Seventh Sunday of Easter, Exaudi Sunday — Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, John 17:6-19, part 1

The Seventh Sunday of Easter is May 12, 2024.

This particular day is also referred to traditionally as Exaudi Sunday, so called because of the traditional Introit, taken from Psalm 17:1. The two first words in Latin are ‘Exaudi Domine’ — ‘Hear, Lord’.

Because it follows Ascension Day, when Jesus physically leaves His disciples, I have read that it is a sad Sunday in the Church year. The faithful recall the forlorn disciples, among them the Apostles, who saw Christ’s ascent into Heaven and then awaited the arrival of the Holy Spirit.

Readings and exegeses for Ascension Day, which this year was on Thursday, May 9, are as follows:

Readings for Ascension Day (same regardless of Lectionary year)

• • Ascension Day – exegesis on the First Reading: Acts 1:1-11
  • Ascension Day — exegesis on the Epistle, Ephesians 1:15-23
  • Ascension Day — exegesis on the Gospel, Luke 24:44-53

Readings for Exaudi Sunday, Year B, can be found here.

The exegesis for the First Reading, Acts 1:15-17, 21-26, is here; the disciples cast lots for a replacement for Judas. Matthias was chosen over Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus.

We do not know much about St Matthias. Some historians say he preached in Ethiopia and died there. Others say he died of old age in Jerusalem. Another group of scholars believe he was martyred in Jerusalem: stoned then beheaded.

Whatever the case, Matthias remains a popular name in France and Germany.

St Matthias is venerated in Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches, each of which has a different feast day for him.

The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):

John 17:6-19

17:6 “I have made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.

17:7 Now they know that everything you have given me is from you;

17:8 for the words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

17:9 I am asking on their behalf; I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me, because they are yours.

17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine; and I have been glorified in them.

17:11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

17:12 While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.

17:13 But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves.

17:14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world.

17:15 I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one.

17:16 They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world.

17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

17:18 As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.

17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

John 17 is comprised of the prayers that Jesus prayed after the Last Supper while He awaited His arrest. John’s is the only Gospel with such a detailed account, not only of these prayers, but in the accounts of our Lord’s final discourse from John 13 through John 16.

Many commentators, including both Henry and MacArthur, call this chapter ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ because only Jesus as the Great High Priest was able to pray it. What we consider The Lord’s Prayer — ‘Our Father, which art in heaven’ — is the prayer Jesus gave to us.

Henry describes the intercessory prayers in John 17 for us:

This chapter is a prayer, it is the Lord’s prayer, the Lord Christ’s prayer. There was one Lord’s prayer which he taught us to pray, and did not pray himself, for he needed not to pray for the forgiveness of sin; but this was properly and peculiarly his, and suited him only as a Mediator, and is a sample of his intercession, and yet is of use to us both for instruction and encouragement in prayer. Observe, I. The circumstances of the prayer, ver 1. II. The prayer itself. 1. He prays for himself, ver 1-5. 2. He prays for those that are his. And in this see, (1.) The general pleas with which he introduces his petitions for them, ver 6-10. (2.) The particular petitions he puts up for them [1.] That they might be kept, ver 11-16. [2.] That they might be sanctified, ver 17-19. [3.] That they might be united, ver 11 and 20-23. [4.] That they might be glorified, ver 24-26.

… Sursum corda was anciently used as a call to prayer, Up with your hearts, up to heaven; thither we must direct our desires in prayer, and thence we must expect to receive the good things we pray for.

The exegesis for verses 20 through 26, in which Jesus prays for all believers, can be found here; these are read on the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Exaudi Sunday, in Year C.

MacArthur says:

From beginning to end, this chapter is the Lord’s Prayer; He prayed it. It is pure prayer, and it is for us, it is for us. It is the Lord Jesus praying for us, praying for His people. And because it is for us, it is an incomprehensible privilege to have this prayer written down in Scripture. The eleven disciples heard Him pray these words. But in the purposes of God, they were written down so all believers through all time could also hear. This is a firsthand opportunity to hear what’s on the Lord’s heart for His people. This prayer was prayed deep into Friday morning in the darkness as the disciples walked toward the garden of Gethsemane where our Lord would pray, and be tempted, and overcome that temptation, and then be arrested by a crowd led by Judas; and later on that Friday, He would be crucified.

These are the last hours before the cross, and this is when He prays that prayer. He has said everything He wanted to say to the disciples in the upper room earlier on Thursday night when they were celebrating Passover and when He was instituting the Lord’s Table, and then He said even more things as they left the upper room and walked through Jerusalem and beyond Jerusalem, headed toward the garden of Gethsemane. He’s now through speaking, and what He’s been saying – recorded in 13, 14, 15, and 16 of John – is promises; promise, after promise, after promise, after promise: promises of peace, promises of joy, promises of blessing, promises of persecution, promises of death, promise of all promises – the Holy Spirit would come, and the Holy Spirit would fulfill in them all the promises that our Lord gave.

The legacy of Jesus is given to His disciples and to us in chapters 13 through 16. And now in chapter 17, He prays that God the Father will fulfill all these promises, and fulfill them in an ultimate way by bringing His own to heaven. These are the Lord’s final words to the eleven before His death, and what we have here is a preview of His new heavenly ministry which is about to begin.

In today’s verses, Jesus prays for His disciples, particularly the eleven remaining Apostles, Judas having left already. We will see a reference to him in verse 12.

Jesus prayed to His Father that He had made His Father’s name known to those whom He was given from the world; Jesus acknowledges that they were His Father’s people, that God gave those people to Him and that they have kept His word (verse 6).

Henry explains:

Whom he did pray for; not for angels, but for the children of men. 1. He prays for those that were given him, meaning primarily the disciples that had attended him in this regeneration; but it is doubtless to be extended further, to all who come under the same character, who receive and believe the words of Christ …

1. The charge he had received concerning them: Thine they were, and thou gavest them me (v. 6) …

Now,

(1.) This is meant primarily of the disciples that then were, who were given to Christ as his pupils to be educated by him while he was on earth, and his agents to be employed for him when he went to heaven. They were given him to be the learners of his doctrine, the witnesses of his life and miracles, and the monuments of his grace and favour, in order to their being the publishers of his gospel and the planters of his church. When they left all to follow him, this was the secret spring of that strange resolution: they were given to him, else they had not given themselves to him. Note, The apostleship and ministry, which are Christ’s gift to the church, were first the Father’s gift to Jesus Christ. As under the law the Levites were given to Aaron (Num 3 9), to him (the great high priest of our profession) the Father gave the apostles first, and ministers in every age, to keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation, and to do the service of the tabernacle. See Eph 4 8, 11; Ps 68 18. Christ received this gift for men, that he might give it to men. As this puts a great honour upon the ministry of the gospel, and magnifies that office, which is so much vilified; so it lays a mighty obligation upon the ministers of the gospel to devote themselves entirely to Christ’s service, as being given to him,

(2.) But it is designed to extend to all the elect, for they are elsewhere said to be given to Christ (ch. 6 37, 39), and he often laid a stress upon this, that those he was to save were given to him as his charge; to his care they were committed, from his hand they were expected, and concerning them he received commandments. He here shows,

[1.] That the Father had authority to give them: Thine they were. He did not give that which was none of his own, but covenanted that he had a good title. The elect, whom the Father gave to Christ, were his own in three ways:—First, they were creatures, and their lives and beings were derived from him. When they were given to Christ to be vessels of honour, they were in his hand, as clay in the hand of the potter, to be disposed of as God’s wisdom saw most for God’s glory. Secondly, They were criminals, and their lives and beings were forfeited to him. It was a remnant of fallen mankind that was given to Christ to be redeemed, that might have been made sacrifices to justice when they were pitched upon to be the monuments of mercy; might justly have been delivered to the tormentors when they were delivered to the Saviour. Thirdly, They were chosen, and their lives and beings were designed, for him; they were set apart for God, and were consigned to Christ as his agent. This he insists upon again (v. 7): All things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee, which, though it may take in all that appertained to his office as Mediator, yet seems especially to be meant of those that were given him. “They are of thee, their being is of thee as the God of nature, their well-being is of thee as the God of grace; they are all of thee, and therefore, Father, I bring them all to thee, that they may be all for thee.”

[2.] That he did accordingly give them to the Son. Thou gavest them to me, as sheep to the shepherd, to be kept; as patients to the physician, to be cured; children to a tutor, to be educated; thus he will deliver up his charge (Heb 2 13), The children thou hast given me. They were delivered to Christ, First, That the election of grace might not be frustrated, that not one, no not of the little ones, might perish. That great concern must be lodged in some one good hand, able to give sufficient security, that the purpose of God according to election might stand. Secondly, That the undertaking of Christ might not be fruitless; they were given to him as his seed, in whom he should see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied (Isa 53 10, 11), and might not spend his strength, and shed his blood, for nought, and in vain, Isa 49 4. We may plead, as Christ does, “Lord, keep my graces, keep my comforts, for thine they were, and thou gavest them to me.“

2. The care he had taken of them to teach them (v. 6): I have manifested thy name to them ... Observe here,

(1.) The great design of Christ’s doctrine, which was to manifest God’s name, to declare him (ch. 1 18), to instruct the ignorant, and rectify the mistakes of a dark and foolish world concerning God, that he might be better loved and worshipped.

(2.) His faithful discharge of this undertaking: I have done it. His fidelity appears, [1.] In the truth of the doctrine. It agreed exactly with the instructions he received from his Father. He gave not only the things, but the very words, that were given him. Ministers, in wording their message, must have an eye to the words which the Holy Ghost teaches. [2.] In the tendency of his doctrine, which was to manifest God’s name. He did not seek himself, but, in all he did and said, aimed to magnify his Father. Note, First, It is Christ’s prerogative to manifest God’s name to the souls of the children of men. No man knows the Father, but he to whom the Son will reveal him, Matt 11 27. He only has acquaintance with the Father, and so is able to open the truth; and he only has access to the spirits of men, and so is able to open the understanding. Ministers may publish the name of the Lord (as Moses, Deut 32 3), but Christ only can manifest that name. By the word of Christ God is revealed to us; by the Spirit of Christ God is revealed in us. Ministers may speak the words of God to us, but Christ can give us his words, can put them in us, as food, as treasure. Secondly, Sooner or later, Christ will manifest God’s name to all that were given him, and will give them his word, to be the seed of their new birth, the support of their spiritual life, and the earnest of their everlasting bliss.

3. The good effect of the care he had taken of them, and the pains he had taken with them, (v. 6): They have kept thy word, (v. 7) they have known that all things are of thee (v. 8); they have received thy words, and embraced them, have given their assent and consent to them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and have believed that thou didst send me. Observe here,

(1.) What success the doctrine of Christ had among those that were given to him, in several particulars:—

[1.] “They have received the words which I gave them, as the ground receives the seed, and the earth drinks in the rain.” They attended to the words of Christ, apprehended in some measure the meaning of them, and were affected with them: they received the impression of them. The word was to them an ingrafted word.

[2.] “They have kept thy word, have continued in it; they have conformed to it.” Christ’s commandment is then only kept when it is obeyed. Those that have to teach others the commands of Christ ought to be themselves observant of them. It was requisite that these should keep what was committed to them, for it was to be transmitted by them to every place for every age.

[3.] “They have understood the word, and have been sensible on what ground they went in receiving and keeping it. They have been aware that thou art the original author of that holy religion which I am come to institute, that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.” All Christ’s offices and powers, all the gifts of the Spirit, all his graces and comforts, which God gave without measure to him, were all from God, contrived by his wisdom, appointed by his will, and designed by his grace, for his own glory in man’s salvation. Note, It is a great satisfaction to us, in our reliance upon Christ, that he, and all he is and has, all he said and did, all he is doing and will do, are of God, 1 Cor 1 30. We may therefore venture our souls upon Christ’s mediation, for it has a good bottom. If the righteousness be of God’s appointing, we shall be justified; if the grace be of his dispensing, we shall be sanctified.

MacArthur adds that it is interceding for us that marks Jesus Christ out from any other priest, since they all die. Yet, Jesus lives and reigns at the right hand of God the Father and intercedes for us always, throughout history, thereby making him the great High Priest:

Now, I want to say something that you may at first not understand. We look at His cross work, the work on the cross, and we elevate that, and rightly we should. We look at the resurrection and we exalt Him for His resurrection, and rightly we should. But He has a more glorious work. It is the work of intercession that is the truest and fullest expression of the atonement …

Yes, Christ died to pay our debt of sin; but even more importantly, He lives to bring us to glory. He lives to make intercession. Hebrews 7:25, “He ever lives to make intercession for His people.”

The apostle Paul understood that intercession was more than atonement. Look at Romans, chapter 5. Romans, chapter 5 – familiar words – verse 8, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Then notice the next phrase: “Much more then.” Wait a minute. How can anything be more than that? How can anything be much more than that? But he says, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be being saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be being saved by His life.”

What is much more than His death? His life. His death provides the sacrifice for sin, but He ever lives to make intercession for us to bring us to glory. That’s the much more. That’s the much more. He goes on interceding for us.

Jesus continued, saying that the disciples know that everything that He has been given comes from His Father (verse 7).

Jesus said that the words God the Father gave Him He gave to them; they received those words and know, in truth, that He came from the Father, and they believed that God sent Him (verse 8) to the world.

MacArthur tells us what this means:

That essentially is what ministry is about. That is our Lord giving us a model of ministry. He came so that they would know the truth, so that they would receive the truth, so that they would understand the truth and believe the truth. This is a model of how ministry should be. They believed.

They believed that Jesus worked by the power of God. They believed that Jesus had come from God. They said, “We know You’re the Holy One of God.”

They believed that everything He did was according to the will of God, everything He said was the Word of God. They believed that His miracles were done by the power of God, and they were full of the compassion of God. They believed that everything He ever taught had divine authority because it was from God. They believed that Jesus was holy, that every day He ministered to sinners and yet never sinned. They believed that He had regular constant communion with God the Father, and that everything He did expressed the will of the Father. They believed that He was the divine Son of the Father, and they heard the Father give that testimony at the transfiguration and at the baptism.

They knew that everything He possessed was from God. His nature was from God, His words were from God, His works were from God. They received, therefore, all His words as true; and they understood, therefore, His divine origin that He came from the Father; and they believed in His divine mission up to now. They believed that He had been sent by the Father, that He came from heaven, that He is the eternal Son of God. They believed that.

Jesus then made a specific intercession, asking on His disciples’ behalf and not on behalf of the world but only for those whom God gave Him because they are God’s (verse 9).

Here we have the Doctrine of Election, or predestination. Not everyone is destined to be saved. That said, we do not know who is to be saved, therefore, we must go and preach the Gospel in whatever way we are called to do.

Jesus said that all of His people are God’s people and all of God’s people are His people, and He — Jesus — has been glorified in them (verse 10).

Henry elaborates:

All mine are thine, and thine are mine. Between the Father and Son there can be no dispute (as there is among the children of men) about meum and tuum—mine and thine, for the matter was settled from eternity; all mine are thine, and thine are mine. Here is,

(1.) The plea particularly urged for his disciples: They are thine. The consigning of the elect to Christ was so far from making them less the Father’s that it was in order to making them the more so. Note, [1.] All that receive Christ’s word, and believe in him, are taken into covenant-relation to the Father, and are looked upon as his; Christ presents them to him, and they, through Christ, present themselves to him. Christ has redeemed us, not to himself only, but to God, by his blood, Rev 5 9, 10. They are first-fruits unto God, Rev 14 4. [2.] This is a good plea in prayer, Christ here pleads it, They are thine; we may plead it for ourselves, I am thine, save me; and for others (as Moses, Exod 32 11), “They are thy people. They are thine; wilt thou not provide for thine own? Wilt thou not secure them, that they may not be run down by the devil and the world? Wilt thou not secure thy interest in them, that they may not depart from thee? They are thine, own them as thine.”

(2.) The foundation on which this plea is grounded: All mine are thine, and thine are mine. This bespeaks the Father and Son to be, [1.] One in essence. Every creature must say to God, All mine are thine; but none can say to him, All thine are mine, but he that is the same in substance with him and equal in power and glory. [2.] One in interest; no separate or divided interests between them. First, What the Father has as Creator is delivered over to the Son, to be used and disposed of in subserviency to his great undertaking. All things are delivered to him (Matt 11 27); the grant is so general that nothing is excepted but he that did put all things under him. Secondly, What the Son has as Redeemer is designed for the Father, and his kingdom shall shortly be delivered up to him. All the benefits of redemption, purchased by the Son, are intended for the Father’s praise, and in his glory all the lines of his undertaking centre: All mine are thine. The Son owns none for his that are not devoted to the service of the Father; nor will any thing be accepted as a piece of service to the Christian religion which clashes with the dictates and laws of natural religion. In a limited sense, every true believer may say, All thine are mine; if God be ours in covenant, all he is and has is so far ours that it shall be engaged for our good; and in an unlimited sense every true believer does say, Lord, all mine are thine; all laid at his feet, to be serviceable to him. And what we have may be comfortably committed to God’s care and blessing when it is cheerfully submitted to his government and disposal: “Lord, take care of what I have, for it is all thine.“

5. He pleads his own concern in them: I am glorified in them—dedoxasmai. (1.) I have been glorified in them. What little honour Christ had in this world was among his disciples; he had been glorified by their attendance on him and obedience to him, their preaching and working miracles in his name; and therefore I pray for them. Note, Those shall have an interest in Christ’s intercession in and by whom he is glorified. (2.) “I am to be glorified in them when I am gone to heaven; they are to bear up my name.” The apostles preached and wrought miracles in Christ’s name; the Spirit in them glorified Christ (ch. 16 14): “I am glorified in them, and therefore,” [1.] “I concern myself for them.” What little interest Christ has in this degenerate world lies in his church; and therefore it and all its affairs lie near his heart, within the veil. [2.] “Therefore I commit them to the Father, who has engaged to glorify the Son, and, upon this account, will have a gracious eye to those in whom he is glorified.” That in which God and Christ are glorified may, with humble confidence, be committed to God’s special care.

Jesus then prayed about His future: the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and the Ascension.

He asked that, as He was no longer in the world but on His way to the Father, yet His disciples would continue to be in the world, that God protect them in His name, so that they may be one just as He and the Father are one (verse 11).

There we have the Doctrine of the Trinity, even if the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in that verse.

MacArthur says:

The Father loves the Son infinitely and eternally; and because we are in the Son, He loves us infinitely and eternally. We are as accepted as the Son is accepted: “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” And we are in Him, loved as He is loved. That is our justification, that is our sanctification, and that is our glorification. How amazing is it to be loved by God as He loves His own Holy Son.

And let me stop and just say something about Christianity that you need to understand. You might not think that the Trinity is an important doctrine, but it is absolutely foundational to everything that is true about God. John says in 1 John, “God is love.” If God was only a solitary, singular person, that could not be a part of His eternal nature, because there would be no one to love.

… the triune God is eternal love, and has loved eternally within the Trinity.

If Jesus was a created being, God would love us like He loved Jesus, another created being. But Jesus is not a created being. He is the eternal Son, the eternal second member of the Trinity. God loves us like He loves His Son. This is a love beyond anything that any creature will ever experience.

With that infinite, holy, perfect love, He loves His Son, and He loves us in His Son. This is salvation fullness. This is life. This is blessing. This is glory. So when Christ goes into the heavenly Holy of Holies and comes before the Father, as He does continually, we are there in the throne room with Him. We are there in Him.

Henry discusses the world and our Lord’s prayer that His disciples be preserved in it as they go about His work:

Now the first thing Christ prays for, for his disciples, is their preservation, in these verses, in order to which he commits them all to his Father’s custody. Keeping supposes danger, and their danger arose from the world, the world wherein they were, the evil of this he begs they might be kept from. Now observe,

I. The request itself: Keep them from the world. There were two ways of their being delivered from the world:—

1. By taking them out of it; and he does not pray that they might be so delivered: I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world; that is,

(1.) “I pray not that they may be speedily removed by death.” If the world will be vexatious to them, the readiest way to secure them would be to hasten them out of it to a better world, that will give them better treatment. Send chariots and horses of fire for them, to fetch them to heaven; Job, Elijah, Jonah, Moses, when that occurred which fretted them, prayed that they might be taken out of the world; but Christ would not pray so for his disciples, for two reasons:—[1.] Because he came to conquer, not to countenance, those intemperate heats and passions which make men impatient of life, and importunate for death. It is his will that we should take up our cross, and not outrun it. [2.] Because he had work for them to do in the world; the world, though sick of them (Acts 22 22), and therefore not worthy of them (Heb 11 38), yet could ill spare them. In pity therefore to this dark world, Christ would not have these lights removed out of it, but continued in it, especially for the sake of those in the world that were to believe in him through their word. Let not them be taken out of the world when their Master is; they must each in his own order die a martyr, but not till they have finished their testimony. Note, First, The taking of good people out of the world is a thing by no means to be desired, but rather dreaded and laid to heart, Isa 57 1. Secondly, Though Christ loves his disciples, he does not presently send for them to heaven, as soon as they are effectually called, but leaves them for some time in this world, that they may do good and glorify God upon earth, and be ripened for heaven. Many good people are spared to live, because they can ill be spared to die.

