breaking open an alabaster jar of perfume (pure nard) and using it on Jesus. All have someone object to the motion, and all have Jesus defending the woman. Yet there are differences. Matthew and Mark just say it’s a woman, while John names the woman as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus. Matthew and Mark says that the woman uses an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, while John tells the reader it was a pint of pure nard. Matthew and Mark say the woman poured the perfume on the head of Jesus, while John recalls the nard going on the feet of Jesus. John also adds more detail, such as Mary wiping the feet of Jesus with her hair. Mark says everybody watching opposed, Matthew gets specific and says it was only the 12 disciples that opposed, John gets even more specific, calling out Judas Iscariot to the opposer. Yet the biggest difference would be that Matthew and Mark state this happens 2 days before the Passover, while John puts it 6 days before the Passover. What are we to do? Are we to admit that the Gospel writers mixed up their facts and made mistakes in their writing? Never! It just requires some shifting through.

Let’s look at how the scholars have dealt with it. Some scholars have tried to argue that the accounts of Matthew and Mark are the same, but the account of John is a different story. Their proof is Luke 7:36-50. In Luke 7:36-50, Luke also tells a story of a woman cleaning the feet of Jesus with her hair, then anointing it with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, followed by objections. Yet it would be ridiculous to try to say it is the same event as recorded in Matthew, Mark and John. If you thought Matthew, Mark and John disagreed, wait until you see the Luke story. While all stories take place in the home of a Simon, Luke’s story is in the home of Simon the Pharisee, not Simon the Leper (Simon is very common name back then). Simon the Pharisee’s house is in Galilee, while Simon the Leper’s house is in Bethany in Perea. Luke denotes the woman as a very serious sinner, while Matthew, Mark and John make no notation of that (although some have suggested that’s why Matthew and Mark kept her anonymous). Only Luke mentions cleaning with tears, and no one else does. Luke has the opposer being one person, a Pharisee. Definitely from Matthew and John, and possibly from Mark, no Pharisees are present. Matthew and John definitely, and Mark possibly, show the objectors to be supporters of Jesus, no opponents. Furthermore, the objection is different. Simon the Pharisee objects at a sinful woman touching a righteous man. Judas Iscariot, as well as the rest of the disciples, object that it was a waste of money. Lastly, the reaction of Jesus Luke has recorded is way different than the reaction Jesus gives in Matthew, Mark and John. In Matthew, Mark and John, Jesus calls for the disciples to serve Jesus over the poor. In Luke, Jesus says that the sinful woman was more hospitable to Jesus than the so-called righteous Pharisee. So most scholars would definitely agree Luke’s pericope is a totally different story that happened earlier. Yet some people would take it further to show this anointing by women happened more than once so they conclude it happened 3 times. The first time is recorded in Luke, when Jesus was in the early years of the Galilean ministry. The second time is recorded in John, while Jesus is in Bethany six days before the Passover. The third time is recorded in Matthew and Mark, 2 days before the Passover. I will admit, I was tempted to go along with this thinking. They did have a point showing the major differences meant they were different events. Yet I could help but notice that the similarities were too strong to call them different. All of them have the same setting, all of them have the woman using expensive perfume, all of them have the opposition of wasting money, and all of them have the same reaction from Jesus. So Matthew, Mark and John have to be telling the same story, just from different points of view.

Like I said, this takes further sifting, so let’s sift. First of all, let’s talk about John’s use of names. While Matthew and Mark say “woman,” John says “Mary.” While Mark says, “those present,” Matthew says, “the disciples” and John says, “Judas Iscariot.” What’s the deal? Remember, John likes to pick on people, not in a negative connotation, but in for story-telling purposes, like character development. By giving the people names, the story becomes more real to us. So John reveals the woman to be the Mary, the one we all know, the one who sat at the feet of Jesus and listened, the one whose brother was raised by Jesus. John also reveals the objector to be Judas Iscariot. Now I’m saying that Matthew and Mark were wrong by assigning the objections to a large group of people. They easily agrees with one another. I believe that the grumbling about Mary’s actions started among the 12 disciples, as they all indignantly objected to one another. The other people observing, most likely supporters of Jesus, heard the Twelve Disciples grumble, so they followed suit. Finally, Judas Iscariot gets the balls to stand up to Jesus say what’s on everybody’s minds. If everyone was thinking this, and Judas Iscariot was the only one brave enough to say it aloud, you almost want to give kudos to Judas. Yet John uses this moment to reveal Judas is not the stereotype of a good disciple of a righteous man. John reveals Judas to be guilty of embezzlement. Like I said, character development. Also, it could simply be John’s use of details. That would also explain John saying a “pint of pure nard” instead of saying “an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume.” Pure nard was a very expensive perfume, shipped all the way from India. To get even a pint, or a half leader, a person would have to pay 300 denarii, which took about 300 days of work to save up for. This perfume was so expensive, it was put in the finest and most expensive of jars, like an alabaster jar. Simply because John does not mention it doesn’t mean it was not so.