(2.) “I pray not that they may be totally freed and exempted from the troubles of this world, and taken out of the toil and terror of it into some place of ease and safety, there to live undisturbed; this is not the preservation I desire for them.” Non ut omni molestia liberati otium et delicias colant, sed ut inter media pericula salvi tamen maneant Dei auxilio—Not that, being freed from all trouble, they may bask in luxurious ease, but that by the help of God they may be preserved in a scene of danger; so Calvin. Not that they may be kept from all conflict with the world, but that they may not be overcome by it; not that, as Jeremiah wished, they might leave their people, and go from them (Jer 9 2), but that, like Ezekiel, their faces may be strong against the faces of wicked men, Ezek 3 8. It is more the honour of a Christian soldier by faith to overcome the world than by a monastical vow to retreat from it; and more for the honour of Christ to serve him in a city than to serve him in a cell.

2. Another way is by keeping them from the corruption that is in the world; and he prays they may be thus kept, v. 11, 15. Here are three branches of this petition:—

(1.) Holy Father, keep those whom thou hast given me.

[1.] Christ was now leaving them; but let them not think that their defence was departed from them; no, he does here, in their hearing, commit them to the custody of his Father and their Father. Note, It is the unspeakable comfort of all believers that Christ himself has committed them to the care of God. Those cannot but be safe whom the almighty God keeps, and he cannot but keep those whom the Son of his love commits to him, in the virtue of which we may by faith commit the keeping of our souls to God, 1 Pet 4 19; 2 Tim 1 12. First, He here puts them under the divine protection, that they may not be run down by the malice of their enemies; that they and all their concerns may be the particular care of the divine Providence: “Keep their lives, till they have done their work; keep their comforts, and let them not be broken in upon by the hardships they meet with; keep up their interest in the world, and let it not sink.” To this prayer is owing the wonderful preservation of the gospel ministry and gospel church in the world unto this day; if God had not graciously kept both, and kept up both, they had been extinguished and lost long ago. Secondly, He puts them under the divine tuition, that they may not themselves run away from their duty, nor be led aside by the treachery of their own hearts: “Keep them in their integrity, keep them disciples, keep them close to their duty.” We need God’s power not only to put us into a state of grace, but to keep us in it. See, ch. 10 28, 29; 1 Pet 1 5.

[2.] The titles he gives to him he prays to, and them he prays for, enforce the petition. First, He speaks to God as a holy Father. In committing ourselves and others to the divine care, we may take encouragement, 1. From the attribute of his holiness, for this is engaged for the preservation of his holy ones; he hath sworn by his holiness, Ps 89 35. If he be a holy God and hate sin, he will make those holy that are his, and keep them from sin, which they also hate and dread as the greatest evil. 2. From this relation of a Father, wherein he stands to us through Christ. If he be a Father, he will take care of his own children, will teach them and keep them; who else should? Secondly, He speaks of them as those whom the Father had given him. What we receive as our Father’s gifts, we may comfortably remit to our Father’s care. “Father, keep the graces and comforts thou hast given me; the children thou hast given me; the ministry I have received.“

(2.) Keep them through thine own name. That is, [1.] Keep them for thy name’s sake; so some. “Thy name and honour are concerned in their preservation as well as mine, for both will suffer by it if they either revolt or sink.” The Old Testament saints often pleaded, for thy name’s sake; and those may with comfort plead it that are indeed more concerned for the honour of God’s name than for any interest of their own. [2.] Keep them in thy name; so others; the original is so, en to onomati. “Keep them in the knowledge and fear of thy name; keep them in the profession and service of thy name, whatever it cost them. Keep them in the interest of thy name, and let them ever be faithful to this; keep them in thy truths, in thine ordinances, in the way of thy commandments.” [3.] Keep them by or through thy name; so others. “Keep them by thine own power, in thine own hand; keep them thyself, undertake for them, let them be thine own immediate care. Keep them by those means of preservation which thou hast thyself appointed, and by which thou hast made thyself known. Keep them by thy word and ordinances; let thy name be their strong tower, thy tabernacle their pavilion.”

(3.) Keep them from the evil, or out of the evil. He had taught them to pray daily, Deliver us from evil, and this would encourage them to pray. [1.] “Keep them from the evil one, the devil and all his instruments; that wicked one and all his children. Keep them from Satan as a tempter, that either he may not have leave to sift them, or that their faith may not fail. Keep them from him as a destroyer, that he may not drive them to despair.” [2.] “Keep them from the evil thing, that is sin; from every thing that looks like it, or leads to it. Keep them, that they do no evil,” 2 Cor 13 7. Sin is that evil which, above any other, we should dread and deprecate. [3.] “Keep them from the evil of the world, and of their tribulation in it, so that it may have no sting in it, no malignity;” not that they might be kept from affliction, but kept through it, that the property of their afflictions might be so altered as that there might be no evil in them, nothing to them any harm.

Jesus said that He had protected those whom God had given Him, guarding them (as would the Good Shepherd), and not one of them was lost except for the one destined to be lost — Judas — so that Scripture might be fulfilled (verse 12).

MacArthur explains, also referring to verse 11, with our Lord’s plea for the Apostles’ preservation:

Back in the 10th chapter of John and verse 27, there’s a reminder of this in some of the most familiar words of our Lord: “My sheep – ” My sheep, My sheep “ – hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” “They’re Mine and they’re Yours. You owned them; they were Yours; You gave them to Me. I have held them. Now, Father, You hold them; You guard them; You keep them. You and I are one. While I was with them – ” He says “ – on earth, I was keeping them. The ones that belonged to You, and now to Me, I was keeping them.” Keep means “to watch over protectively.” We’re going to see an illustration of that in chapter 18 that may be the most remarkable illustration of that promise or that purpose of Christ in the whole of the gospels.

When in chapter 18, they come to arrest Jesus, they want also to arrest the disciples. The Lord never lets that happen; He protects them from that, because theoretically, it could have destroyed their faith. But He will never let anything that could do that happen. We’ll see that in chapter 18.

He is about to suffer. He is about to come under the weight and burden of sin, and take His hands away from His disciples; and the Father needs to guard them for those hours. And then when He comes back to heaven, the Father needs to continue to guard them, which He promises to do through the Holy Spirit, whom He gives to every believer.

“I guarded them,” He says in verse 12. That’s phulass, it means “to protect from outside threats.” It’s used in Luke 11 of a strong man guarding a house. It’s used in Acts 28 of soldiers guarding Paul. “I guarded them; I kept them. I now need You, Father, to take over and guard them. And by the way, while I was guarding them – ” He said “ – none of them perished.”

Now, if the sentenced ended there, we’d have a problem: “None of them perished.” We’d all be saying, “Wait, wait a minute. There’s only eleven here. There’s Judas. What about Judas? What about Judas? Isn’t Judas proof that a disciple, a visible associate of Jesus, a preacher for God, can be lost? Isn’t Judas the prototype of a believer who is saved and then loses salvation because he turns and rejects the Lord he once confessed?”

If our Lord didn’t say anything here about Judas, we would have a serious dilemma. So to make sure that never happens, He injects into this otherwise magnificent and beautiful prayer, this one ugly, dark, black note in the whole prayer; it’s the only one. “I guarded them, and not one of them perished.”

Not one of what? Not one of whom? “None of the ones You have given Me perished. None of them. None of the ones who were Your and now are Mine perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.” Judas was never a son of God, he was always a son of perdition.

Son means “nature.” Perdition is the word for “destruction, waste, ruin.” He was a son of ruin. It’s used in Matthew 7:13, “The broad road leads to destruction.” He is a son of destruction, not a son of God. He is an outsider.

Back in the 6th chapter of John at the end of the chapter, Jesus us with the disciples, and Peter says, “‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?’ He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, for he was one of the twelve that who was going to betray Him.”

There was a devil there from the beginning, a son of perdition, never a son of God. You say, “Well, isn’t this a terrible blight on the plan?” No. This was the plan so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.

Back in chapter 13 on that very same evening in the upper room, Jesus said, “I do not speak of all of you – ” 13:18 “ – I know the ones I have chosen. I know the ones I have chosen. I know the ones – ” in 17 “ – the Father has given Me; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled – ” Psalm 41:9 “‘ – He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’ From now on I’m telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am, that am God, because I know about Him what you don’t know, and I know what he will do. He is a son of perdition, he is a devil.”

That same night in the upper room, Satan entered into Judas. Judas was nonetheless treated with love by the Lord that same night. Chapter 13, Judas was treated as the honored guest, given the first piece of bread to dip in the sop, as they called it, the meal. Judas is guilty on his own. The fact that Scripture prophesied he would do this is not a determinism, he did what he chose to do.

Listen to Matthew 26:24, “‘The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if had not been born.’ And Judas, who was betraying Him said, ‘Surely it is not I, Rabbi?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said it yourself.’” So our Lord says, “I’ve guarded them. None of them has been lost, none of them have perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.”

Part 2, covering verses 13 through 19, continues tomorrow.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 11:10-26

The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Genesis 11:10-26

From Shem to Abram

¹⁰ This is the account of Shem’s family line.

Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father^[a] of Arphaxad. ¹¹ And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

¹² When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. ¹³ And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.^[b]

¹⁴ When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. ¹⁵ And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

¹⁶ When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. ¹⁷ And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.

¹⁸ When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. ¹⁹ And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.

²⁰ When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. ²¹ And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.

²² When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. ²³ And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.

²⁴ When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. ²⁵ And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.

²⁶ After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Last week’s post was about the sons and descendants of Shem, who was the father of the Semites.

Today’s verses give us more information about some of them, and John MacArthur explains why (emphases mine):

Now, in chapter 10, you have … the genealogy of all three of Noah’s sons given. If you glance back at the chapter, it begins with the generations, the toledoth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And then it goes on, in verse 2, “The sons of Japheth,” and it goes on to list them. Verse 6, “The sons of Ham,” and it goes on to list them. “The sons of Shem,” down in verse 21.

So, you have this general listing of the genealogies that flow from the sons of Noah. As we come, however, to chapter 11 and verse 10, the focus is again on Shem, but not in a broad sense as it is in chapter 10. The focus on Shem in chapter 10, just shows all the various people groups that came, whereas in chapter 11, it narrows down to focus on one line – the line of election, we could call it. The line of Shem that goes directly to Abram who is the father of Israel and, next to Jesus, the most important man in the history of redemption.

We are told that this is the account of Shem’s family line; two years after the Flood, Shem was 100 years old and became the father of Arphaxad (verse 10). As MacArthur pointed out, only the line of election is involved here.

MacArthur calls the history of humanity thus far ‘paganism versus promise’:

As we see throughout the Genesis record, and we’ll see it here, the story is an ongoing continuum of paganism versus promise. And we saw that at the very outset; we saw that in the conflict between Cain and Abel. We saw that in the society that was built in the time of Lamech. We saw that in the society that was developed before the flood – where paganism dominated, and there were only a few who accepted God at His word and believed His promise – one family who survived that horrifying holocaust. Even after the flood, it is still that ongoing contrast of paganism and promise – the people of paganism and the people of promise.

The scripture from Genesis to Revelation diagnoses man and sort of drops him into those categories. Since the fall, which is recorded in the third chapter of Genesis, all men are sinful, wicked, and in constant rebellion against God. Man is a rebel; he is opposed to God; he is dead in sin, bound in the grip of paganism deep within his nature.

Romans 3 is probably the most concise description of the sinfulness of man. And I know you’re familiar with Romans 3. I just want to call one thing to your attention. As you notice Romans 3:10 through 18, “There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; none who does good, not even one.

“Their throat is an open grave, with their tongues they keep deceiving, the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their paths; the path of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

You notice, if you have that kind of Bible that does that, that that is all in quotes and caps because every one of those statements is taken from the Old Testament. That is not a New Testament diagnosis; that is an Old Testament diagnosis. Better yet, that is a universal diagnosis of the wretchedness of man.

Man is defined as wicked and sinful and rebellious and opposed to God. Every way you can define Him, that’s how it comes out.

So, the story of man is a story of paganism. It’s a story of rebellion. But it is also a story of promise. We found that back in chapter 3 – you can look at it for just a moment, a brief review. In chapter 3 and verse 15, right in the middle of cursing the serpent and cursing the man and the woman, cursing the ground and cursing the environment around them – right in the middle of all those curses, verse 15 produces a promise, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” Right in the middle of this section in which everything is cursed is the first revelation of God’s promise to crush the serpent. The first promise that God is going to deliver sinners from the power of their great adversary.

It is true man chose Satan’s word over God’s, Satan’s worldview over God’s, Satan’s leadership over God’s, Satan’s will over God’s, Satan’s friendship over God’s. And man became the enemy of God who hid from God, who distrusted God, who rebelled against God, who rejected God.

But it is also true that man was not fixed irretrievably and forever in that disastrous condition. Unlike the angels who fell and could never be redeemed, man is granted a promise that one will come and will crush the head of Satan. Satan may well have thought that if he could bring about the fall of man, man would be as irredeemable as his demons; he was wrong …

… the seed of a woman, a virgin-born son would someday come and crush Satan’s head. That’s the first prophecy in the Bible. It is the first time that the great reality that where sin abounds grace much more abounds can be applied …

And so, it would be through Noah now that the seed would come to bruise the serpent’s head. And of Noah’s sons, it would be through Shem. And of Shem’s progeny, it would be through Abram, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, or Judah that the Messiah would come. And so, the record moves inexorably toward the revival of Messiah.

Genesis 11 begins with the story of the tower of Babel, with Babel eventually becoming Babylon. God thwarted the plan that everyone would speak a common language as they progressed in paganism.

MacArthur says:

I think formal pagan religion was sort of launched at Babel. And then the religion that was formalized at Babel in the ziggurat, which was a form of pagan worship probably identified with astrology, when people were scattered all over the world, they took their religion with them. It was a hybrid of some of the truth of the true and living God twisted and perverted by whatever form of paganism had developed at Babel. It flowed out across the whole world. But God had a plan to bring about a nation who would be a witness nation to go to the world and tell them about the true and living God whom they had forgotten.

So, when you come into chapter 11, it’s really important to see the genealogy. You go from Shem, in verse 11 = or verse 10 – all the way down to Abram who appears toward the end of this genealogy for the first time in verse 26.

MacArthur introduces today’s verses with Shem’s offspring Arphaxad:

… this genealogy that we’re going to look at, verse 10, begins 2 years after the 40-day flood.

After Shem became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters (verse 11).

Note that Shem’s lifespan is about 400 years less than Adam’s and his immediate descendants, bar Abel.

MacArthur tells us more:

Now, let me give you little numbers to think about. Noah was 500 when his first son was born, chapter 5, verse 32. He was 500 years old when he had his first son. His first son, by the way, was Japheth. Shem was likely born 2 years later, because ancient – in ancient times, mothers generally nursed their babies for about 24 months or up to 24 months so they wouldn’t be able to conceive for that amount of time that they were nursing their children. So, it would be maybe she nursed for a year – a year-and-a-half, and sometime in the era she became pregnant again, and Shem was born two plus years, let’s say, after Japheth. So, Shem would have been 100 years old 2 years after the 40-day flood. And that’s what it says, “He was 100 years old and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood,” which means that he wasn’t the firstborn – we know that because the firstborn was born when Noah was 100, and he wasn’t 100 until 2 years after the flood. “Shem lived five hundred years after he became the father of Arpachshad, had other sons and daughters,” – a total of 600 years. His father lived 950 years. So, we see something beginning to happen rather immediately. Right? Lifespan is shortening significantly. The effects of the flood on the world, the universe, the atmosphere, as well as the effect of sin passing down from generation to generation.

When Arphaxad was 35 years old, he became the father of Shelah (verse 12).

After he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived another 403 years and had other sons and daughters (verse 13).

MacArthur calls our attention to Arphaxad’s lifespan:

At 35 he fathered Shelah. He lived another 403 years for a total of 438 years. So again, the lifespan is dropping.

Before we find out more about Shelah, there is a footnote from Bible Gateway with an alternative verse 13:

¹³ And after he became the father of Cainan, Arphaxad lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters, and then he died. When Cainan had lived 130 years, he became the father of Shelah. And after he became the father of Shelah, Cainan lived 330 years and had other sons and daughters

MacArthur explains that verse:

… if you go to Luke 3:36, you will read another name stuck in there … the name Cainan appears – C-A-I-N-A-N is the way it’s transliterated. It appears in the genealogy in Luke. And the question is why? Why? This genealogy in the Old Testament, right here in Genesis 11, is repeated one other place. It’s repeated in 1 Chronicles 1. And in the genealogy here, the name Cainan is not recorded. And in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1, Cainan is not recorded either.

The Masoretic scribes who knew the Hebrew well didn’t put it in any of their texts. But the name Cainan does appear in the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is likely that some scribe in – at some point, copying Luke’s gospel, and being familiar with the Septuagint, picked up Cainan out of the Septuagint – which isn’t in the Hebrew text, the Septuagint not – it being a translation, not an inspired original – and stuck it into Luke’s account. It is better than when you see the word Cainan in Luke’s account to understand it as an addition made at a later time. Also, the Septuagint convolutes the order of the names as well and so is not precisely reliable as a primary source. So, just in case you come across the name Cainan, the best understanding of that would be that it was added later by someone who thought it should be there because they picked it up in the Septuagint version.

MacArthur tells us that Shelah was an important male name for generations afterwards:

Shelah became a very common name for families in Judah. Chapter 38 it’s mentioned a number of times; chapter 46, verse 12; Numbers 26:20; 1 Chronicles 2; 1 Chronicles 4, Shelah becomes a very common name.

When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber (verse 14).

After he became the father of Eber, he had other sons and daughters and lived another 403 years (verse 15).

MacArthur tells us that Eber is significant:

… Eber, from which the word “Hebrew” comes …

When Eber was 34, he became the father of Peleg (verse 16). Afterwards, he fathered other sons and daughters and lived 430 more years (verse 17).

In case anyone is wondering why the repetition about ‘other sons and daughters’ appears in these verses, MacArthur says:

That’s just to tell you that the world is expanding in terms of its population, even in this very important line of people.

We discovered last week that the name Peleg means ‘divided’. It is possible that he was born during the ill-fated tower of Babel project. Recall that Eber also had another prominent son, Joktan (Genesis 10:25-28):

²⁵ Two sons were born to Eber:

One was named Peleg,^[d] because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.

²⁶ Joktan was the father of

Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, ²⁷ Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, ²⁸ Obal, Abimael, Sheba, ²⁹ Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.

MacArthur explains Joktan’s absence in Genesis 11’s account:

We remember in verse 25 the name of one son of Eber – Peleg – because in his days the Earth was divided. His name means divided. And that very likely signals that he was born at the time of the scattering at Babel. This particular son of Eber is the chosen line. His brother Joktan fathered Arab tribes, but Peleg fathered the people of God.

At the age of 20, Peleg fathered Reu (verse 18); afterwards, he fathered more sons and daughters, living another 209 years (verse 19).

MacArthur calls our attention once again to the reducing lifespans seen here:

He lived a total of 239 years. His father lived 464. And so, time continues to diminish. Father 464, grandfather 433, and he’s dead 200 years sooner.

Note also that these men are becoming fathers at what we would consider the usual age today.

When Reu had lived for 32 years, he became the father of Serug (verse 20). After that, Reu lived another 207 years, having had other sons and daughters (verse 21).

When Serug had lived for 30 years, he fathered Nahor (verse 22). After Nahor’s birth, Serug fathered other sons and daughters and lived another 200 years (verse 23).

MacArthur points out:

He lives for 230 years and fathers other children. You also notice that they’re having children younger now.

When Nahor had lived for 29 years, he fathered Terah (verse 24). After Terah’s birth, Nahor lived for another 119 years, fathering other sons and daughters (verse 25).

MacArthur says:

So, Nahor lives only 148 years. Actually, Abram lived only 175 years. So, you can see it’s beginning to shorten even more.

And Nahor, just a handful of generations down from Shem, only lives a quarter of the time of Shem’s life. So, the impact of sin, the impact of the flood on the environment is shortening life. This, then – the man Nahor – is Abram’s grandfather …

There is no other ancient near eastern material available that forces gaps into this genealogy. So, we take it at its face value. This is the way it really was.

After Terah had lived for 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran (verse 26).

MacArthur tells us more about Terah:

Terah begins the Abrahamic record. By the way, there are names of people in the Old Testament and in this genealogy that are also the names of places, because very often they use names that were used both for towns and for people; that’s not hard to understand. Towns were named after people. They still are in some parts of the world. So that Terah, the name of Abram’s father, was also a place in the northwestern upper Mesopotamian valley.

Now, “Terah lived seventy years” – follow this very closely – “Terah lived seventy years, became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” Now, I want you to understand something here; you’re going to be confused when you read other parts of the Scripture. He didn’t become a father till he was 70. That’s kind of unusual now, because people are having their sons earlier. But when it tells us that he had three sons when he was 70, it doesn’t mean that they were triplets. It means that he began to have these sons at the age of 70. And if you look at the biblical record, Abraham was not the firstborn son. He was born 60 years later, when Terah was 130 years old … How do we know that?

Well, in chapter 11, verse 32, it says the days of Terah were 205 years and he died. In chapter 12, verse 4, “Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.” After his father died, he left. That’s what Acts 7:4 says. He didn’t leave till his father died. So, if his father died at 205, and he was 75, then he was born when his father was 130. Right?

And so, when he had his son at 70, it wasn’t Abram. He was born in the hundred and thirtieth year of his father. He’s not the firstborn son, but why is he listed first? Because he’s important. Similar to the listing of Noah’s sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The birth order was Japheth, Shem, and Ham. But Shem is mentioned first because of his priority.

Of this genealogy, Matthew Henry also notes the reduced lifespans but differs somewhat with MacArthur on why they are so. Although he attributes man’s sin, he says that there was no fault of nature, whereas MacArthur has said in the past that the Flood introduced rain and storms:

… laying these three genealogies together, we shall find that twice ten, and thrice fourteen, generations or descents, passed between the first and second Adam, making it clear concerning Christ that he was not only the Son of Abraham, but the Son of man, and the seed of woman. Observe here, 1. Nothing is left upon record concerning those of this line but their names and ages, the Holy Ghost seeming to hasten through them to the story of Abram. How little do we know of those that have gone before us in this world, even those that lived in the same places where we live, as we likewise know little of those that are our contemporaries in distant places! we have enough to do to mind the work of our own day, and let God alone to require that which is past, Eccl 3 15. 2. There was an observable gradual decrease in the years of their lives. Shem reached to 600 years, which yet fell short of the age of the patriarchs before the flood; the next three came short of 500; the next three did not reach to 300; after them we read not of any that attained to 200, except Terah; and, not many ages after this, Moses reckoned seventy, or eighty, to be the utmost men ordinarily arrive at. When the earth began to be replenished, men’s lives began to shorten; so that the decrease is to be imputed to the wise disposal of Providence, rather than to any decay of nature. For the elect’s sake, men’s days are shortened; and, being evil, it is well they are few, and attain not to the years of the lives of our fathers, ch. 47 9. 3. Eber, from whom the Hebrews were denominated, was the longest-lived of any that was born after the flood, which perhaps was the reward of his singular piety and strict adherence to the ways of God.

MacArthur emphasises that paganism dominates here:

… as I told you, Terah was not a believer in the true God. Joshua 24:2 says he served other gods. He was an idolatrous pagan. So, these three boys – Abram, Nahor, and Haran – mentioned there in verse 26, were born into a pagan family. And I want you to understand something about their paganism. Influenced by the astrology of Babel, it appears that they worshiped the moon god. Terah has been related, by Hebrew scholars, to the Hebrew word yarea, which is the word for moon. And it indicates that he was actually named, perhaps, for the moon god by his father Nahor, who was perhaps a worshiper of the moon god as well.

It is also interesting to note that the birthplace of Abram, the town of Ur, was known and is known, by archeologists and historians, as the major center of the worship of the moon god in ancient Mesopotamia.

The name Nahor pops up again in verse 26, which is in the Lectionary, but MacArthur tells us this is not the same person:

That’s Abram’s brother named after this grandfather, which may indicate that he was the firstborn son and was given the name of his grandfather.

MacArthur tells us more about Abram and his immediate family, including Nahor from verse 26:

Now, Abram – later Abraham in chapter 17, verse 5 – Abram means “exalted father.” But Abraham means “father of many nations.” He was named “exalted father.” He ended up being named the “father of many nations” by God.

Nahor was named after his grandfather. And that’s why I kind of think he may have been the first one born. And there’s more about his family in chapter 22. I won’t tell you the whole story. But chapter 22 indicates that Nahor had 12 sons. Twelve sons. All of them, then, would be Abraham’s nephews. Right? His brother’s sons. One of his brother’s sons was Bethuel, the father of – are you ready for this? – Rebekah, who married Abraham’s son Isaac and became the mother of Jacob and Esau. It’s a small, small world in ancient times. Marrying your second cousin was certainly in order.

The third one named, besides Abram and Nahor, was Haran. Haran is also the name of a town in Moab – Beth-haran – mentioned in Numbers 32:36 and Joshua 13:27. It may have been where he had an influence or settled or just may be coincidental.

Now, all three of these names are well known in Jewish history. They all appear in the biblical record, as you go through Genesis, and so they are noted for us here. Abraham lived for 175 years. He died, as I said, just a couple of years after the death of Noah and was likely – listen to this – survived by Shem outliving Abram. He was probably survived by Shelah and also by Eber.

But Abram is the key person here, because Abram believed in the true God. God in glory appeared to him, as I read for you from Acts chapter 7. Let me read just further down the book of Genesis to chapter 15 for a moment. It isn’t to say that at that time Abram was a regenerate, justified man. It is in chapter 15 that God says, “‘Look toward the heavens, count the stars, if you’re able to count them.’ He said to him, ‘So shall your descendants be.’ Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.” His actual justification is there described.

But Abram was a believer in the true God, apparently, and the glory of God appeared to him. Romans 4:3 says, “Abram believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” I think that actual conversion of Abram came at the time there described in the fifteenth chapter of Genesis.

But I’m convinced that when God approached this man, when he was still down in Ur – you can go back to Genesis at this point – he was one who was certainly at least seeking to worship the true God.

So, starting in verse 27, you have a new toledoth, a new generation, the generations of Terah. They culminate the generations of Shem. They inaugurate the generations of Terah. Verse 27, he repeats, “He became the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran” – and this is an interesting note – “Haran became the father of Lot.” Why introduce one son? Why pick Haran and mention that he had a son named Lot? Why is he the only son mentioned?

Well, read the next verse, “Haran died in the presence of his father” – literally died in his father’s face, died while his father was alive. And because this – one of the three sons – died, his son had to take his place in the line of primogenitor. He had to take his father’s place. And so, Lot is mentioned because he takes the place of his father who dies. He, then, is treated more like a son than a grandson. In fact, Abram himself, who is his uncle, takes him under his wing, doesn’t he? Takes him into the land of Canaan with him. So, since Haran died before his father Terah died, his son Lot took his place as if he were a son.

MacArthur tells us more about Ur of the Chaldeans, or the Chaldees:

Now, notice at the end of verse 28, all this is going on in a town called Ur. Ur – we are familiar with that if we know anything about the Bible, Ur of the Chaldees – a familiar name, a familiar place. The best location archeologically – at least the one that I would lean toward – is that Ur is located on the northwest corner of the Persian Gulf. If you were to go south from the land of Israel and east down toward the Persian Gulf – you know, the top of the Persian Gulf has kind of a straight line from west to east. The northwest corner of the Persian Gulf, just a little up from there would be the location of ancient Ur in the southern Mesopotamian valley.

It was one of the most important centers of Sumerian culture – ancient culture. In the year 1922, there was discovered there a place called Tell el-Muqayyar, an Arabic name for a tell. A tell is a mound that reveals a location where civilization has been. One civilization on another, on another, on another, on another creates a tell as they build and build and build, and one goes out of existence, and they build on it; and another one goes, and they build – that’s what they call a tell or a mountain. That tell was excavated from 1922 to 1933, is believed to be the ancient location of Ur.

Some archeologists feel that at the time of Terah and the birth of his sons, it had reached its zenith and was starting to decline as a great city. And that may explain why Terah and his family wanted to leave. But that would be a very human explanation. It is called Ur of the Chaldeans even though technically, at the time of Abraham, it wouldn’t have been Ur of the Chaldeans. Moses, remember, is reading Genesis to the children of Israel, who are entering the Promised Land. This is a long time after these events take place. And they know it as Ur of the Chaldeans. Chaldean tribes, through its history, were later associated with it. And so, it was that way known to Moses’ people. Terah and his family lived there, and it was known – and archeologists have supported this – as a center for the worship of the moon god.

Genesis 12, which is in the Lectionary, covers Abram’s initial encounter with God and his sojourn into Egypt with Sarai, his wife.

Genesis 13 tells us about the quarrelling that occurred between Abram and Lot; they eventually split up and moved apart from each other.

Next time — Genesis 25:1-6

Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, John 15:9-17

The Sixth Sunday of Easter is May 5, 2024.

Readings for Year B can be found here.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

John 15:9-17

15:9 As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love.

15:10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

15:11 I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.

15:12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

15:13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

15:15 I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.

15:16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name.

15:17 I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur (as indicated below).

Today’s reading continues last week’s, John 15:1-8, in which Jesus spoke of Himself as the vine, His Father as the vinegrower and us as the branches.

He warned that those who do not abide in Him are like withered or dead wood on the vine; they are good for nothing but burning.

This was to explain to the eleven remaining Apostles that Judas had betrayed Him, which came as a surprise to them because they thought that Judas was one of them. However, he was not.

Jesus said (John 15:5):

15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.

It is worthwhile discussing this more before examining today’s verses. John MacArthur preached five sermons on today’s verses but they also clarify what went before.

MacArthur addresses fruitfulness in the Christian life, which is an obligation to our Lord:

Yes, we all bear the fruits of righteousness, but we don’t all have much fruit, and we all need to have more fruit.

We say, “How do you do that?”  Well, it’s not a matter of human effort.  It’s about abiding in Christ.  Now, let me make a simple point out of this.  The more you focus on Christ, the more fruitful you become.  The more you focus on yourself, the less fruitful you become.  Lose yourself in the glory of Christ.  That’s 2 Corinthians 3:18.  As you gaze at His glory, you move from one level of glory to the next to the next to the next by the Holy Spirit, until you literally become like Him.

In his next sermon, MacArthur says that the way we focus on Christ is by abiding in Him the way He abides in us:

Abide: I know that is kind of an old word and it sort of has spiritual overtones. It’s simply the Greek verb men, don’t walk away from Christ. Stay; remain. Don’t leave. Don’t defect. Don’t become an apostate. This is His word to the 11 remaining disciples: “Continue to believe. Continue to be faithful.”

This is a call to anyone and everyone who is attached to Christianity and could be in danger of departing. If it happens, 1 John 2:19 says, “They went out from us because were not of us.” Don’t do that; don’t defect.

Hebrews 10 says, “The severest punishment in hell will belong to those who were close to Christ and turned their back on Him because they trampled underfoot the blood of the covenant and counted it an unholy thing.” If you’re in any sense like Judas, connected to Christianity, don’t walk away. Many had done that. Chapter 6, there was a wholesale exodus of people who were called disciples who walked no more with Him. Judas is no solitary figure, even in the gospel of John, but he is the archetypal defector.

… He gives promises to those who stay. What is the value of abiding? Why should I stay? Well, the passage starting in verse 4 and going down to verse 11 lists a series of promises to those who remain, who stay, and they’re basic.

… This is kind of Christianity 101. The first benefit … is salvation, salvation, eternal life. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have – ” what? “ – eternal life” …

What is salvation? It is having the life of God in you, the eternal life of God. The eternal life of God is not separate from God, and so salvation is stated in that 4th verse in these words: “Abide in Me, and I in you, and I in you.” Or, in verse 5, the abiding branch: “I in him.” “I in you.”

… the Trinity lives in a believer. The Trinity takes up residence in a believer.

… So when somebody asks you, “What does it mean to be a Christian?” you tell them it means that “the triune God of the universe – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – has taken up residence in me.”

… Bottom line: only as you abide in Him and He abides in you can you bear much fruit, much fruit.

This fruit then, according to verse 8, becomes the proof that you’re a disciple. That’s what verse 8 says: “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.” So that is the only way we know that we are disciples of Christ that are genuine, that we are branches connected to the vine. Our Lord said on another occasion, “By their fruit, you will know them. A good tree doesn’t produce bad fruit; a bad tree doesn’t produce good fruit. Good tree, good fruit.”

MacArthur then describes the characteristics of good Christian fruit:

First of all, fruit is genuine repentance, based on Matthew 3:8. Fruit is genuine repentance – a genuine, honest, penitence concerning sin. Sorrow over sin, not sorrow over the consequences of sin. There is that kind of sorrow. But sorrow over the reality of sin. A true and real sorrow over sin – the sorrow of repentance. That, of course, is a very foundational fruit. If the Lord is at work in you, if you are connected to Christ, if His life is flowing through you, there will be an honest repentance.

Now, we are told to bear fruit in this section, to bear more fruit, and that God is glorified when we bear much fruit. There is a progression here that is very important for us to understand …

… As we abide in Christ, and as we yield to Christ, and as we increase in the knowledge of Christ, our fruitfulness increases. By every means of grace, by every means of grace, our abiding is deeper and wider and higher and richer, and we become more fruitful …

Secondly, spiritual attitudes. Another kind of fruit – first repentance – another kind of fruit: spiritual attitudes. Galatians 5:22, “The fruit of the Spirit is – the fruit of the Spirit who dwells in us is – ” this is the product, this is the manifestation of the life of the Trinity in us, “ – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.”

Those are attitudes, are they not? Those are attitudes. Those aren’t acts, those aren’t behaviors, they’re what’s behind behaviors. So here, clearly, fruit is virtuous, spiritual attitudes. And, by the way, all of them, all of them were perfectly manifest in Jesus Christ. So we could say it is fruit in us to manifest the very characteristics of Christ – not in the perfection with which He possessed them, but those same virtues we pursue.

In Ephesians 5:9 it says, “Fruit is all goodness and righteousness and truth.” That’s internal: a love for goodness – being good to people; a love for righteousness – honoring God. A love for truth as revealed in Scripture …

Thirdly, another kind of fruit – and I’m just taking you to scriptures that demonstrate this – a third and very important aspect of fruit: go to the 13th chapter of Hebrews for just a moment; Hebrews, chapter 13, verse 15. Here is instruction that, “Through Him – ” that is through Christ. Without Him we can do nothing, right? Again, it’s, “Through Him.” He is mentioned in verse 12 as “the one who sanctified His people through His own blood.” “Through Him – ” who lives in us, the true vine from which we draw our life. “Through Him then, let us – ” once in awhile, every Sunday? “ – continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.”

That’s worship …

You can’t worship until you’ve been redeemed. You can’t worship until you’ve repented and been saved …

“So let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.” See that little phrase “give thanks”? That’s probably not the best translation of the Greek. The Greek is the word homologe. Logeó is a Greek verb meaning “to speak” or “to say,” from which we get logos. Homo, H-O-M-O in English means “the same,” the same. Homogeneous, the same.

So what it’s saying is this: “Offer God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips that save the same, to His name.” What does that mean? What do we do in worship? We give back to God the very same things that He has reveals to us about Himself. This is what worship is. It is saying back to God everything that He has revealed to us as being true about Himself. All of that is in Scripture.

… True praise then is saying back to God all His attributes as revealed in Scripture. You go through the Scripture from beginning to the end; the attributes of God are scattered all across the pages of Holy Scripture. The more you know the Bible, the more you know about the nature and character and essential being of God. The more you know who He is and what His attributes are, the more you can say back to Him, “God, you are the Creator, You are the Sustainer, You are the Redeemer. You are all-wise, all-knowing, all-sufficient, all-powerful. You are unchanging. You are gracious, loving, kind. You are just, holy, pure” …

The second thing is to say back to God not only what He has revealed about His nature, but what He’s revealed about His works. So when you go through the psalms, you read things like, “You are the God who did this. You are the God who brought Your people out of Egypt. You are the God who parted the Red Sea. You are the God who led Israel through the wilderness. You are the God who brought us into the Promised Land. You are the God who protected us at the Passover,” et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

You come into the New Testament: “You are the God who has redeemed us through the offering of Your Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom You put on the cross and then raised from the dead.” In other words, that is the sum and substance of praise. It is to say back to God with a grateful, thankful heart, all that God has revealed He is and all that He’s revealed He has done; that’s praise. So your praise then is essentially confined by the divine revelation. The more you know about the Word of God, the more you know about God and what He’s done. And the more you know about what He is and what He’s done, the purer your praise is. That’s fruit. That’s the fruit of your lips – worship …

Let me give you another component, a fourth – Philippians, chapter 4 – and this just kind of digs down a little deep in a more specific way. In Philippians, chapter 4, the apostle Paul was obviously in need, very difficult times for him, and dear friends sent him gifts. They sent him supplies, food; and he was extremely grateful. In fact, in verse 16 of Philippians 4, he reminds them that when he was in Thessalonica, they sent a gift more than once for his need. They were very, very generous and loving toward him …

He saw that gift, that expression of love, as spiritual fruit produced through them by the indwelling God. It is the similar significance of chapter 15 of Romans: “Macedonia and Achaia – ” 15:26 “ – have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.” These Gentile churches were sending money to Jerusalem for poor believers. They were pleased to do so. They’re indebted to them; for if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they’re indebted to minister to them also in material things.

In other words, the gospel came through the Jews and came first to them, and then through them; and so the Gentiles are sending a gift. Verse 28: “Therefore, when I have finished this, and have put my seal on this fruit of theirs, I’ll go on my way to Spain.” He saw the Gentiles sending money to poor Jews in Jerusalem as spiritual fruit. So we could add something else to the list: spiritual fruit is contributions to those in need, contributions in those in need …

Then we give you a fifth element of fruit: 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Corinthians 14. Yeah, you know what’s going on in 1 Corinthians 14 – some of you do – chaos in the Corinthian church with tongues and all kinds of chaos, as everybody was doing whatever they wanted in the services. Paganism had encroached in the worship, and so Paul wants to call a halt to all this nonsense, all this meaningless talk. So he says in verse 14, “If I pray in a language, another language, my spirit prays, my mind is unfruitful. If I’m praying in a language I don’t know, my mind is not engaged” …

So you want to be fruitful, say things that edify. That’s another kind of fruit – communication that edifies, communication that blesses, communication that instructs. It may be in a prayer, it may be in a teaching environment, it may be in a conversation, it may be in a counseling or discipling setting.

Now, another one [sixth] … pure conduct, pure behavior.

… Philippians 1:11, “Being filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ.” Or, Colossians 1:9-10. It says essentially the same thing, “so that you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, to please Him in all respect, bearing fruit in every good work, bearing fruit in every good work.”

One final one [seventh]: bringing people to Christ – that’s fruit, that’s fruit – bringing people to Christ …

The apostle Paul wanted to go to Rome, in Chapter 1 of Romans, for one purpose – Romans 1:13, “that I may obtain some fruit among you, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. And I’m under obligation to the Gentiles, barbarians, wise, foolish. For my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you who also are at Rome because I’m not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, the Jew first, and also the Gentile” …

That is, I think the most wonderful fruit because it’s the end product of everything else. If you live a life that resents and resists sin, if you live a life that pursues holiness, if you live a life of worship, if you live a life with the right kind of spiritual attitudes, if you live a life that does good to others, shows love to them and manifests general righteousness, your life will have a powerful testimony. And when you say the triune God lives in you, there will be something to support that claim. That makes the gospel attractive, and the Lord will use you to lead others to salvation …

“If these qualities are yours – ” 2 Peter 1:8 “ – and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you lacked these things, you’re blind, short-sighted, forgotten your purification from your former sins. So be diligent, brethren, all the more, to make certain about His calling and choosing you. And as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; but you will know that an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.”

In his next sermon, MacArthur discusses answered prayer (John 15:7):

15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

MacArthur says:

There are two qualifiers here. Qualifier Number One: “If you abide in Me,” if you are a true believer, if you are a true branch, if you have a permanent union with Jesus Christ in which His life is coming through you …

… second condition, verse 7 “ – and My words abide in you, and My words abide in you” …

Why does He say that? Because to be a believer, you have access to God. To be a believer, you have the promise your prayers will be answered. But also to know that your prayer is going to be answered, you have to know something about God. You have to pray within the framework of God’s revelation.

So Jesus says that second condition is that – to borrow Paul’s language in Colossians 3, “that the word of Christ dwells in you richly.” You understand from Scripture who God is, what He desires.

… You’re asking in the framework of the name of Christ, the name of God, the purposes of God …

So, I remind you that this is an incredible, incredible promise from the Lord that whatever you ask consistent with His person, purpose, and plan, He will do. Your prayer should demonstrate, 2 Corinthians 10:5 that “every thought has been taken captive to the obedience of Christ.” You pray within the framework of divine purpose.