As for where the perfume went, or how Mary anointed Jesus, I don’t think that really matters. If we were to get fussy and care about it, I would compromise and say it went both on his head andhis feet, but still, I think the grander point of this story in John 12:1-8 is all the foreshadowing going on. First and foremost, the whole event is foreshadowing the death of Jesus. Pure nard was a perfume using in burying the dead. Mary anoints Jesus likes He is a dead body. Jesus outright states that soon the disciples will not have Jesus. The ever-present danger Jesus is in becomes more obvious to Jesus, to His disciples and to everyone around him, including Mary. It’s like they all know when Jesus goes into Jerusalem, He’s not coming out alive. On that, the second foreshadowing the reader sees is Judas Isacriot’s role in the death of Jesus. It will be his own greed for money that will lead him to betray Jesus and hand Him over to death.

So that leaves us only to deal with the time frame. Matthew and Mark says it is two days before the Passover, while John says it is six days before the Passover. Well, location could be taken into account. As stated before, it seems like once Jesus enters Jerusalem, he isn’t leaving. In Matthew and Mark’s context, it would seem like Jesus would leave Jerusalem for a day to go visit the village of Bethany during that final week. Yet my ultimate conclusion is going to come from the writing style of John. Once again, I call you to remember the book of John is not a synoptic Gospel, but a supplementary Gospel. Therefore, of all the Gospel writers, John is the least concerned about the proper chronological order. His transition-of-time words have been vague throughout this entire book. If this book were to be written topically, which is most likely was, it would make the most sense to put together the two stories with the same main characters together. In John 12:1-8, Mary, Martha and Lazarus are all present, the same Mary, Martha and Lazarus in John 11. So I do believe Matthew and Mark, who would at least be slightly more concerned about time frame, do have the right time frame. As for Jesus leaving Jerusalem during Passion Week, I say it’s possible. After Jesus cleared the temple shortly after the Triumphal Entry, the Jewish leaders wanted to arrest and put Jesus on trial right there. Jesus probably had to leave the city for a day until things cooled down because it was not his time.

The pericope ends with the chief priests planning to kill Jesus, and Lazarus as well, because Jesus raising Lazarus is bringing so many people to believe in Jesus. I’m not going to talk about in-depth any further because that was already done for last chapter. But I will point out that it further foreshadows the fate of Jesus: Jesus is not coming out of Passover week alive.

By the time the reader gets to John 12:12, the reader hits the story familiar with Palm Sunday: The Triumphal Entry. Notice while all 3 Synoptic Gospels go into detail on the preparations for the Entry into Jerusalem, but John does not. Once again, Johns knows and expects his readers to have already read the Synoptic Gospels. They know how the disciples prepared, and John has nothing new to add, so he skips over the preparation details. I will mention that it seems like the only preparations the disciples made were the donkey ride for Jesus. It was the greater crowd of followers that did the rest. What did they do? They pull off palm branches and palm leaves to put on the ground and to wave. The Synoptic Gospel writers even add some people put their cloaks on the ground. Then they begin shouting and cheering when Jesus enters. I’ve written down what they are saying below from all 4 Gospel accounts.-

-Hosanna!
-Hosanna to the Son of David!
-Hosanna in the Highest!
-Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!
-Blessed is the king of Israel!
-Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!
-Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!

If you want any further proof that the Twelve Disciples didn’t orchestrate this, John 12:16 tells the reader that Twelve Disciples saw what was going on and had no idea why this was happening. So what’s so important about this? In this second half of the Gospel of John, John’s going to start to portray Jesus as the Son of God by aligning the Son of God portrait with the portrait of Jesus according the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospel that John will agree with in John 12 is the Gospel according to Matthew. Both Matthew and John see Old Testament Prophecy being fulfilled. The explicit one both Matthew and John mention is Zechariah 9:9, in which Zechariah sees the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. Riding on a donkey has a lot of symbolism within itself. In Bible times, a king would either ride into a city on a horse or on a donkey. If the king rode on a horse, it meant he was going in an act of aggression, such as declaring war or taking control as the conquering king. If the king came riding on a donkey, it meant he came in peace, like making a peace treaty or an alliance of some sorts. Jesus did not come to Jerusalem to start a violent revolt to overthrow the Romans, but to peacefully proclaim and establish the kingdom of God on earth. The implicit Scripture being fulfilled is Psalm 118:25,26. Most Bibles have footnotes that connect the crowd’s shouting to the verse. Both Matthew and John have noted this, but they did not write it down. Perhaps they both assumed it was common knowledge to their Jewish reader. Indeed, this Psalm is believed to a Messianic Psalm. Thus, the crowd shouted it when Jesus entered Jerusalem because they believed this man was their messiah.