You might even say this: “Father, this I ask because this could be what You desire for Your glory, this could be what You desire for Your kingdom, this could be what You desire to exalt Your Son, this could be what You desire to show the power of Your Holy Spirit.” That’s the principle, always with a view to the divine name, the divine plan, the divine purpose, the divine person. This is what James calls “the prayer of a righteous man.”

MacArthur then gives us a concrete example of assurance, promised in John 15:8:

15:8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.

MacArthur says:

The hardworking vinedresser finds His glory in the fruitful vine.

I remember meeting a gentleman, a nearly 90-year-old gentleman who grows grapes up in the Central Valley and he wanted to show me his operation – one of the largest grape growers in California – and I thought he would take me to an office and show me whatever. I got up there, got in a pickup truck, bounced along through some ruts and ended up ankle-deep in dirt, walking down one row, after another, after another, while he reached in and pulled out the grapes. He showed me the fruit of his labor by showing me the grapes, and he explained to me every kind of grape. He found that if I wanted to know about him, I didn’t need to see his pickup truck and I didn’t need to see his office, I needed to see his fruit; and then I needed to eat it, which was an incredibly wonderful experience.

This is what the Father does. The Father is glorified when He goes down the rows of His children and when He sees the fruit. God’s glory is in the display of His own fruitfulness through us. God is gloried when we bear fruit. It’s like Matthew 5:16, “Let your light so shine before men.” It’s a different metaphor, same idea. “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and – ” do what? “ – glorify your Father who’s in heaven.” That glory goes to God.

It’s a simple as this: for a believer, for a true believer, you are not the explanation for your life, you’re not it. People may poke around to try to figure out why you are the way you are. There isn’t a human answer. There isn’t a human answer. There’s no human explanation for me being who I am. I am not the explanation of my life. God in me is the explanation of my life …

Now, the benefit of this, incredible benefit, just an incredible benefit – back to that same verse, verse 8, “and so prove to be My disciples.” The benefit is I know I’m a believer. How do I know I’m a believer? How do I know that? Because I can’t explain my life. I can’t explain my love. I can’t explain my peace, my joy, my knowledge, my wisdom, my understanding, my usefulness. I can’t explain me humanly – can’t. I can’t. Something is going on in me that has no explanation on a human level. So I look at my life and I have assurance that I’m a true branch because I see all this fruit ...

Go to 2 Peter 1. Peter talks about virtue here. First of all in verse 4, 2 Peter 1:4, he says, “We have become partakers of the divine nature, escaping the corruption in the world by lust.” So we’ve been transformed. We’re out of the corrupt, into the incorruptible. We have become partakers of the divine nature. That’s God in us, the eternal life in us. And as a result of that, as a result of that, we have been delivered from the corruption in the world by lust …

What do we do? We cultivate that in us. And the result? If that happens, “if these qualities – ” look at verse 8 “ – are yours and are increasing – ” more fruit, much fruit, “ – they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” You look at your life, and you go out and you do ministry, and you’re diligent in testing your faith, and stepping out on faith, and being morally pure and excellent and having sound knowledge, and exercising self-control, and persevering in the truth, and obedience and godliness and brotherly kindness and love. If you pursue those things, you will be neither useless nor unfruitful; and so you will look at your life and you’ll say, “Look at my life: look at the usefulness, look at the fruitfulness.”

With that, we move on to today’s verses, where Jesus talks about abiding in Him and obedience to Him through the commandment to love one another.

He said that, as the Father loved Him, so I have loved you — in reality, beyond all human comprehension — therefore, abide in that love (verse 9).

Jesus then said that we abide in His love when we obey His commandments, just as He Himself obeyed His Father’s commandments and abides in His love (verse 10).

Matthew Henry explains:

Christ, who is love itself, is here discoursing concerning love, a fourfold love.

I. Concerning the Father’s love to him; and concerning this he here tells us, 1. That the Father did love him (v. 9): As the Father hath loved me. He loved him as Mediator: This is my beloved Son. He was the Son of his love. He loved him, and gave all things into his hand; and yet so loved the world as to deliver him up for us all. When Christ was entering upon his sufferings he comforted himself with this, that his Father loved him. Those whom God loves as a Father may despise the hatred of all the world. 2. That he abode in his Father’s love, v. 10. He continually loved his Father, and was beloved of him. Even when he was made sin and a curse for us, and it pleased the Lord to bruise him, yet he abode in his Father’s love. See Ps 89 33. Because he continued to love his Father, he went cheerfully through his sufferings, and therefore his Father continued to love him. 3. That therefore he abode in his Father’s love because he kept his Father’s law: I have kept my Father’s commandments, as Mediator, and so abide in his love. Hereby he showed that he continued to love his Father, that he went on, and went through, with his undertaking, and therefore the Father continued to love him. His soul delighted in him, because he did not fail, nor was discouraged, Isa 42 1-4. We having broken the law of creation, and thereby thrown ourselves out of the love of God; Christ satisfied for us by obeying the law of redemption, and so he abode in his love, and restored us to it.

II. Concerning his own love to his disciples. Though he leaves them, he loves them. And observe here,

1. The pattern of this love: As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. A strange expression of the condescending grace of Christ! As the Father loved him, who was most worthy, he loved them, who were most unworthy. The Father loved him as his Son, and he loves them as his children. The Father gave all things into his hand; so, with himself, he freely giveth us all things. The Father loved him as Mediator, as head of the church, and the great trustee of divine grace and favour, which he had not for himself only, but for the benefit of those for whom he was entrusted; and, says he, “I have been a faithful trustee. As the Father has committed his love to me, so I transmit it to you.” Therefore the Father was well pleased with him, that he might be well pleased with us in him; and loved him, that in him, as beloved, he might make us accepted, Eph 1 6.

MacArthur says:

His love is poured out on us, and that the deluge basically is connected to our obedience. The more you obey, the more you are lavished with divine love. And who is the example of obedience? Verse 10: “Just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, and the Father poured out perfect divine love on Him. The more like Christ we are, the more of God’s love we experience. The more we follow the obedience of Christ, the more lavish the love of God becomes on us.

Jesus said that He told the Apostles these things so that His joy would be in them and that their joy would be made complete (verse 11).

MacArthur tells us about the blessing of joy:

“These things – ” meaning everything He’s just said in the previous ten verses. “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you and your joy may be made full. If there’s any love in me, it’s Christ’s love. If there’s any peace in me it’s His peace. If there’s any joy in me, it’s His joy, because I’m a partaker of the divine nature. “I’m saying all these things to you so that you may have My joy and that your joy may be made full.” That’s good news for the eleven.

… This is living, as the Scripture says, “with joy unspeakable, joy unspeakable – joy that can’t even be articulated.” He says in chapter 16, verse 22, “You have grief now – ” to them he says, “ – but I’ll see you again and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you.”

All these things are permanent: a permanent salvation, a permanent sanctification, permanent access to the throne of God for all that is necessary, permanent assurance, permanent love, permanent joy. John picked up on that when he wrote his first epistle, chapter 1, verse 4, he said, “These things I write that your joy may be full.”

Jesus then gave the remaining Apostles — and us — His commandment: to love one another as He has loved us (verse 12).

MacArthur says that this love comes from holy example:

The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father. The Father and the Son love us. We are to love them and love each other. Love defines this relationship.

Jesus went on to define this holy love, which is a demanding love, one which He showed us on the Cross: ‘No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends’ (verse 13).

Today, the only time this is really demonstrated is in the military. It is no wonder that infantrymen refer to themselves as a ‘band of brothers’. Furthermore, they obey their superiors’ commands. Christian love operates on that same type of obedience.

MacArthur gives us a real life example:

This is an extreme friendship. It is an extreme friendship. You say, “By what definition?” By the definition of verse 13 – look at that: “Greater love has no one than this, than one lay down his life for his friend.” That’s extreme. You say, “I’m your friend? Okay, let’s see how far you go with that. You’re going to die for me? You’re going to push me off the tracks and let the train run over you? It’s that kind of friendship?”

I’m reading an interesting book. Part of it’s about a man that I’ve known through the years who was a Green Beret in Vietnam, and I wanted to read more of his story; and in reading this book, one of the main characters in the book, it takes us back to the Vietnam War, and the horrors and the slaughters that were going on there. There’s a story of a man named Benavidez who would, by all accounts seemed a very insignificant individual, but whose heroism was just absolutely beyond comprehension.

On one occasion when his friends who were part of his unit were trapped in the jungle, trapped by a massive force of Vietcong, and when all rescue attempts had been forwarded and helicopters had crashed and men were dying all over the place, he asked to jump onboard with a final effort to go in. And didn’t have a weapon – nothing but a little dagger. And this kind of non-descript little guy from Texas only grabbed one thing. And he heard that his friends – some of them – there were 12 of them to start with: 5 were dead, 7 were left, and they were all wounded. And he had heard that they were wounded because a radio report came out. And he grabbed the nearest thing, which was a medical pack. They couldn’t put him down because they were afraid to lower the helicopter down to the gunfire. So he said, “That’s okay.” And the side of the helicopter with the open door, he threw out the bag and then he jumped out all alone without a weapon, and went searching for his buddies to deliver medical aid to them in the middle of an unbelievable firefight.

The rest of the story you’ll have to read for yourself. The heroism is epic obviously. We get that, we honor that, we respect that, and we know that’s what our Lord’s saying. This is axiomatic, right? “Greater love as no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” We get that. That’s not a spiritual truth, that’s just reality, right? That’s axiomatic; that’s a self-evident truth. That’s the most you can do for somebody is give your life. I mean we get excited when we hear about somebody who wants to give up a vital organ to save the life of somebody else; we get that sacrifice. We read about these kinds of things throughout history.

I’m sorry to say we read about them seemingly less and less in the world in which we live, but we get that. That’s an extreme form of friendship. So it’s one thing for you to say you’re my friend, you know, “I’m your friend, but don’t ask me to, you know, change my schedule really.” Okay, there’s a kind of friendship; I’ll buy that, I can accept that, you know. Send me a Christmas card, that’s okay. It doesn’t go beyond that.

But we’re talking extreme terminology here. This is an extreme slavery where we do everything that our commander tells us to do; we do it joyfully. This is an extreme kind of friendship where we literally are willing to give our lives. Look, that’s what Jesus said, right, “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his – ” what? “ – his cross.” That’s an execution. It might be that.

Paul said, “Look, in my life, I die daily. Every day could be my last day getting the gospel to people. My life is always on the line.” So the Lord says this is an extreme relationship that we have with Him. It is an extreme kind of slavery where we obey everything, and extreme kind of friendship where we give up our lives. And He’s our model – go back to verse 10: “If you keep My commandments, you’ll abide in My love just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.” He’s the model of perfect obedience. He did everything the Father willed Him to do. He’s the perfect model of obedience.

He’s also the perfect model of sacrifice. Go down to verse 13: “Greater love had no one than this, than one lay down his life for his friends.” And that is exactly what He does. That’s exactly what He does. He gives His life for us. He is our model. He didn’t give His life only as an example, He gave His life as an atonement; but it was an example.

Jesus then said that the Apostles — and we — are His friends if we do as He commands us to do (verse 14).

Both our commentators refer here to what was known in ancient times as ‘the king’s friend’, a trusted servant. In the Roman world, this person would have been a very high-ranking slave.

Henry tells us:

“If you approve yourselves by your obedience my disciples indeed, you are my friends, and shall be treated as friends.” Note, The followers of Christ are the friends of Christ, and he is graciously pleased to call and account them so. Those that do the duty of his servants are admitted and advanced to the dignity of his friends. David had one servant in his court, and Solomon one in his, that was in a particular manner the king’s friend (2 Sam 15 37; 1 Kings 4 5); but this honour have all Christ’s servants. We may in some particular instance befriend a stranger; but we espouse all the interests of a friend, and concern ourselves in all his cares: thus Christ takes believers to be his friends. He visits them and converses with them as his friends, bears with them and makes the best of them, is afflicted in their afflictions, and takes pleasure in their prosperity; he pleads for them in heaven and takes care of all their interests there … he is a friend that loves at all times.

MacArthur tells us about ancient Rome:

Well, at the court of Roman emperors … there were some slaves who had risen very high, and they had become friends of the king, friends of the emperor, friends of Caesar. Everybody understood that.

Look, kings need slaves. There were slaves who had access to the king because they were so trusted, because they were so faithful. They had so much fidelity; they were so dutiful. They were so concerned to do what they were told to do, they had risen through the social ranks until they were trusted enough to be made the intimate friends of the king. We read about these slaves that they had the right to enter the king’s bed chamber so that they were the last ones to see him at night and the first ones to see him in the morning. They cared for his most intimate needs at a very personal level. They were so well-acquainted with him that they literally were trusted with his life, with his life. They had become protectors of his life. They would know his fears because they were intimately acquainted with him in all informal situations. They would know his thoughts. They would know his hopes, his joys, his ambitions.

Very likely, they would know his plans. They would know far more about this king than anybody who met him on a formal level. Any statesman, any politician, any noble, or any general wouldn’t know what these intimate friends of the king knew. These slaves who took his sandals off and put on his bedclothes, and were there in the morning to bring him out of bed, to help him prepare for the day. They knew more than his wives knew, because marriage was a convenience, and concubines were only for sexual pleasure, and children were not necessarily given the attention of their important fathers anyway.

One could say that these were the intimate people in the life of a monarch. They were the closest, most personal, private people in his world; and they had to be trusted. They had to be trusted with his life. They had to be trusted with his thoughts. They had to be trusted with his plans. They had to be trusted with his goals and objectives. And if you were a friend to the king, if you were a slave who was a friend, you were of all men most specially favored; and you can understand why.

By the way, the word “friend” in the Greek is philos. It’s from the Greek verb phile which means “to love, to love, to have affection for.” Jesus says, “You are My friends – slaves who are loved. You are slaves who know Me most intimately.”

Jesus then referred to servanthood.

MacArthur says that there is evidence that the original Bible manuscripts used the word ‘slave’ rather than ‘servant’:

Now, when we talk about slaves who are friends, we’re entering into a concept that is alien to even the evangelical world. It was back in 2010 that I wrote a book, and the title of the book was Slave. Some of you’ve seen that book; maybe some of you have looked at it – Slave. I had a hard time getting the publisher to accept the title. I had an even harder time getting them to accept the fact that I was going to expose a cover-up, a long-standing cover-up – a cover-up of centuries, trying to cover up the fact that Christians are slaves. I wrote the book to expose the cover-up, the effort that had gone on for centuries to hide this essential reality that we as Christians are slaves of Christ – slaves who are very intimate friends of the King …

The true reality of Christ’s lordship has been all but obscured and eclipsed through the centuries by the translators of the New Testament, and even the Old, who have tampered with the word “slave.” It really is an amazing cover-up – amazing, amazing. But let’s start with “Jesus is Lord.” That is the Christian confession. It is the word kurios, kurios. That’s the word “lord.” It means “one who has power, ownership, and absolute authority; one who has power, ownership, and absolute authority.” That’s a lord. It’s used 750 times in the New Testament, and its meaning is not in question.

There is a synonym to kurios. The synonym is despots, despots, which means “absolute ruler,” from which you get the English word “despot.” We use it as an adjective. Somebody’s a despotic ruler, we mean they are a unilateral dictator. That’s what despotés means. Jesus, in the little book of Jude, is called “Master and Lord – ” verse 4 “ – despotés and kurios.”

When the New Testament refers to Jesus, it primarily refers to Him as Kurios, Lord. For example, our Lord is referred to 94 times in the book of Acts; 92 of the 94, He is called Lord; 2 He is called  Str, Savior. The lordship of Christ is clearly declared throughout the entire New Testament. He is kurios, sovereign ruler. He is despotés, absolute ruler. So when you say, “Jesus is Lord,” you’re not identifying Him merely as deity – although He is that. You’re not identifying Him in some sort of abstract way as the most important religious figure. When you say “Lord,” that’s slave talk, that’s slave talk. You are saying, “He is the Master with absolute power and absolute dominion.” That word would be used to describe a slave owner: “He is Lord” …

… verse 24 of Luke 9, “Whoever wishes to save his life will – ” what? “ – lose it.” You let go of all of it. You’re not in charge anymore. You’re not in control; that is most basic. Lord, despotés – master, lord, ruler. Very bold, very strong words. A master and a sovereign with absolute dominion; that is slave talk.

And by the way, wherever there was a kurios, there were slaves. Wherever there was a despotés, a master, there were slaves. If you were lord, then you were lord because you had slaves. And if you were a slave, you were a slave because you had a lord, or a master. One axiomatically implies the other.

No one is lord over nobody, and no one is a slave of no one. If Jesus is Lord and you call Him Lord, then He has a right to ask you the question of Luke 6:46, “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord,’ and do not what I say?” because Lord means absolute monarch. So Point Number 1: Jesus is Lord, Kurios – 750 times again that is used in the New Testament. It is inescapable what it means. It means He’s in charge. That’s Point 1.

Point 2: Christians are slaves. Christians are slaves. We are slaves to our Lord. Again, I remind you, the Bible doesn’t condone slavery. It doesn’t establish slavery. It doesn’t condemn slavery. It recognizes that it is and has been a social construct, and it assaults every unrighteous abuse of every kind of relationship, including that one. But the recognition, however, that that may be, for some people, the best of all possible relationships because you are bought and owned, and cared for, and protected, and provided for, and rewarded, and loved. There’s a security in that that doesn’t exist outside of that. But in the case of the spiritual reality, Jesus is Lord Kurios.

We are slaves, doulos. Have you heard that, doulos? What does doulos mean? Slave. It’s all it means. Please, that’s all it means. Doulos means slave. It appears 130 times in the New Testament; 130 times the word “slave” appears in the New Testament.

Now, I know you’re going to run to your New Testament, you’re going to look for all 130. I want to warn you, you won’t find them. You will not find them. You can get your concordance out and you’re not going to find them. Why? Because almost all of those are translated by a different word. They are translated “servant” or “bondservant.” Why? The word means “slave.” That’s all it means; that’s all it’s ever meant.

A slave is someone who is bought and owned. A slave was somebody who had no personal rights, no legal standing, couldn’t go to court, couldn’t own property – no freedom, no autonomy. That’s very different than being a servant. A servant is someone who does something – serves. A slave is someone who is something.

There are six words in the Greek language for servant, and they describe all kinds of functions that people do. A non-slave could serve; a slave could serve. Service doesn’t talk about the reality of your situation, it only talks about your function. But when you use doulos, if they wanted to translate servant in the New Testament in English Bibles or any other, they could translate servant six different ways because how the word is used kind of described its character.

One word for servant is diaknos which means “a table waiter.” Another word for servant is huprets which means an under rower, somebody who pulled oars in a ship. It could be used metaphorically for people who served. But doulos does not describe any function, it describes a relationship …

A slave is somebody who is dependent, obligated, subject to an alien will other than his own. It is not the word “servant.” Doesn’t describe a function. But sad to say, I don’t care what version you have – even up to the ESV, NAS, whatever – starting way back with the Geneva Bible, way back with the Geneva Bible, way back in the Middle Ages, there was a certain stigma about slavery. So translators sort of moved away from slave to servant; had less stigma.

One very interesting article in a theological journal back in 1966 says this: “By the end of the 13th century, slavery disappeared from northwestern Europe. Slavery, therefore, was known to the 17th century Englishmen, at least at the beginning of that century, not as an intimate accepted institution, but rather as a remote phenomenon. Slavery in their minds evoked the extreme case of a captive in fetters or chains, so they doubtless wanted to avoid the implication of cruelty inherent in that imagery. But in so doing, they have unwittingly diminished the force of the actual biblical term.”

So they decided to play fast and loose with a word that means slave, and you will find doulos translated slave as we found it in John 15 because here, it is referring to an actual slave as an illustration. Whenever it refers to an actual slave, or an illustration of a slave, or an inanimate kind of slavery – like slavery to sin or slavery to God, Romans 6 – they’ll translate it “slave.”

Whenever it refers to a believer, there’s an equivocation on that and it ends up being usually some form of servant. Sometimes, some have translated it bond-slave, but it’s all arbitrary. So what has happened is you read through your New Testament and you get the idea that we are servants of God, we are servants of the Lord, we are servants of the Lord – that’s how we think.

Truth is, we are what? Slaves, slaves. I did my very best with a long, drawn out plea with the translators of the ESV, the newest translation, to please translate doulos “slave,” plain and simple.

To show you how embedded this idea is in the Old Testament, which is Hebrew, there’s a Hebrew word ebed. It is a word for slave. It appears 800 times in the Old Testament, 800 times. In the King James Version, once translated slave. There’s just this running away from the reality of the idea of slavery. But slavery is what God wanted to communicate through those words because it describes our relationship to Christ.

I’m not free under Christ, am I? My freedoms are defined by Him. My duties are defined by Him. My convictions are defined by Him. My words are defined by Him. My actions are defined by Him. My relationships are defined by Him. Everything in my life is defined by Him. I have yielded up – when I said, “Jesus is Lord,” I have yielded up unqualified submission to the control and commands of the Lord.

Jesus said that He did not call the Apostles servants any longer because the servant does not know what the master is doing; therefore, He has called them friends, because He had made known to them everything that He had heard from His Father (verse 15).

Henry explains the verse, using the word ‘servant’, which, as MacArthur says, is in the KJV:

Christ loved his disciples, for he was very free in communicating his mind to them (v. 15): “Henceforth you shall not be kept so much in the dark as you have been, like servants that are only told their present work; but, when the Spirit is poured out, you shall know your Master’s designs as friends. All things that I have heard of my Father I have declared unto you.” As to the secret will of God, there are many things which we must be content not to know; but, as to the revealed will of God, Jesus Christ has faithfully handed to us what he received of the Father, ch. 1 18; Matt 11 27. The great things relating to man’s redemption Christ declared to his disciples, that they might declare them to others; they were the men of his counsel, Matt 13 11.

Then Jesus mentioned the Doctrine of Election, saying that the Apostles — and we — did not choose Him but that He chose them and us; furthermore, He appointed the faithful to go and bear fruit, lasting fruit, so that the Father will give them whatever they ask in His name (verse 16).

That statement recalls the aforementioned John 15:7.

Addressing the election of the faithful, MacArthur refers to the master and slave relationship involved:

… if you are a slave and a friend, and you have the privilege of this extreme slavery and extreme friendship, let me tell you something: you didn’t choose this. It’s against everything in your nature – everything, against everything. It’s not a voluntary organization, and that is why in verse 16 you read so unambiguously, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you.”

Now anybody who doesn’t understand that is not trying. That’s not obscure. And it’s very extensive. “What do you mean, chose me for what?” “Chose you to be slave and friend. Chose to disclose everything I heard from My Father so that you would be an intimate friend and there would be no secrets.” In other words, salvation. “I chose you,” that’s the Greek verb ekleg, from which we get the word “elect.” It’s the doctrine of election. “I chose you to be My slaves who are friends, and I made known to you all the truth.” That is salvation. But it doesn’t end there.

Then He says this: “And appointed you that you would go.” This is not just salvation, this is a commission, this is a commission. “I appointed you that you would go.” It’s the Greek verb tithmi, to set, to establish, to fix, to ordain. Very strong. In other words, when you were chosen to be a slave who is an intimate friend, when you were chosen to this extreme slavery, extreme friendship, it was with a view to fulfilling a commission; and it is a commission to go.

This is like a preview of the Great Commission, isn’t it? It’s a preview of the Great Commission: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” “I appointed you that you that you would go.” And then also, to make sure that you would have everything you need – end of verse 16: “Whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He may give it to you. So I have chosen you for salvation, I have chosen you for a commission, I have chosen you for a provision; and with that salvation and that commission and that provision, your life will have an eternal impact.”

Henry elaborates on asking the Father for something in His Son’s holy name:

Probably this refers in the first place to the power of working miracles which the apostles were clothed with, which was to be drawn out by prayer. “Whatever gifts are necessary to the furtherance of your labours, whatever help from heaven you have occasion for at any time, it is but ask and have.” Three things are here hinted to us for our encouragement in prayer, and very encouraging they are. First, That we have a God to go to who is a Father; Christ here calls him the Father, both mine and yours; and the Spirit in the word and in the heart teaches us to cry, Abba, Father. Secondly, That we come in a good name. Whatever errand we come upon to the throne of grace according to God’s will, we may with a humble boldness mention Christ’s name in it, and plead that we are related to him, and he is concerned for us. Thirdly, That an answer of peace is promised us. What you come for shall be given you. This great promise made to that great duty keeps up a comfortable and gainful intercourse between heaven and earth.

Jesus concluded by saying that He was giving those commands so that the Apostles — and we — may love one another (verse 17).

Henry refers us back to verse 12 to emphasise the importance of this commandment:

We must keep his commandments, and this is his commandment, that we love one another, v. 12, and again, v. 17. No one duty of religion is more frequently inculcated, nor more pathetically urged upon us, by our Lord Jesus, than that of mutual love, and for good reason. 1. It is here recommended by Christ’s pattern (v. 12): as I have loved you. Christ’s love to us should direct and engage our love to each other; in this manner, and from this motive, we should love one another, as, and because, Christ has loved us. He here specifies some of the expressions of his love to them; he called them friends, communicated his mind to them, was ready to give them what they asked. Go you and do likewise. 2. It is required by his precept. He interposes his authority, has made it one of the statute-laws of his kingdom. Observe how differently it is expressed in these two verses, and both very emphatic. (1.) This is my commandment (v. 12), as if this were the most necessary of all the commandments. As under the law the prohibition of idolatry was the commandment more insisted on than any other, foreseeing the people’s addictedness to that sin, so Christ, foreseeing the addictedness of the Christian church to uncharitableness, has laid most stress upon this precept. (2.) These things I command you, v. 17. He speaks as if he were about to give them many things in charge, and yet names this only, that you love one another; not only because this includes many duties, but because it will have a good influence upon all.

This reading has given us much to ponder in the days ahead.

Incidentally, Eastertide is soon coming to an end. Ascension Day is this coming Thursday, and Pentecost follows ten days later.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 10:21-32

The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Genesis 10:21-32

The Semites

²¹ Sons were also born to Shem, whose elder brother was^[a] Japheth; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber.

²² The sons of Shem:

Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram.

²³ The sons of Aram:

Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshek.^[b]

²⁴ Arphaxad was the father of^[c] Shelah,

and Shelah the father of Eber.

²⁵ Two sons were born to Eber:

One was named Peleg,^[d] because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.

²⁶ Joktan was the father of

Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, ²⁷ Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, ²⁸ Obal, Abimael, Sheba, ²⁹ Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons of Joktan.

³⁰ The region where they lived stretched from Mesha towards Sephar, in the eastern hill country.

³¹ These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

³² These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Last week’s post gave us more detail on Ham’s sons and his descendants.

Today’s verses introduce Shem’s sons and his descendants.

Japheth was Shem’s elder brother; Shem was the ancestor of all the sons of Eber (verse 21).

Matthew Henry’s commentary answers questions that many might have about the wording of the verse (emphases mine):

We have not only his name, Shem, which signifies a name, but two titles to distinguish him by:—

1. He was the father of all the children of Eber. Eber was his great grandson; but why should he be called the father of all his children, rather than of all Arphaxad’s, or Salah’s, etc.? Probably because Abraham and his seed, God’s covenant-people, not only descended from Heber, but from him were called Hebrews; ch. 14 13, Abram the Hebrew. Paul looked upon it as his privilege that he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Phil 3 5. Eber himself, we may suppose, was a man eminent for religion in a time of general apostasy, and a great example of piety to his family; and, the holy tongue being commonly called from him the Hebrew, it is probable that he retained it in his family, in the confusion of Babel, as a special token of God’s favour to him; and from him the professors of religion were called the children of Eber. Now, when the inspired penman would give Shem an honourable title, he calls him the father of the Hebrews. Though when Moses wrote this, they were a poor despised people, bond-slaves in Egypt, yet, being God’s people, it was an honour to a man to be akin to them. As Ham, though he had many sons, is disowned by being called the father of Canaan, on whose seed the curse was entailed (ch. 9 22), so Shem, though he had many sons, is dignified with the title of the father of Eber, on whose seed the blessing was entailed. Note, a family of saints is more truly honourable than a family of nobles, Shem’s holy seed than Ham’s royal seed, Jacob’s twelve patriarchs than Ishmael’s twelve princes, ch. 17 20. Goodness is true greatness.

2. He was the brother of Japheth the elder, by which it appears that, though Shem is commonly put first, he was not Noah’s first-born, but Japheth was older. But why should this also be put as part of Shem’s title and description, that he was the brother of Japheth, since it had been, in effect, said often before? And was he not as much brother to Ham? Probably this was intended to signify the union of the Gentiles with the Jews in the church. The sacred historian had mentioned it as Shem’s honour that he was the father of the Hebrews; but, lest Japheth’s seed should therefore be looked upon as for ever shut out from the church, he here reminds us that he was the brother of Japheth, not in birth only, but in blessing; for Japheth was to dwell in the tents of Shem. Note, (1.) Those are brethren in the best manner that are so by grace, and that meet in the covenant of God and in the communion of saints. (2.) God, in dispensing his grace, does not go by seniority, but the younger sometimes gets the start of the elder in coming into the church; so the last shall be first and the first last.

Shem had five sons: Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud and Aram (verse 22).

MacArthur tells us more, including about some of the men named in the rest of the verses in this chapter, and gives us a preview of what comes in future chapters of Genesis:

Now, verses 22 and following list the sons of Shem. They all settled in the Middle East. Lud, mentioned in verse 22, was the farthest north, up by the Black Sea. Havilah, Ophir, Sheba, and several others were the farthest south. All the way – literally all the way down to the Gulf of Aden at the tip of the Red Sea, when it goes into the Arabian Ocean. I mean this group stretched across the Middle East from north to south. All the way to Lud in the north, all the way to Havilah and Ophir – remember the gold of Ophir? – in the south, and the rest – the bulk of them in the middle, in the land surrounding Canaan to the east. So, all the way to the south, the north, and east of the land of Canaan.

Just a couple of them are mentioned. Elam is mentioned in verse 22, the father of the Elamites. There was a king – we’ll find about him in Genesis 14 – named Chedorlaomer. Remember him? King of Elam invaded Canaan so that the sons of Canaan served the sons of Shem. They didn’t have to wait till the Canaanites were conquered by the Israelites; Chedorlaomer was a Shemite who conquered Canaanites in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis.

And among the allies of Chedorlaomer was this Tidal king of Goiim, the nations [Goyim being the word the Jews use for Gentiles, people of the nations], the Hagoyim, the coastland people from Japheth …

Elamites lived east of Mesopotamia, had their capital in a little place called Susa or Shushan, mixed with the Medes and made up the Persian Empire. You also notice Asshur, father of the Assyrians, conquered by Nimrod. They became racially mixed. You have the name Arphachshad or Arpachshad. He is in the line of Abraham. We’ll see that over in chapter 11, verse 12. Lud, the father of the Lyddians in Asia Minor. Aram, the father of Arameans or Syrians who play a major role in the rest of the Bible history. And by the way, it was the Arameans who developed – guess what language? – Aramaic. A couple of portions of the Bible – Daniel and Ezra – are in Aramaic.

Shem’s son Aram had four sons: Uz, Hul, Gether and Meshek (verse 23). The footnote says that, in Hebrew, Meshek is Mash.

MacArthur points out:

The sons of Aram – Uz. Do you know who lived in Uz? … Job lived in Uz, Job 1:1.

Shem’s son Arphaxad had a son who was worthy of mention, Shelah; Shelah was Eber’s father (verse 24).

Eber had two prominent sons, Joktan and Peleg; Peleg means ‘division’ and was so named because the earth’s peoples were divided at that time (verse 25).

Henry explains the two possibilities lying behind that division:

Because in his days (that is, about the time of his birth, when his name was given him), was the earth divided among the children of men that were to inhabit it; either when Noah divided it by an orderly distribution of it, as Joshua divided the land of Canaan by lot, or when, upon their refusal to comply with that division, God, in justice, divided them by the confusion of tongues [Babel]: whichsoever of these was the occasion, pious Heber saw cause to perpetuate the remembrance of it in the name of his son; and justly may our sons be called by the same name, for in our days, in another sense, is the earth, the church, most wretchedly divided.

Joktan fathered Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah (verse 26), Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah (verse 27), Obal, Abimael, Sheba (verse 28) and Ophir, Havilah and Jobab (verse 29).

They lived in the region from Mesha towards Sephar, in the eastern hill country (verse 30).

These were the sons — and descendants — of Shem by clans and languages, in their territories and nations (verse 31).

Genesis 10 concludes, having covered the families of Noah’s three sons, including Japheth and Ham (see here and here), saying that their respective nations spread out over the earth after the Flood (verse 32).

Next week, we find out how Shem’s family line produced Abram (later Abraham).

Next time — Genesis 11:10-26

Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, John 15:1-8

The Fifth Sunday of Easter is April 28, 2024.

Readings for Year B can be found here.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

John 15:1-8

15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower.

15:2 He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit.

15:3 You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you.

15:4 Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me.

15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing.

15:6 Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

15:8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

John MacArthur begins by emphasising the supremacy of Holy Scripture:

The Bible is the authority, the only authority, the only book that God wrote.  It contains 66 books – 39 books in the Old Testament, which is the revelation of God before Christ; 27 books in the New Testament, the revelation of God since the coming of Christ, together makes up the 66 books of the Bible.

In the Bible, God speaks.  It is His Word.  When we come together, we don’t come together to hear men speak, we come to hear God speak.  The responsibility then of the pastor and the preacher is to take the message from God and bring it to the people.  I’ve always seen myself, not as a chef, but as a waiter.  My responsibility is not to create the meal, but try to get it to the table without messing it up.  And that is the responsibility which I try to discharge, as we all do whenever we open Scripture.

So as we come to the 15th chapter of John, like anywhere else in the Bible, we are listening to God.  The writer is the apostle John.  But the writer is also God, the Holy Spirit who inspired every word that John wrote.  Because of this, the Bible is without error, it is accurate, and it is authoritative.  When the Bible speaks, God speaks.  And when God speaks, we listen, because God says to us what we must know.

The Bible should dominate every life and all of human society, for in it is contained all necessary truth for life in time and eternity.  And when a nation or a person rejects the Bible, they have rejected God, and the consequences are dire, dire.  Those who listen to God through His Word are given life and blessing, now and forever.

As I have said before, John’s Gospel is my favourite book of the New Testament. Hebrews is a close second because, even though it was written for a Jewish audience, it explains the essential tenets of Christianity. In the words of Reformed church members, it will enable you to ‘know what you believe and why you believe it’.

John’s Gospel has the most complete account of the Last Supper and our Lord’s final discourse to the Apostles. It starts in John 13 and finishes with our Lord’s prayers for the Twelve and for His people in John 17. Those are chapters one can read over and over again poring over every word.

Matthew Henry gives us a synopsis of John 15:

It is generally agreed that Christ’s discourse in this and the next chapter was at the close of the last supper, the night in which he was betrayed, and it is a continued discourse, not interrupted as that in the foregoing chapter was; and what he chooses to discourse of is very pertinent to the present sad occasion of a farewell sermon. Now that he was about to leave them, I. They would be tempted to leave him, and return to Moses again; and therefore he tells them how necessary it was that they should by faith adhere to him and abide in him. II. They would be tempted to grow strange one to another; and therefore he presses it upon them to love one another, and to keep up that communion when he was gone which had hitherto been their comfort. III. They would be tempted to shrink from their apostleship when they met with hardships; and therefore he prepared them to bear the shock of the world’s ill will. There are four words to which his discourse in this chapter may be reduced; 1. Fruit, ver 1-8. 2. Love, ver 9-17. 3. Hatred, ver 18-25. 4. The Comforter, ver 26, 27.

MacArthur tells us more:

And so we come to the 15th chapter of John.  Just to set the stage a little bit, starting in chapter 13 and running through chapter 16, we find ourselves on Thursday night of Passion Week, the last week of our Lord’s ministry. Thursday night was an important night. He gathered with the 12 disciples to celebrate the Passover on that Thursday night when the Galilean Jews would celebrate it.

They met together in a kind of secret place that we call upper room, and our Lord spent that night telling them many wonderful things, giving them many, many promises.  As that night moved on, our Lord exposed Judas as the traitor, and dismissed him.  And Judas left to go meet the leaders of Israel to arrange for the arrest and subsequent crucifixion of the Lord Jesus.  By the time we come to chapter 15, Judas is gone, and only the 11 are left, and they are true disciples.

But as we come to chapter 15, they’re no longer in the upper room.  It is deep into the dark of night.  But chapter 14 ends with Jesus saying this: “Get up; let us go from here.”  Apparently at that time, they left the upper room, Jesus and the 11, and they began their walk through Jerusalem, headed out the east side of the city to a garden where our Lord would pray in prayer so agonizing that He sweat as it were great drops of blood.  And while He was praying, they would fall asleep.  And into that garden later would come Judas, and the Roman soldiers, and the Jewish leaders to arrest Him.  And there, Judas would kiss him; the betrayal would take place; and the next day, He would be crucified.

As they leave the upper room and walk through the darkness of Jerusalem, our Lord continues to speak to them, and what He says to them is recorded in chapters 15 and 16.  Of all these things that He says, nothing is more definitive than the first eight verses of chapter 15.  Our Lord here gives not really a parable – although I guess in the broadest sense could be considered a parable because it is an illustration.  It’s really a word picture, a metaphor, a simile.

Remember Henry’s words about Christ’s desire to see the Twelve continuing to believe in Him and not turn to the Judaism of the day.

Therefore, Jesus said that He is the vine and that God is the vinegrower (verse 1).

Henry offers a brilliant analysis of this well known verse:

The doctrine of this similitude; what notion we ought to have of it.

1. That Jesus Christ is the vine, the true vine. It is an instance of the humility of Christ that he is pleased to speak of himself under low and humble comparisons. He that is the Sun of righteousness, and the bright and morning Star, compares himself to a vine. The church, which is Christ mystical, is a vine (Ps 80 8), so is Christ, who is the church seminal. Christ and his church are thus set forth. (1.) He is the vine, planted in the vineyard, and not a spontaneous product; planted in the earth, for his is the Word made flesh. The vine has an unsightly unpromising outside; and Christ had no form nor comeliness, Isa 53 2. The vine is a spreading plant, and Christ will be known as salvation to the ends of the earth. The fruit of the vine honours God and cheers man (Judg 9 13), so does the fruit of Christ’s mediation; it is better than gold, Prov 8 19. (2.) He is the true vine, as truth is opposed to pretence and counterfeit; he is really a fruitful plant, a plant of renown. He is not like that wild vine which deceived those who gathered of it (2 Kings 4 39), but a true vine. Unfruitful trees are said to lie (Hab 3 17. marg.), but Christ is a vine that will not deceive. Whatever excellency there is in any creature, serviceable to man, it is but a shadow of that grace which is in Christ for his people’s good. He is that true vine typified by Judah’s vine, which enriched him with the blood of the grape (Gen 49 11), by Joseph’s vine, the branches of which ran over the wall (Gen 49 22), by Israel’s vine, under which he dwelt safely, 1 Kings 4 25.

2. That believers are branches of this vine, which supposes that Christ is the root of the vine. The root is unseen, and our life is hid with Christ; the root bears the tree (Rom 11 18), diffuses sap to it, and is all in all to its flourishing and fruitfulness; and in Christ are all supports and supplies. The branches of the vine are many, some on one side of the house or wall, others on the other side; yet, meeting in the root, are all but one vine; thus all good Christians, though in place and opinion distant from each other, yet meet in Christ, the centre of their unity. Believers, like the branches of the vine, are weak, and insufficient to stand of themselves, but as they are borne up. See Ezek 15 2.

MacArthur points out the importance of the words ‘I am’, which God used to define Himself:

The divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ is here declared in verse 1: “I am the true vine,” He says.  And in verse 5 again: “I am the vine.”  How is this a claim to deity?  Because of the verb “I am.”

Back in Exodus, chapter 3, when Moses came before God in the wilderness and asked His name, God said, “My name is I Am That I Am.”  The tetragrammaton: the eternally existent one; the one of everlasting being; the always is, and always was, and always will be one.  Theologians call it the aseity of God, the eternal being of God.  He is the I Am.

Throughout His preaching, teaching, healing, discipling ministry, Jesus continually declared that He is God, He is God.  He said things like, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”

John’s Gospel, the theme of which is Christ’s deity, has several examples of this, some of which follow:

In a context of discussion about the Sabbath, He reminds them that, “The Sabbath doesn’t apply to God because God is at work all the time; and the Sabbath doesn’t really apply to Me either because I, like God, am at work all the time.”  They were infuriated that He would make such a claim.  That was in chapter 5 of John’s gospel.

Later in chapter 8 Jesus said, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing.  It is My Father who glorifies Me of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’  And therefore if God, who is your God, glorifies Me as God, you ought to also glorify Me.”  And again they were offended at such perceived blasphemy.

In chapter 10, He even said it more concisely: “I and the Father are one, one in nature and essence.”  In that same chapter, chapter 10 and verse 38, He said, “Though you do not believe Me, believe the works that you may know that the Father is in Me and I in the Father.”

All through His life and ministry, He claimed that He is God.  Every time Jesus said, “My Father,” which He said many, many times – every time He said, “My Father,” He was underscoring that He had the same nature as God.  And His Jewish audience did not miss the claim.  They were not at all confused.

In fact, in chapter 5, verse 18, this is what we read: “For this cause, therefore, the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but was also calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.”  They understood that that is exactly what He was doing, exactly.  And one of the ways that He did that was by taking to Himself the name of God “I Am” and applying it to Himself.