What do these people do after they give Jesus His parade? They go out and spread the news that Jesus has come to Jerusalem. What’s their tagline? It’s the Jesus who raised Lazarus from the dead! So the people of Jerusalem come out to see this Jesus, hoping to see a miracle. Their faith seems a little shallow, but it’s working. How can a reader know it’s working? Well, for starters, it’s frustrating the Pharisees. So a crowd has assembled large enough to annoy the Pharisees. But on top of that, look at whose attention they get.

The same week Jesus is in Jerusalem, there are also Greeks in Jerusalem. Most likely these Greeks are Greek proselytes (Greeks converted to Judaism), who are in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover and worship in Jerusalem, but they could also be Greek philosophers learning about different cultures. Some of these Greeks have heard about Jesus. These Greeks ask Philip if they get see Jesus. Philip asks Andrew, and Philip and Andrew ask Jesus. Let’s pause right there. First of all, notice how popular Jesus is getting. Word is getting around fast about Him. The resurrection miracle really helped, too. It’s nowhere near as many followers as Jesus had around the miraculous feeding, but it’s got to be the second highest spike. Also, we see Jesus getting famous on a bigger scale. While it’s possible these Greeks are from Decapolis, a region east of the Sea of Galilee and northeast of the Jordan River, if these Greeks actually came from Greece, the name of Jesus is getting around fast. People all over the world want to marvel at him. But it’s even bigger than popularity or fame. The Greeks wanting to see Jesus is a sign to Jesus that His ministry is about to explode…in a good way. No longer is it just the Jews looking for the Messiah, but now the world will seek a Christ. But Jesus knows that there’s an important in between step: His death on the cross. Jesus uses the analogy of a kernel of wheat that “dies” and is placed in the ground to produce many more seeds. (Quick note: This is not an error in the Bible, nor does it mean the Bible is not inerrant. This is called the “Phenomenon of Appearance.” A seed looks like it’s not living, and when someone puts it in the ground, it almost looks like it’s being buried. We in the 21st century know it’s not true, but it sure looks like it.) In the same way, Jesus must die in order that many more believers will believe in Him.

In John 12:27,28, Jesus seems to go into a little soliloquy of sorts. When he realizes His time is near, his heart is troubled thinking about taking on the sin of the world, as well as taking upon the pain and suffering of the cross. He states it is very tempting to ask the Father to remove the responsibility, but He stays on task and instead asks the Father to glorify the name of God. A voice from heaven reassures Jesus that the name of God has been gloried and it will be continued to be glorified. Jesus makes clear that this voice from heaven wasn’t to reassure him, but to reassure the disciples and the greater crowd of followers. Yet check out the reaction of the people in Jerusalem. The believers know it’s the voice of God the Father from heaven, but they are the only ones who can make the connection. The non-believers and rationalists try to rationalize it with a natural occurrence, like thunder. The skeptics, those who are 50/50 or those who think Jesus is merely a rabbi or a prophet, try to compromise it by using something indirect, like an angel. Either way, we still see division among the Jews. But the amazing part is that even some of the Jewish leaders, who are unbiased towards Jesus, realize and admit Jesus has to be the Messiah. Yet most of the Jews, especially Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests and Sanhedrin will not come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. How is this possible?

John continues to go back to the Old Testament prophecy in John 12 to show Jesus is Messiah and God. The two remaining quoted passages are both from the prophet Isaiah. The first is from Isaiah 53:1. Isaiah 53 is most famous for its Suffering Servant passage, describing the Messiah’s death and how it will bring about salvation. John sees it even before we get to the events of Good Friday. John believes that the opener to the chapter is stating that despite the Christ revealing Himself to the people as the Messiah, they will not believe in his message. If you’re thinking that’s pushing it, John gives another passage from Isaiah that’s a little more specific and a little more close. The passage is Isaiah 6:10, and it is quoted numerous times in the New Testament. If Isaiah 53:1 is saying the Jews would not listen to God’s Message, then Isaiah 6:10 is saying the Jews could not listen to God’s Message. Both seem to be true in John 12. John concludes both passages are saying the same thing because Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, so Isaiah spoke about Him. Wait a minute, I thought Isaiah saw God, not Jesus. Bingo. This is another way John is telling us Jesus is God. Isaiah recognized Jesus is God, the Jews failed to recognize Jesus as God, so now the reader has to choose to decide if Jesus is God or not.

So in closing John 12, Jesus turns to plea to the crowd to listen to Him and follow Him. Jesus knows His time on earth is running short, so he wants to get as many last minute converts as possible until He leaves up totally to the disciples. He is also well aware this is the last chance for many people, for they won’t convert, even after his death and resurrection. Jesus is no longer playing games. He’s not playing games with Pharisees and Sanhedrin, like dodging trick questions or hide-and-seek. Jesus has to get His Father’s business done. With Christ’s final message comes a stern warning: accept the light now or forever walk in darkness. Jesus puts a strong sense of urgency on the gospel. My prayer is we also carry that same urgency.