There’s a series of those claims throughout the gospel of John.  He says, “I am the Bread of Life.  I am the Living Bread that came down from heaven.  I am the Light of the World.  I am the Door, I am the Shepherd, the Good Shepherd.  I am the Resurrection and the Life.  I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”  And then He makes the stunning, inescapable claim, chapter 8, verse 58, “Before Abraham was born, I am eternally existing.”

Jesus told the Apostles that God the Father removes every branch from Him that bears no fruit; every branch that bears fruit, He prunes so that it bears more fruit (verse 2).

Gardeners will understand that reference immediately. We prune dead wood from plants so that the healthy parts grow more abundantly. Some people prune their first rosebuds so that their rose bushes produce even more buds that will flower a short time later.

Henry says:

That the Father is the husbandman, georgos—the land-worker. Though the earth is the Lord’s, it yields him no fruit unless he work it. God has not only a propriety in, but a care of, the vine and all the branches. He hath planted, and watered, and gives the increase; for we are God’s husbandry, 1 Cor 3 9. See Isa 5 1, 2; 27 2, 3. He had an eye upon Christ, the root, and upheld him, and made him to flourish out of a dry ground. He has an eye upon all the branches, and prunes them, and watches over them, that nothing hurt them. Never was any husbandman so wise, so watchful, about his vineyard, as God is about his church, which therefore must needs prosper.

II. The duty taught us by this similitude, which is to bring forth fruit, and, in order to this, to abide in Christ.

1. We must be fruitful. From a vine we look for grapes (Isa 5 2), and from a Christian we look for Christianity; this is the fruit, a Christian temper and disposition, a Christian life and conversation, Christian devotions and Christian designs. We must honour God, and do good, and exemplify the purity and power of the religion we profess; and this is bearing fruit. The disciples here must be fruitful, as Christians, in all the fruits of righteousness, and as apostles, in diffusing the savour of the knowledge of Christ. To persuade them to this, he urges,

(1.) The doom of the unfruitful (v. 2): They are taken away. [1.] It is here intimated that there are many who pass for branches in Christ who yet do not bear fruit. Were they really united to Christ by faith, they would bear fruit; but being only tied to him by the thread of an outward profession, though they seem to be branches, they will soon be seen to be dry ones. Unfruitful professors are unfaithful professors; professors, and no more. It might be read, Every branch that beareth not fruit in me, and it comes much to one; for those that do not bear fruit in Christ, and in his Spirit and grace, are as if they bore no fruit at all, Hos 10 1. [2.] It is here threatened that they shall be taken away, in justice to them and in kindness to the rest of the branches. From him that has not real union with Christ, and fruit produced thereby, shall be taken away even that which he seemed to have, Luke 8 18. Some think this refers primarily to Judas.

(2.) The promise made to the fruitful: He purgeth them, that they may bring forth more fruit. Note, [1.] Further fruitfulness is the blessed reward of forward fruitfulness. The first blessing was, Be fruitful; and it is still a great blessing. [2.] Even fruitful branches, in order to their further fruitfulness, have need of purging or pruning; kathairei—he taketh away that which is superfluous and luxuriant, which hinders its growth and fruitfulness. The best have that in them which is peccant, aliquid amputandum—something which should be taken away; some notions, passions, or humours, that want to be purged away, which Christ has promised to do by his word, and Spirit, and providence; and these shall be taken off by degrees in the proper season. [3.] The purging of fruitful branches, in order to their greater fruitfulness, is the care and work of the great husbandman, for his own glory.

MacArthur says similarly:

There are branches attached to Him.  They’re all attached.  All the branches are attached.  But the ones that don’t bear fruit are cut off, dried, and burned.  So who are they?  Let me remind you of the context.  This all begins back in chapter 13 in the upper room, and it’s pretty clear that there are two types of disciples in that upper room …

I don’t really think there’s a lot of mystery about the two branches.  What did Jesus have in His mind that night?  They had just left the upper room.  The drama that took place there over Judas, the exposure of Judas, the disciples, when Jesus said, “One of you will betray Me,” they said, “Is it I?  Is it I?  Is it I?” which is to say they had no idea it was Judas.

There was nothing manifestly obvious in the life and character and behavior of Judas that would have distinguished him as a false disciple.  He was visibly attached, and for all intents and purposes, looked like everybody else, did what everybody else did.  But, clearly, there were two kinds of people in that room that night.  There were those who bore fruit and there was that one who did not.  There were those who remained abiding in, remaining in, attached to the vine; and there was that one who’s cut off …

Judas had that very night just a few hours before walked away from Jesus terminally, finally.  He is what the Bible would call an apostate, an ultimate defector.  He had been for three years close, so close that people didn’t even know there was no life.  Judas now was on his way to the leaders of Israel to set up the deal to arrest Jesus to get his 30 pieces of silver, and to go from there to hang himself, and catapult into hell.

This is the reality of that night, and this has to be what’s behind our Lord’s thinking and speaking here.  He needs to explain to these men Judas.  Wouldn’t it seem natural to you that in this intimate talk with the beloved 11 that are still with Him, that they’re all still trying to process Judas.  He was high profile.  He was the one who carried the money, trusted.  They were trying to figure out just, “How did it happen?  Who is he?  How does he fit?  What’s going on?” and our Lord gives us an explanation.

He says, “There are branches that have an outward appearance of attachment, but bear no fruit.  They’re taken away and they’re burned.”  And He has to be thinking of Judas.  Judas, who was in close connection to Him, has left on his way to eternal hell.  And, in fact, the Bible says he went to his own place.  It says it would have been better for him if he’d never been born, Mark 14.

MacArthur clears up a point of confusion about people like Judas losing their faith and, therefore, their salvation. The truth is that Judas never had faith — or fruit — to begin with:

I’ve had some discussions with people around the world about this passage, and folks have said to me, “Well, this is proof that you can be in Christ, you can be attached to Christ, and you can lose your salvation.”  The Bible does not teach that, and the words of our Lord Jesus, in the gospel of John, are very explicit: “My sheep hear My voice – ” using another metaphor “ – and I know them and they follow Me.  And I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand.  My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.  I and My Father are one.  Together, we hold those who belong to our flock.”

In John 6, Jesus said, “All that the Father gives to Me will come to Me and I’ll lose none of them.” 

Ultimately:

This is not talking about believers, fruit-bearing branches that all of a sudden are cut off and thrown into hell.  This is talking about people who are attached, but there’s no life because there’s no fruit.

Jesus told the eleven Apostles that they had been cleansed by the word that He had spoken to them (verse 3).

In the King James Version it reads:

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Henry explains what Jesus meant. Part of that meaning also relates to Judas:

Now you are clean, v. 3. [1.] Their society was clean, now that Judas was expelled by that word of Christ, What thou doest, do quickly; and till they were got clear of him they were not all clean. The word of Christ is a distinguishing word, and separates between the precious and the vile; it will purify the church of the first-born in the great dividing day. [2.] They were each of them clean, that is, sanctified, by the truth of Christ (ch. 17 17); that faith by which they received the word of Christ purified their hearts, Acts 15 9. The Spirit of grace by the word refined them from the dross of the world and the flesh, and purged out of them the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees, from which, when they saw their inveterate rage and enmity against their Master, they were now pretty well cleansed. Apply it to all believers. The word of Christ is spoken to them; there is a cleansing virtue in that word, as it works grace, and works out corruption. It cleanses as fire cleanses the gold from its dross, and as physic cleanses the body from its disease. We then evidence that we are cleansed by the word when we bring forth fruit unto holiness. Perhaps here is an allusion to the law concerning vineyards in Canaan; the fruit of them was as unclean, and uncircumcised, the first three years after it was planted, and the fourth year it was to be holiness of praise unto the Lord; and then it was clean, Lev 19 23, 24. The disciples had now been three years under Christ’s instruction; and now you are clean.

Jesus then told the Apostles to abide in Him in the same way He abided in them; just as a branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides on the vine, neither could they bear fruit unless they abided in Him (verse 4).

Henry says:

2. In order to our fruitfulness, we must abide in Christ, must keep up our union with him by faith, and do all we do in religion in the virtue of that union. Here is,

(1.) The duty enjoined (v. 4): Abide in me, and I in you. Note, It is the great concern of all Christ’s disciples constantly to keep up a dependence upon Christ and communion with him, habitually to adhere to him, and actually to derive supplies from him. Those that are come to Christ must abide in him: “Abide in me, by faith; and I in you, by my Spirit; abide in me, and then fear not but I will abide in you;” for the communion between Christ and believers never fails on his side. We must abide in Christ’s word by a regard to it, and it in us as a light to our feet. We must abide in Christ’s merit as our righteousness and plea, and it in us as our support and comfort. The knot of the branch abides in the vine, and the sap of the vine abides in the branch, and so there is a constant communication between them.

MacArthur goes further, saying that Jesus was referring to Israel as a corrupted, wild vine that did not abide in Him:

All the life comes from the vine.  It emphasizes belonging.  If you are connected, you belong.  And I think all of that is true.  But there’s another, much more important reason why He says, “I am the true vine,” and that is because there was a defective vine.

There was a corrupted vine.  There was a degenerate vine.  There was a fruitless vine.  There was an empty vine.  Who?  Israel, Israel.  That’s right.  The covenant people of God, the Jewish people.

Israel is God’s vine in the Old Testament.  In Isaiah 5, Israel as presented as a vine.  God says, “I planted My vine, My vineyard in a very fertile hill,” Isaiah 5.  And that chapter, verses 1-7, goes on to talk about everything God did to give them all that was necessary for them to bring forth grapes.  They produced beushim, sour berries, inedible, useless.  Israel was the vine.  And that metaphor carried through the history of Israel during the Maccabean period between the Old and the New Testament.

The Maccabeans minted coins, and on the coin was a vine illustrating Israel.  And on the very temple, Herod’s massive temple, there was a great vine that literally had been carved and overlaid with gold, speaking of Israel as God’s vine.  God’s life flows through the nation.  That was a symbol of Israel.  There’s much in the Old Testament.  Psalm 80 – sometime you can read Psalm 80 in its fullness – but Psalm 80 tells us the tragedy of Israel’s defection as a vine.

Just listen to a few of the words from Psalm 80: “God removed a vine from Egypt, bringing Israel out of bondage in Egypt.  Drove out the nation’s, planted the vine – ” like Isaiah 5 “ – cleared the ground before it, took deep root, filled the land.  The mountains were covered with its shadow.  The cedars of God with its bows, it was sending out its branches.  It shoots to the river.”  Then this: “Why have You broken down its hedges, so that all who pass that way pick its fruit?  A bore from the forest eats it away.  And whatever moves in the field feeds on it.”

God planted Israel and then turned on Israel in judgment.  Psalm 80 then says, “O God of hosts, turn again now, we beseech you.  Look down from heaven and see, and take care of this vine, even the shoot which Your right hand has planted.  It is burned with fire.  It is cut down.”  Yeah, that’s Israel, that’s Israel.  Ezekiel said it is an empty vine, no fruit.  Isaiah says it produces sort of toxic, useless, inedible results.

Israel had been the stock of blessing.  Israel had been planted by God.  His life would come through Israel to all who attached to Israel.  But Israel was unfaithful, idolatrous, immoral, and God brought judgment.  That’s what the Old Testament lays out for us.

The disciples, like all the other Jews, thought, “Hmm, I’m Jewish.  I’m connected to God.”  Israel, the people of God, the Jewish people, are the source of divine blessing: “I am a Jew; I was born a Jew.  I’m the seed of Abraham; I’m connected to God.”  Not so.

Our Lord comes along and says, “If you want to be connected to God, you have to be connected, not to Israel, but to me.  I am the true vine, althinos.  I am the true vine.  I am the perfect vine.  Through Me, the life of God flows.”

Paul understood that.  He said Israel has all the privileges in the book of Romans.  They have a form of godliness, but they have no life.  They don’t know God.  They’re alienated from God.  He’s the true vine.

Jesus used the word ‘abide’ again in the three verses that follow.

Again, Jesus said that He was the vine and the Apostles — and we — are the branches; He repeated that those who abide in Him and He in them bear much fruit, because apart from Him they can do nothing (verse 5).

Henry tells us:

So necessary is it to our comfort and happiness that we be fruitful, that the best argument to engage us to abide in Christ is, that otherwise we cannot be fruitful. [1.] Abiding in Christ is necessary in order to our doing much good. He that is constant in the exercise of faith in Christ and love to him, that lives upon his promises and is led by his Spirit, bringeth forth much fruit, he is very serviceable to God’s glory, and his own account in the great day. Note, Union with Christ is a noble principle, productive of all good. A life of faith in the Son of God is incomparably the most excellent life a man can live in this world; it is regular and even, pure and heavenly; it is useful and comfortable, and all that answers the end of life. [2.] It is necessary to our doing any good. It is not only a means of cultivating and increasing what good there is already in us, but it is the root and spring of all good: “Without me you can do nothing: not only no great thing, heal the sick, or raise the dead, but nothing.” Note, We have as necessary and constant a dependence upon the grace of the Mediator for all the actions of the spiritual and divine life as we have upon the providence of the Creator for all the actions of the natural life; for, as to both, it is in the divine power that we live, move, and have our being. Abstracted from the merit of Christ, we can do nothing towards our justification; and from the Spirit of Christ nothing towards our sanctification. Without Christ we can do nothing aright, nothing that will be fruit pleasing to God or profitable to ourselves, 2 Cor 3 5. We depend upon Christ, not only as the vine upon the wall, for support; but, as the branch on the root, for sap.

Jesus warned that whoever does not abide in Him is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned (verse 6).

If those words suggest eternal damnation and hell to you, you would be correct.

Henry says:

This is a description of the fearful state of hypocrites that are not in Christ, and of apostates that abide not in Christ. [1.] They are cast forth as dry and withered branches, which are plucked off because they cumber the tree. It is just that those should have no benefit by Christ who think they have no need of him; and that those who reject him should be rejected by him. Those that abide not in Christ shall be abandoned by him; they are left to themselves, to fall into scandalous sin, and then are justly cast out of the communion of the faithful. [2.] They are withered, as a branch broken off from the tree. Those that abide not in Christ, though they may flourish awhile in a plausible, at least a passable profession, yet in a little time wither and come to nothing. Their parts and gifts wither; their zeal and devotion wither; their credit and reputation wither; their hopes and comforts wither, Job 8 11-13. Note, Those that bear no fruit, after while will bear no leaves. How soon is that fig-tree withered away which Christ has cursed! [3.] Men gather them. Satan’s agents and emissaries pick them up, and make an easy prey of them. Those that fall off from Christ presently fall in with sinners; and the sheep that wander from Christ’s fold, the devil stands ready to seize them for himself. When the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, an evil spirit possessed him. [4.] They cast them into the fire, that is, they are cast into the fire; and those who seduce them and draw them to sin do in effect cast them there; for they make them children of hell. Fire is the fittest place for withered branches, for they are good for nothing else, Ezek 15 2-4. [5.] They are burned; this follows of course, but it is here added very emphatically, and makes the threatening very terrible. They will not be consumed in a moment, like thorns under a pot (Eccl 7 6), but kaietai, they are burning for ever in a fire, which not only cannot be quenched, but will never spend itself. This comes of quitting Christ, this is the end of barren trees. Apostates are twice dead (Jude 12), and when it is said, They are cast into the fire and are burned, it speaks as if they were twice damned. Some apply men’s gathering them to the ministry of the angels in the great day, when they shall gather out of Christ’s kingdom all things that offend, and shall bundle the tares for the fire.

MacArthur also relates this to Judas:

And then in verse 6, the one that is thrown away, dried up, gathered, cast into the fire and burned?  Who are the fruitless branches, and the other, who are the fruitful branches who bear the fruit, verse 2, verse 5, and verse 8?  Who are they?  Well, let me recreate for you the context.  The context is a very simple context.  This isn’t our Lord among many people.  This isn’t our Lord in the midst of the crowd.  When He says “you”, He’s directing His words at the Twelve.  In fact, in particular at this point, He’s directing His words at the eleven remaining, Judas having been dismissed … 

Judas is the branch that doesn’t stay.  Judas is the branch that doesn’t remain.  Judas is the branch that doesn’t abide.

John also spoke of such people in his Epistle:

Now, just a reference again to something else that John wrote over in 1 John chapter 2 and verse 19 – very important statement, speaking of people who defect, who do not abide, who do not stay – “They went out from us, but they were not really of us.”  John knows this now from what he learned about our Lord’s words in John 15 and the experience of Judas and others.  “They went out from us,” and it’s still happening in his experience as an apostle, “but they were not really of us; if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.”  And then down in verse 24, “As for you,” he writes – he says now the same thing that our Lord said to the disciples that night – “As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning.  If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.  This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.”  “You abide in Me, and I’ll abide in you.”  John is reiterating what he heard on that Thursday night and is recorded for us in John 15. 

Jesus then talked about prayer, saying that if we abide in Him and His words abide in us, we may ask for whatever we wish and it will be done for us (verse 7).

That does rely on the request being a godly one.

Henry discusses prayer as our means of communication with Christ:

See here, [1.] How our union with Christ is maintained—by the word: If you abide in me; he had said before, and I in you; here he explains himself, and my words abide in you; for it is in the word that Christ is set before us, and offered to us, Rom 10 6-8. It is in the word that we receive and embrace him; and so where the word of Christ dwells richly there Christ dwells. If the word be our constant guide and monitor, if it be in us as at home, then we abide in Christ, and he in us. [2.] How our communion with Christ is maintained—by prayer: You shall ask what you will, and it shall be done to you. And what can we desire more than to have what we will for the asking? Note, Those that abide in Christ as their heart’s delight shall have, through Christ, their heart’s desire. If we have Christ, we shall want nothing that is good for us. Two things are implied in this promise:—First, That if we abide in Christ, and his word in us, we shall not ask any thing but what is proper to be done for us. The promises abiding in us lie ready to be turned into prayers; and the prayers so regulated cannot but speed. Secondly, That if we abide in Christ and his word we shall have such an interest in God’s favour and Christ’s mediation that we shall have an answer of peace to all our prayers.

Jesus concluded by saying that His Father is glorified by the Apostles’ — and our — bearing much fruit and becoming His disciples (verse 8).

Henry elaborates:

If we bear much fruit, [1.] Herein our Father will be glorified. The fruitfulness of the apostles, as such, in the diligent discharge of their office, would be to the glory of God in the conversion of souls, and the offering of them up to him, Rom 15 9, 16. The fruitfulness of all Christians, in a lower or narrower sphere, is to the glory of God. By the eminent good works of Christians many are brought to glorify our Father who is in heaven. [2.] So shall we be Christ’s disciples indeed, approving ourselves so, and making it to appear that we are really what we call ourselves. So shall we both evidence our discipleship and adorn it, and be to our Master for a name and a praise, and a glory, that is, disciples indeed, Jer 13 11. So shall we be owned by our Master in the great day, and have the reward of disciples, a share in the joy of our Lord. And the more fruit we bring forth, the more we abound in that which is good, the more he is glorified.

On the subject of abiding, MacArthur concludes with an answer to people who ask if we have a personal relationship with Christ:

Rather than saying, “I have a personal relationship with Jesus,” which sounds kind of like you’re somebody special, you would be better off to say, “Well, God, the eternal God, holy God, the Creator God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit live in me.”  What!?  But that is essentially exactly what our Lord is saying, and it’s a trinitarian presence, staggering reality.  Now, I grant you that the glorious manifestation of the children of God of Romans 8 has not yet been manifest, has not yet been made visible.  That won’t happen until we’re glorified.  So in the meantime, we are veiled, right?  We are veiled.  The world doesn’t see us.  It is important to know who we are, so I am, I am literally a body in which God lives.  He lives in me.  The Lord has come to live in me … 

How do you talk about yourself as a believer?  You talk about yourself as the residence of God, the temple of God.  Listen to what John says over in 1 John, building on these truths.  “You are from God, little children,” verse 4, 1 John 4:4, “and have overcome them;” – Listen to this – “because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”  You worry about Satan in the world?  Don’t worry about Satan in the world.  “Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.”  Verse 13, “By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us.”  How do we know that?  “Because He has given us of His Spirit.  We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.  Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him.”  Verse 16, “We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”

I wish we’d start talking like this, right?  To abide is to remain, and for all who remain, they give evidence of a genuine salvation, and how is that defined?  It is defined as God living in us.  God living in us, taking up residence.  Colossians 1:21 says, “You were formerly alienated” – from God – “hostile, engaged in evil deeds.  He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel.”  If you remain, if you stay, if you abide, He abides in you.  This is an incredibly stunning reality.  You think about the condescension of our Lord to take on a human body, but He took on a sinless human body. What kind of condescension is it for the triune God to take on a sinful body, take up residence in us? 

With that, may I wish everyone reading this a happy and blessed Sunday.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 10:13-20

The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Genesis 10:13-20

¹³ Egypt was the father of

the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites, ¹⁴ Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.

¹⁵ Canaan was the father of

Sidon his firstborn,^[a] and of the Hittites, ¹⁶ Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, ¹⁷ Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, ¹⁸ Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites.

Later the Canaanite clans scattered ¹⁹ and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon towards Gerar as far as Gaza, and then towards Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha.

²⁰ These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

Last week’s post introduced in more detail the sons and descendants of Ham. Noah put a curse on one of Ham’s sons, Canaan, the father of sorts of the Israelites’ Promised Land, also of the same name.

Today’s verses expand on Ham’s sons and descendants. For those who missed it a few weeks ago, also pertinent to today’s verses is the curse Noah pronounced on his grandson Canaan, Genesis 9:24-29.

Matthew Henry’s commentary tells us (emphases mine):

Observe here, 1. The account of the posterity of Canaan, of the families and nations that descended from him, and of the land they possessed, is more particular than of any other in this chapter, because these were the nations that were to be subdued before Israel, and their land was in process of time to become the holy land, Immanuel’s land; and this God had an eye to when, in the meantime, he cast the lot of that accursed devoted race in that spot of ground which he had selected for his own people; this Moses takes notice of, Deut 32 8, When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Egypt — one of Ham’s sons — was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites (verse 13) as well as the Pathrusites, Kasluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites (verse 14).

John MacArthur says:

… any time you see “im” it’s an ending that means a people. And all those “ims” in verses 13 and 14. They could be “ites” or “ims.” Later he changes to “ites,” but “ites” or “ims,” it’s the same thing; it’s people groups.

Canaan, the bearer of Noah’s — and God’s curse — likely for unbelief, although Scripture does not specify it, was the father of Sidon his firstborn, and of the Hittites (verse 15), the Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites (verse 16), the Hivites, Arkites, Sinites (verse 17) as well as the Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites (verse 18).

MacArthur emphasises the vast number of clans here:

So, the Canaanites were people who descended from Canaan, but there were all kinds of families of them. All kinds of families.

Later, the Canaanite clans scattered (verse 19).

MacArthur discusses the Hittites:

The Hittites, an interesting people, they had sort of a life of their own. The Hittites – we don’t need to introduce something that’s not important in this text, but in case you’re wondering what happened to the Hittites, they had an empire of their own, which today is in the area of modern Turkey. At the time of Abraham, they were in the land of Canaan, and they were a powerful people. They were still a power a thousand years after Abraham at the time of Solomon.

Are these the same people who had the highly powerful Ottoman Empire, which existed between 1299 and 1922? At varying points in history, that empire spread from as far north as Poland down to Kosovo in the opposite direction. The Ottomans had their defeats, but their empire collapsed only after the First World War with the Turkish War of Independence which lasted between 1919 and 1923. The last sultan, Mehmed VI, left Turkey on November 17, 1922, and the Republic of Turkey was created on October 29, 1923. That was only a little over a century ago.

Then there is the question of which of Noah’s sons’ descendants settled the eastern part of Asia.

MacArthur posits two possibilities.

The first involves the Hittites:

Most of the evidence connects the heritage of Asian people to the descendants of Ham. Perhaps the Hittites who came out of Ham were the ones who populated China. Let me read you just a thought on this. The Hittite Empire endured a long time – as I said, over a thousand years. And there are indications survivors of the Hittite Empire fled into China, that they went into China east of Turkey, moving, migrating on a route which Marco Polo took when he opened a new era of commerce many centuries later. And some say it’s the Hittites who got the name Chitti, which brought to the east the name Cathay, which, of course, is a name associated with the Orient.

And some archeologists say that the Hittites and the Mongols have very similar features: shoes which had toes that turned up, hair in a pigtail, pioneer work in smelting and casting iron, and the domestication of horses. That’s one possibility.

The second involves the Sinites:

The other possibility of the origin of the Asians is from the Sinites. Look at verse 17, at the end of the verse, “Sinite” – S-I-N-I–T-E. When we talk about American-Chinese relations, what do we call those? What do we call them? Sino-American relations. Why do we call them Sino-American relations? Well, the word “sin” – S-I-N – is a common word in the Orient. There is a dynasty – the Sin [Qing] Dynasty. It’s a word that means purebred. Many emperors used Sin as a title. There is the study of China. Do you know what it’s called? Sinology. And so, it is possible that they came from Ham. But I’ll tell you this; they came from Noah’s family. There is a Chinese scholar in the church who keeps giving me lessons in the Chinese language all through the book of Genesis and showing me how the Chinese letters – Chinese letters are really pictures – prove their connection. They have words that are connected that demonstrate in pictures the story of the garden of Eden – the serpent, the tree, Adam, Eve, the whole thing.

One of the ones that’s very interesting, that I just discovered, is the Chinese word for ship – the Chinese figure for ship; it’s not really a word, it’s a figure. The Chinese figure for ship is made of three components – if I had a board; I’d draw it for you – three components. Component number one is a container. Component number two is a person. And they depict a person by a mouth that’s open. Because what distinguishes a person is the ability to communicate, speak.

So, these three figures are all pressed together for the sign of a ship. And one of them is a container; it’s the sign for a container. One is the sign for a person. And the other is the number eight. That’s the Chinese word for ship. A ship is how eight people got in a container and survived. That’s how the Chinese language – and that’s one of hundreds of illustrations; there’s an entire book on this. They take their roots all the way back to the ark. And it’s most likely that they came either from the Hittite strains of Ham, or from their Sinite strains of Ham.

The borders of Canaan — the Promised Land — stretched from Sidon towards Gerar as far as Gaza, and then towards Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboyim, as far as Lasha (verse 19).

That concludes the sons — including descendants — of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations (verse 20).

MacArthur gives us a biblical view of what happens to the Israelites as they laid claim to the land of Canaan:

… out of Egypt they came, they wandered around in that desert south of Israel and east of Israel for 40 years, and they’re ready to go into the land of Israel, that little thin strip of land that we’re so familiar with between Africa and Europe, and Asia to the east, and they were to go in and take possession of that land. After the 40 years of wandering they had been purged, the generation that came out of Egypt had died off, Moses was set apart at that point to be their leader until the time to enter the land, and then the mantle was passed, as you know, to Joshua, and you know the story of them going in, sending spies, the whole time moving in and taking the Promised Land.

Now at that time, that land was called the land of what? Canaan. The land of Canaan. And that is because it was occupied by descendents of Ham through Canaan. Canaanites. And here are the Jews on the brink of going in to take this land. And God had told them go in, take the land, it belongs to you, and kill the people who live there. You are acting as instruments of divine judgment. You need to go in on behalf of God and be the instrument of judgment against the wicked Canaanites. And they were wicked. Vile, idolatress people. Who if not eliminated, would corrupt the Israelites. And as you know the history, the Jews did not eliminate them as God told them to, and they suffered the corruption. Because they didn’t, it cost them ultimately to again to into captivity into Babylon, and lose the glory of their great land.

But here are the Jews on the brink, they’re ready to go in to take this land. Turn to the 15^th chapter for a moment of Genesis. And I think it’s important for you to kind of see what’s going on here. Here is where initially the land is promised to the descendents of Abraham, the Jewish people for whom Abraham and those who came after him; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jacob’s name is changed to Israel, and that’s the line of descent that ends up being Jewish people.

But here in the original promise to Abraham that we know as the Abrahamic Covenant, God promises to Abraham and his descendents this land. Let’s pick it up in verse 7 of Genesis 15. God said to Abram as he was called initially, “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess it.” And he said, “O Lord God how may I know that I shall possess it?” You’re telling me that there’s gonna be a land that I’m going to possess? A great land, in fact a land that extends far beyond the current borders of Israel in its original pledge, that engulfs most of the Middle East, east of Israel.

The Lord made a covenant, seemingly with Abraham but really with Himself:

And when the sun was going down, verse 12, says Moses the writer, “A deep sleep fell upon Abram.” God gave him a divine anesthetic, knocked him out. “And behold terror and great darkness fell upon him.” I mean, he went into a serious coma. They indicate that there was a fear, overwhelming fear, indicative of the presence of God. And God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendents will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years”. God gives him a prophecy that there’s going to be an enslavement of the Children of Israel, the Children of Abraham, for 400 years. Actually, specifically, 430 years they were in Egypt, “But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions”. That’s exactly what God did. The Israelites came out of there with a measure of wealth, delivered from Egypt by, as you know, the ten plagues, the Red Sea parted for them. “As for you, Abram, you shall go to your fathers in peace, you shall be buried at a good old age.” And the fourth generation after the 400 years of captivity, they shall return here. For the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” Here is the land I’m gonna give you, He says to Abram, right here in front of you. You left there, you’ve come here, here’s the land. But I want you to know your descendants are gonna get this land, I’m gonna make a covenant, I’m cutting the pieces right here, to signify the seriousness of this covenant as if to say may I die if I don’t keep the covenant. But I’m telling you, the covenant is not gonna be fulfilled immediately; in the intervening period there’s gonna be a 400-year enslavement. And you’re not gonna be able to come back and take this land, look at this, until the inequity of the Amorite is complete. The Amorite is another word for Canaanite.

I can’t bring you into the land until you can act as my instrument of judgment on an iniquitous people. so from the very beginning, God had pledged to Abram this land. What land is it? Go down to verse 18. “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying ‘To your descendents I have given this land from the River of Egypt, as far as the Great River, the River Euphrates.'” That would be from the Euphrates way at the east, way back in the Iraq/Iran fertile crescent area; we don’t know where the ancient River Euphrates exactly was and where it exactly flowed, to the River of Egypt. Probably not understood to be the Nile, but rather, what has been known in ancient times as Wadde El Orach, the southern border of Judah. “I’m giving you all that land, the land of the Kenite, the Kennezite, the Cadmonite, the Hittite, the Parazite, the Rupham, the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Girgashite, the Jebusite; the Jebuse being an ancient name of Jerusalem, and the ancient occupants of God’s city. So all of these people were a part of their whole Canaan culture. But He said I can’t give you the land until the iniquity of these people is full.

We now jump not 420 years later, but closer to 600 plus years later. The 430-year captivity is past, it didn’t come for a while after Abraham as you know, they didn’t go into Egypt in Abraham’s time. They went into Egypt after Abraham and the stories of Joseph are the ones that are linked with Egypt.

So, there’s some time to pass, then there’s 430 years, and now here we are jumping ahead 600 or so years, and the inequity of these people is full. The inequity of the Canaanites, the Amorites meaning Canaanites is full. And God has now brought his people through this equitous trek. Forty years in the wilderness, they stand on the edge of the Jordan to cross and take the land. They’re entitled to it, because God pledged it to Abram.

And to show you how binding the pledge was, I want you to go back to verse 17 for a minute. I think this is one of the most interesting little pieces of insight in the Old Testament. When the sun set, remember now, Abram’s in a coma. Usually when there’s a covenant, you cut the animals, and both parties walk though. Both parties together walk through the dead animals. They’re cutting the covenant, and signifying by walking between the bloody pieces, may such happen to me if I don’t keep the covenant.

But Abram didn’t go through this ritual. He didn’t go through the pieces, God knocked him out. Came about when the sun had set. It was very dark. “And behold there appeared a smoking oven, and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.” Who was that? God, by himself. That’s why we say the Abrahamic Covenant is a unilateral, unconditional covenant made between God and Himself. It’s not dependent on Abraham. It is unilateral, it is a covenant which God makes with Himself. He will give Abram a people. He will give that people the land. That’s His promise.

Going forward in time with the Israelites:

And when they were standing on the edge of the Jordan River looking across at the land, and ready to go take the land, and the surrounding area, the question would immediately come into their mind, what right do we have to this land? The answer: the promise of God to Abram. This is your covenant land. But why should we go in and dispossess the Canaanites? Because their inequity is complete. God has a limit. And you will be his instruments of judgment. But why Canaanites? Well, they would know the answer to that, wouldn’t they … Let’s go back to chapter 9. Because Canaan was the one who was cursed …

That is not to say that the rest of the family weren’t sinners – they were all sinners, of course. But this is a unique curse that shows up in the line of Canaan, ultimately in the Canaanites. And the Canaanites become the enemies of God’s people all through the Book of Genesis. Starting in chapter 11 we’ll see it, all the way to chapter 50. They are the enemies of God’s people. In fact, the sin of the Canaanites was so massive and so great, that it defiled the land. You can read about that, Leviticus 18:28, Joshua 23; their inequity was so great, they had totally defiled the land.

And so this is to help the Jews understand that when they go in, they are acting as the judges of God, or I should say the executioners, bringing out God’s judgment. And what is this specifically, this curse, “…a servant of servants he shall be to his brothers”. A servant of servants he shall be to his brothers. That is, he’s gonna be a slave. He’s gonna be a slave, first of all, to the family of Shem. Because it was out of the family of Shem that Abraham came and the Jews came. These people were wicked.

… if you study the territory of Ham, the territory of Canaan coming from Ham – it included Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities of the Plane. Go down to verse 15, Canaan became the father of Sidon his firstborn, and now you see them develop the Jebusites, Amorite, the Girgashite, the Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite, the Arvadite, the Zemaritem the Hamathite; afterward the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad, they’re going everywhere extending from Sidon, that’s on the coast of what is now Israel, toward Gerar as far as Gaza on the south, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim – they sweep all the way to Sodom and Gomorrah. That whole area was the area of these people who were the descendents of Canaan. Wicked, wicked people. Corrupt and corrupting. We’ll see that in chapter 13, chapter 15, 18, chapter 19, and particularly in chapter 38 of Genesis.

And they, by the way, interestingly enough, were the people whose lifestyle was characterized by nakedness. When we get to Leviticus chapter 18, if you wanna look it up, I think as I remember, 24 times the issue of uncovering nakedness is mentioned there, and it was part of the lifestyle of the Canaanites. Somehow … that experience of nakedness that occurred with Ham shows up generations later in this immoral pen[chant] for uncovering peoples nakedness; that is for having activities outside of God’s boundaries. God didn’t make them evil; in fact, God waited for centuries, until their evil had reached an intolerable limit. God’s hatred of these sins particularly caused him to ready the Children of Israel to take that land …

And I might just say the promise to Abraham of the land for the people of God is still in place today. It’s still their land, it still belongs to them, and God will see that they receive it.

On that note, a couple of weeks ago, someone posted the following graphic online:

In case the graphic disappears in time, it is a quote from Mossab Hassan Yosef, the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, one of the founders of Hamas.

Mossab Hassan Yosef was no stranger to Israeli jails, yet was appalled by the brutality of Hamas towards their fellow Arabs.

In time, he left his past behind. He became a Christian. He now lives in the United States.

The graphic says that no one knows Hamas or Gaza as well as he does.

Recently, this is what he said about the Hamas-Israeli conflict:

There is no difference between Hamas and the so-called ‘Palestinians’, as the vast majority of them support Hamas … There are no ‘Palestinian People’. There are conflicted tribes, and without Israel as the common enemy, they would kill each other.

It would be interesting to read more about what this man has to say.

Next week we look at Shem’s line, the Semites.

Next time — Genesis 10:21-32

Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year B — exegesis on the First Reading, Acts 4:5-12

The Fourth Sunday of Easter is April 21, 2024.

Readings for Year B can be found here.

An exegesis for the Gospel, John 10:11-18 (the Good Shepherd), is also available.

The First Reading is as follows (emphases mine):

Acts 4:5-12

4:5 The next day their rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem,

4:6 with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.

4:7 When they had made the prisoners stand in their midst, they inquired, “By what power or by what name did you do this?”

4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders,

4:9 if we are questioned today because of a good deed done to someone who was sick and are asked how this man has been healed,

4:10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.

4:11 This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.’

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

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

At this point, those assembled in the room for the first Pentecost have received the Holy Spirit, not least the Twelve (Matthias replaced Judas).

Peter and John preached at the temple daily. They also healed a man who was lame from birth (Acts 3:1-10):

The Lame Beggar Healed

3 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.^{[a] 2} And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple that is called the Beautiful Gate to ask alms of those entering the temple. ³ Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked to receive alms. ⁴ And Peter directed his gaze at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.” ⁵ And he fixed his attention on them, expecting to receive something from them. ⁶ But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” ⁷ And he took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong. ⁸ And leaping up he stood and began to walk, and entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. ⁹ And all the people saw him walking and praising God, ¹⁰ and recognized him as the one who sat at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, asking for alms. And they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

Peter then preached boldly about healing in the name of Jesus Christ and talked about the people’s and the rulers’ denial of the Messiah, calling for Him to be put to death. He also preached about our Lord’s resurrection (Acts 3:14-16):

¹⁴ But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, ¹⁵ and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. ¹⁶ And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus^[c] has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.

As a result, the Jewish hierarchy arrested Peter and John and imprisoned them.

That provides the backdrop to today’s verses.

The next day, the Jewish rulers, elders, and scribes — the Sanhedrin — assembled in Jerusalem (verse 5).

Matthew Henry says they were eager to put a stop to the preaching, the healing and the message about the Resurrection:

… they adjourned it to the morrow, and no longer; for they were impatient to get them silenced, and would lose no time …

The judges of the court. (1.) Their general character: they were rulers, elders, and scribes, v. 5. The scribes were men of learning, who came to dispute with the apostles, and hoped to confute them. The rulers and elders were men in power, who, if they could not answer them, thought they could find some cause or other to silence them. If the gospel of Christ had not been of God, it could not have made its way, for it had both the learning and power of the world against it, both the colleges of the scribes and the courts of the elders.

MacArthur discusses the Sanhedrin:

The scribes, the elders, and the rulers, along with the high priest, made up the Sanhedrin, and the Sanhedrin was the high ruling council of Israel.

This is the Supreme Court of the Jews. And even in the Roman times, they had the right to arrest. It had 70 members, and then the high priest was ex-officio president, so there were 71. And it included the priests and the scribes – you remember the scribes were the ones who were the experts in the law – and the elders, who were from the people. And then it included, in addition, the people from the priestly family, and they were really a motley bunch, to say the least.

MacArthur says that the temple had a rota, a scheduled rotation of priests, so that they served only on certain days. When the days came for a priest to serve, they were his time to shine, as it were:

… there were 24 courses of priests in the Levitical order, and there were so many priests that they divided into 24 courses, and of those courses, only certain priests ministered every week. So, when the priests were ministering in the temple, that meant it was their week, and you waited a long time for your week, and when your week finally came, it was a big deal. And least of all, did you want all of this commotion going on during your week, that you’d waited so long for?

And so here, in the middle of the week of these particular priests, all of this hubbub is going on, and they’re really concerned. This is religious opposition. And remember as I said earlier, persecution of the church often comes from religious groups, still even often from Judaism. All right, second person that we meet is the captain of the temple, the sagan, and this is the head of the temple police. Here is the political opposition. In some parts of the world, there is political opposition against the church.

The other factor in stopping Peter and John was the possibility of falling foul of the Romans governing the city. Rome did not tolerate civil disorder. The Jewish hierarchy had a love-hate relationship with the Romans:

Now, the Roman government was very tolerant, but against disorder publicly, they were merciless. And so, he wasn’t about to get himself in a position where there was a riot, or he would really be in trouble. Then we meet the most important group, and that is the Sadducees. Now, you say, “What are the Sadducees?” Well, within the framework of Israel there were many groups. There were the Pharisees, and there were the Zealots, and so forth, and one interesting group was the Sadducees. Now, we don’t really know where that name comes from; some say from Zadok, but there’s really no way to tell.

But Sadducees were a religious and a political group, so they combined the worst of both in their persecution. They were the power sect in Israel. They were the religious liberals. They were the high priestly family; all the high priests at this point were Sadducees. They were the opposition party to the Pharisees, like the Republicans and the Democrats, with a religious flavor. They were the opposition. Now, the opposition of the Pharisees dominates the gospels, and the opposition of the Sadducees dominates the book of Acts, so both of them get into play.

It’s also very interesting that they were very wealthy. The Pharisees tended not to be wealthy; they tended to be extremely wealthy. They were also the collaborationist party. They were the ones who were always scratching Rome’s back for the mutual scratch, you know. They really didn’t care that much about the common people; they only cared about maintaining the status quo, and keeping their power and their prestige in Israel.

So they maintained a collaborationist attitude with Rome, kept on friendly terms with Rome, in order to maintain their prestige, power, and their comfort. They were a small group, very minority, but were greatly dominant in the political influence of Israel. They didn’t care for anything about religion, other than the fact that it was social custom, and so they were strict liberals. They were strict social religionists.

Among those assembled were Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family (verse 6).

Henry tells us:

The names of some of them, who were most considerable. Here were Annas and Caiaphas, ringleaders in this persecution; Annas the president of the sanhedrim, and Caiaphas the high priest (though Annas is here called so) and father of the house of judgment. It should seem that Annas and Caiaphas executed the high priest’s office alternately, year for year. These two were most active against Christ; then Caiaphas was high priest, now Annas was; however they were both equally malignant against Christ and his gospel. John is supposed to be the son of Annas; and Alexander is mentioned by Josephus as a man that made a figure at that time. There were others likewise that were of the kindred of the high priest, who having dependence on him, and expectations from him, would be sure to say as he said, and vote with him against the apostles. Great relations, and not good, have been a snare to many.

MacArthur has more:

Verse 6 introduces Annas, and you remember Annas, who was the high priest formerly, but had been deposed by the Romans. He was the senior ex-high priest, but he really ran the show. He was the power behind the scenes. In fact, when Jesus was taken in the Garden of Gethsemane in John 18, they immediately took Him to Annas, because Annas was really the power of the whole structure in Israel. He was a Sadducee. Now, he had a son-in-law by the name of Caiaphas, who was Roman-appointed high priest, and he was as bad as Annas was.

Then it says “John, and Alexander.” Now, it’s very difficult to know who they are; there’s no way to know. But it is interesting that Annas did have five sons, one of his sons named Jonathan, and some of the manuscripts read Jonathan instead of John, so it may have been his son. And some say that Alexander is a form of Eleazer, and Eleazer is a known son of Annas. So perhaps they were two sons of Annas, perhaps we’re reading into it; that, we just really don’t know. But anyway, they were of the kindred of the high priest.

They had Peter and John — ‘the prisoners’ — brought before them and asked (verse 7), ‘By what power or by what name did you do this?’

The hierarchy were always concerned about authority, something about which they asked Jesus. Of our two former fishermen, Peter and John, MacArthur says that the head Jews despised them:

Theirs was the prerogative of teaching, and nobody else had the right, and least of all, to walk right in the temple where all of these teachers were, stand up, and teach contrary truth to that truth which they had been teaching. They were really upset because these two were teaching. Who were they to teach? They’re not approved …

… They weren’t versed in Jewish theology. “These guys are not even Jewish theologians,” they said. “They’re ignorant of rabbinic law. They haven’t been to the proper schools. How can they know anything?”

You remember they accused Jesus of the same thing. “Who is He that’s saying all of this? He’s never been to our school. Where’s He getting His information?” And then Jesus answered, “I get it directly from God.” Oh, you know, school is a little extraneous. And secondly, it says not only were they ignorant in terms of Jewish theology, but the second word, ignorant, means that they are commoners; they are not professionals, they are strictly amateurs. “Who are these uneducated amateurs?” That’s exactly what they’re saying.

And to make it even worse, they were from Galilee, which, of course, was the ultimate in despising. And so, they had no right to step into the narrow world of the instructors, and stand up in the very temple, and teach doctrines contrary to their own. And they were mad, because they did not agree with their theology. Now, whenever you stand up in the face of opposition, and you proclaim a truth that they deny, you’re going to get in trouble, and so they were angry. They had every reason to be, from their perspective, because they needed to preserve their own position.

Also:

They “preached through Jesus the resurrection,” but they were preaching Jesus, and that, they hated. They had determined that Jesus was a blasphemer, and here they were back, announcing all over town that Jesus was Messiah, and you all have killed your Messiah. Now, that is not real popular stuff. And you try announcing that today in the midst of a congregation of Jewish people, and you’re going to find some reaction.

Peter proclaimed, “Jesus is Messiah,” and he indicted the whole nation of Israel for missing the Messiah, and he got a reaction. So, they didn’t like that he taught, and they didn’t like what he taught. And thirdly, they didn’t like the resurrection idea. He “preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” He kept announcing that Jesus was alive. Well, that’s a fearful thought. I mean, if they have executed their Messiah, and He’s back alive again, that’s scary for them, because what would hinder Him from moving right out to bring about the vengeance that they would justly deserve?

And let’s be honest enough to think that they knew they were hypocrites. I don’t think they covered that up very well. I’m sure they knew they were hypocrites in their hearts, and they probably took a second thought, and thought, “Well, maybe we did blow it. Maybe we did execute our Messiah. Boy, if we did and He’s alive again, this is bad news. Better to shut these guys up.” Apart from the fact that the Sadducees’ theology did not permit a resurrection, which irritated them to death. And do they didn’t like the fact that they taught, and they didn’t like the truths that they taught, and so they reacted.

MacArthur describes the scene:

Now, they got together in their council and their Sanhedrin, and they brought in Peter and John. Now, this is a tough pill for them to swallow, because they’re still not rid of Jesus, you see. He’s still the issue. Verse 7 says, “And when they had set them in the midst” – now, that’s interesting, because they usually assembled – in the precincts of the temple, there was an inner place called the Hall of Hewn Stones. And they sat in a semi-circle, and they faced the president, who sat out here, and they always stuck the prisoner in the middle.

So, when it says, “They put them in the midst,” that gives you a good idea, even, of the picture of Peter and John standing here, with a semi-circle of the 70, and the president behind them. Now, this is so exciting. Do you know what God had just done? God had just given them the wonderful opportunity to preach to the Sanhedrin. This is a good case of Satan overdoing it. Satan does this all the time. He gets himself into real trouble. By persecution, he opens avenues that are never opened any other way.

Do you know that there was no way that they could have set up an afternoon to present the gospel to the Sanhedrin? There was no way possible to preach to those men, except this way. That’s why I say in the design of God, to submit is the whole key. They submitted, and God put them right where He wanted them. It’s a fantastic thing. God allows them to carry their testimony to the Sanhedrin itself. What an opportunity. And precisely why we must be submissive in persecution.

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, beginning with, ‘Rulers of the people and elders’ (verse 8).

Henry explains:

Peter, who is still the chief speaker, addresses himself to the judges of the court, as the rulers of the people, and elders of Israel; for the wickedness of those in power does not divest them of their power, but the consideration of the power they are entrusted with should prevail to divest them of their wickedness. “You are rulers and elders, and should know more than others of the signs of the times, and not oppose that which you are bound by the duty of your place to embrace and advance, that is, the kingdom of the Messiah; you are rulers and elders of Israel, God’s people, and if you mislead them, and cause them to err, you will have a great deal to answer for.”

Peter put it to the Sanhedrin that they were accusing him of wrong by his doing a good deed to someone who was sick and asking how the healing occurred (verse 9).

Henry says:

He justifies what he and his colleague had done in curing the lame man. It was a good deed; it was a kindness to the man that had begged, but could not work for his living; a kindness to the temple, and to those that went in to worship, who were now freed from the noise and clamour of this common beggar. “Now, if we be reckoned with for this good deed, we have no reason to be ashamed, 1 Pet 2 20; ch. 4 14, 16. Let those be ashamed who bring us into trouble for it.” Note, It is no new thing for good men to suffer ill for doing well.

Peter then gave an abridged sermon encompassing his previous messages: all the people of Israel should know that the man was healed ‘by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead’ (verse 10).

Of the brevity, MacArthur tells us:

Now, apparently in this message, which is only 92 Greek words, it embodies all of the apostolic preaching characteristics.

Henry gives us this analysis:

[2.] He transfers all the praise and glory of this good deed to Jesus Christ. “It is by him, and not by any power of ours, that this man is cured.” The apostles seek not to raise an interest for themselves, nor to recommend themselves by this miracle to the good opinion of the court; but, “Let the Lord alone be exalted, no matter what becomes of us.” [3.] He charges it upon the judges themselves, that they had been the murderers of this Jesus: “It is he whom you crucified, look how you will answer it;” in order to the bringing of them to believe in Christ (for he aims at no less than this) he endeavours to convince them of sin, of that sin which, one would think, of all others, was most likely to startle conscience—their putting Christ to death. Let them take it how they will, Peter will miss no occasion to tell them of it. [4.] He attests the resurrection of Christ as the strongest testimony for him, and against his persecutors: “They crucified him, but God raised him from the dead; they took away his life, but God gave it to him again, and your further opposition to his interest will speed no better.” He tells them that God raised him from the dead, and they could not for shame answer him with that foolish suggestion which they palmed upon the people, that his disciples came by night and stole him away. [5.] He preaches this to all the bystanders, to be by them repeated to all their neighbours, and commands all manner of persons, from the highest to the lowest, to take notice of it at their peril: “Be it known to you all that are here present, and it shall be made known to all the people of Israel, wherever they are dispersed, in spite of all your endeavours to stifle and suppress the notice of it: as the Lord God of gods knows, so Israel shall know, all Israel shall know, that wonders are wrought in the name of Jesus, not by repeating it as a charm, but believing in it as a divine revelation of grace and good-will to men.”

Then Peter said that Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone’ (verse 11).

That is a very familiar line from Scripture, as MacArthur reminds us:

Peter doesn’t back off, and they knew they were spiritual hypocrites, and the lingering fear that perhaps He was Messiah must have begun to eat inside. And then, as if to dig a deeper hole for them, he says this. In verse 11, he quotes Psalm 118:22, right out of their own prophecy.

Because their question was, “Well, if this is the Messiah, He wouldn’t be dead and brought back again. We don’t see that.” And so, he quotes, “This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which has become the head of the corner.” “You know, your own Psalm 118:22 said there would be a stone to be the cornerstone, but the builders would reject it, but it would be brought back to be the head of the corner. That’s a prophecy of the death, resurrection of Messiah. It’s right there. You’ve got it all.”

Buildings had cornerstones. In fact, they’ve found some from the original temple – or one of the temples, I should say – that measures 38 feet in length. They would run up to the corners. They were tremendous things. And one that wasn’t perfect would be thrown away, because everything else would be imperfect all the way up. They had to have a perfect cornerstone. And so the prophecy simply says Jesus will be the cornerstone, but the builders would reject it, thinking it imperfect, but God would bring it back, and make it the corner.

That’s exactly what happened with Jesus. They threw it away. “That’s not our cornerstone.” God raised Him from the dead, and stuck Him right back in, created a new temple – Ephesians 2:20 – the church. And in Matthew 21:42, our Lord even claimed to be that stone. And in Romans 9:31-33, Paul said He was that stone.

Henry gives us superb advice in Christian apologetics:

Probably St. Peter here chose to make use of this quotation because Christ had himself made use of it, in answer to the demand of the chief priests and the elders concerning his authority, not long before this, Matt 21 42. Scripture is a tried weapon in our spiritual conflicts: let us therefore stick to it.

Peter concluded by making a powerful statement: ‘There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved’ (verse 12).

Henry impresses this verse upon us:

We are undone if we do not take shelter in this name, and make it our refuge and strong tower; for we cannot be saved but by Jesus Christ, and, if we be not eternally saved, we are eternally undone (v. 12): Neither is there salvation in any other. As there is no other name by which diseased bodies can be cured, so there is no other by which sinful souls can be saved. “By him, and him only, by receiving and embracing his doctrine, salvation must now be hoped for by all. For there is no other religion in the world, no, not that delivered by Moses, by which salvation can be had for those that do not now come into this, at the preaching of it.” So. Dr. Hammond. Observe here, First, Our salvation is our chief concern, and that which ought to lie nearest to our hearts—our rescue from wrath and the curse, and our restoration to God’s favour and blessing. Secondly, Our salvation is not in ourselves, nor can be obtained by any merit or strength of our own; we can destroy ourselves, but we cannot save ourselves. Thirdly, There are among men many names that pretend to be saving names, but really are not so; many institutions in religion that pretend to settle a reconciliation and correspondence between God and man, but cannot do it. Fourthly, It is only by Christ and his name that those favours can be expected from God which are necessary to our salvation, and that our services can be accepted with God. This is the honour of Christ’s name, that it is the only name whereby we must be saved, the only name we have to plead in all our addresses to God. This name is given. God has appointed it, and it is an inestimable benefit freely conferred upon us. It is given under heaven. Christ has not only a great name in heaven, but a great name under heaven; for he has all power both in the upper and in the lower world. It is given among men, who need salvation, men who are ready to perish. We may be saved by his name, that name of his, The Lord our righteousness; and we cannot be saved by any other. How far those may find favour with God who have not the knowledge of Christ, nor any actual faith in him, yet live up to the light they have, it is not our business to determine. But this we know, that whatever saving favour such may receive it is upon the account of Christ, and for his sake only; so that still there is no salvation in any other. I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me, Isa 45 4.

MacArthur says:

People always say, “Well, you can get saved a lot of ways.” We were in Israel, went up to Haifa, and they’ve got the Bahaism Temple up there, and it has nine doors to God: Muhammadism, Confucianism, Buddhism, every kind of ism there is. And that isn’t true; there aren’t nine doors to God. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father” – what? – “but by Me.” There is no other name. There is no salvation in any other. There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.

And Peter is saying, in effect, “People, if you don’t turn to Jesus, you will be damned. There is no other way.” People always accuse Christians of being narrow. We’re not narrow, friends; any more narrow than the word of God. Unfortunately, the word of God is the most narrow book ever written. It’s always right, and never wrong, and anything that contradicts it is wrong. It is only in His name. They said to them – they said to him, “Who healed that man?” And he said, “Jesus did.” And he uses the same word for healing the man that is used when it says it made him well.

How did you make this – the end of verse 9. “What means he is made well,” is the same word as salvation, and so he does a play on words. This man was physically healed by Jesus, and you’ll never be spiritually healed, unless it’s by Him. He’s the only way. There’s no salvation in any other. The word salvation means deliverance from sin. No other name, no other name. I close with this, very quickly. In February 1959, at the South Pole, 17 men in Operation Deep Freeze Number Four, took their spare time and built a 16-foot-square chapel.

And on that chapel they put a sign, called The Chapel of All Faith. The structure contained an altar, over which they had a picture of Jesus, a crucifix, a Star of David, and a lotus leaf representing Buddha. The inscription on the wall read, “Now it can be said that the earth turns on the point of faith.” An all-faiths altar was recently dedicated at a university – it’s called an inter-religious center – at one of the Midwestern universities. The altar, it revolves. One is for Protestant, one for Catholic, one for Jewish, and then there’s one miscellaneous that’s adaptable to any religion.

That’s just exactly what the Bible says is so wrong. It would have been very easy for Peter and John to have mumbled innocuous platitudes about religion, and won the smiles of all, and the early church would have been immediately acquitted from the world’s hatred by a reasonable, broad-minded, downgrading of Jesus Christ. But not so, not so. This is it. Be submissive, be Spirit-filled, and boldly use it as an opportunity to preach the gospel.

MacArthur has an important message about persecution.

First, the early persecutions were physically brutal and fatal:

The first persecution, for example, broke out under Nero Domitius, the sixth Emperor of Rome, and about the time A.D. 67, which isn’t too long after the church began. And Nero contrived all kinds of punishments for Christians; he sewed some up in the skins of wild animals, and then turned hungry dogs loose on them. He used others, dressed in wax shirts and attached to trees, to be lit as torches in his garden. The next persecution under Domitian was perhaps even more inventive. Christians were imprisoned. They were put on racks, they were seared, they were broiled, they were burned.

They went through scourging, stoning, and hanging. Many were lacerated with hot irons, others thrown on the horns of wild bulls. In the fourth persecution, beginning in about 162 A.D., some Christians were made to walk with already-wounded feet over thorns, nails, sharp shells; some were scourged until their flesh was gone, others were beheaded, and so it went. Under the eighth persecution at Utica, 300 Christians were placed alive around a lime kiln and told that they were to make offerings to Jupiter or be pushed in. Unanimously they refused, and all 300 of them perished in the lime.

Lime, which is used in making traditional (old fashioned) plaster, is a highly caustic substance, so their skin would have been burnt through a chemical reaction. It is horrifying to contemplate.

Secondly, while people in parts of Africa and parts of Asia still undergo shocking physical torture and horrifying deaths for their Christian belief, today’s persecution in the West makes the Church and her followers into laughing stocks instead:

Satan’s persecution, as time has progressed, has become all the more subtle than it was then. It’s not nearly as obvious how it is that Satan persecutes today. And incidentally, today, apparently much more successfully, Satan’s techniques are working. Now, our text records for us the first persecution. This is the beginning of the steady stream of persecution that has gone on since the commencement of the church. In one way or another, the Christian church is always under persecution. It is not always political.

It is sometimes personal. It is sometimes religious. It sometimes comes from illegitimate Christianity. That is the greatest persecutor of evangelical Christianity is probably liberal Christianity, at least in the American situation. In one way or another, then, the church has suffered persecution ever since what we’re going to see in Acts, chapter 4, began at all. And as I said, persecution is subtle today. It’s not what it used to be. Satan usually directs the persecution today not at the physical body, but at the ego.

He directs his persecution at pride, or acceptance, or status, et cetera, and it’s really very effective. He doesn’t threaten the Christian by saying, “If you witness, I’ll cut your head off.” He threatens the Christian by planting within his mind the fact that if you witness you might lose your job, or your status, or somebody might think you’re strange. In these days, persecution has a tremendous effect, in a very subtle way. The form of persecution in the early church made heroes out of those who died.

And it came to be such a normal thing for Christians to die that many Christians developed a martyr complex, and just went around trying to put themselves into positions where they could be martyred. I mean, they wanted to belong, you know? But today, the persecution that comes is more effective; it doesn’t make heroes out of anybody. And it’s a sad thing; while the church today is not being killed physically, the church has succumbed to a kind of living spiritual death …

In fact, by letting them all live in an insipid kind of godless Christianity, he has a greater effect than if he wiped them all out, and had to face the issue again that the seed of the church is the blood of the martyrs. And so, Satan, whose persecution in the past has slaughtered Christians physically, has found it much more effective to kill the church by making it complacent, indolent, fat, rich, socially oriented, and accepted. And insipid, as it’s watered down its theology to accommodate the world; much more effective than if all Christians were boiled in oil.

Now, there are some places in our world where persecution does reign, physical persecution. Even some places here in America. But one way or another, Satan is antagonistic to the church. He persecutes the church. Obviously, and flagrantly, and blatantly physically, or subtly, by the persecution to become involved in the world, to strip off that which offends, in order that you might maintain your prestige, your status, or whatever it is that you desire from your ego. Now, Jesus, in John, chapter 15, warned the church in the statement to His disciples that they might as well expect persecution.

In verse 18 of John 15, we read this: “If the world hate you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own.” You see, that’s why, John says, “Love not the world.” What happens when a Christian falls in love with the system is, the system no longer really is hindered by this guy, they are no longer offended by this guy, and Satan has accomplished a greater persecution than if you had taken that guy and killed him, physically, because he has destroyed his effect. In fact, he has made him a negative …

Peter went on a step further, in 1 Peter 2:21, and said this – and this is an important statement. He, in effect, said we should expect it. “For hereunto were you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps.” If you confront the world, the world will react violently, one way or another. Now, you may succumb to the persecution of Satan, so that you fiddle out and kind of get laid by the wayside, long before you ever confront the world, because you’re really doing that to save your ego from being persecuted.

But Paul said to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:12, “You” – pardon me – “Yea, and all that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” Now, that’s a very clear statement. “Yea, and all that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” You say, “Well, you know, I go along, and I don’t suffer persecution.” Read the verse again. “All that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” If you’re not suffering persecution, why aren’t you? Because you’re not living godly in Christ Jesus, just that simple.

If you live the kind of life that God intends you to live in Christ, you will by the very nature of that life butt heads with the world, and when I say world, I mean the system. If you are not suffering some persecution, you have either fallen right into the flow of the system so that they don’t know the difference, or they haven’t discovered yet who it is that you really are; you have hidden it well. But you begin to live openly and godly in the world, and you’re going to bang heads with Satan, and with his establishment.

You begin to confront the world, and the persecution is automatic. Now, we see this in the early church. First of all, it looks so great. You know, we always say, “If you really live a Christian life, the world will be drawn to you.” Sure, they’ll be drawn to the beauty of your person, but as soon as they find out what it is, then, all of sudden, that which draws them to you – unless they come to Christ – turns to be a negative. The early church, for example, in chapter 2 and 3, everything looked real positive.

Chapter 2, the world was amazed at them, and they found favor with all the people, and everything looked great. And all of a sudden, they found out what it was they stood for, and everything shifted gears mighty fast. Now, in chapter 3, you’ll remember that Peter had gone with John to the temple, and there he had healed a lame man. A crowd had gathered together in the courtyard. Peter and John had stood in Solomon’s portico, up off the floor, a little bit, of the courtyard, and he and John had between them the lame man, and Peter began to preach …

That’s the kind of confrontation that brings hostility. But that’s the kind of confrontation that God expects us to be involved in. It is not that kind of a mealy-mouth hiding, in order to protect our ego, our status, and our prestige, and our name among the world. The response to what Peter did was very interesting. Look at verse 4 of chapter 4, and we’ll kind of begin to look at our text. “But many of them who heard the word believed.” Now, that’s what we’re trying to effect. We’re not trying to hide, because if we hide, not only do we not suffer, but nobody gets saved, either; that’s the problem.

Sure, you say, “Well, if I do that, I’m liable to get really messed up.” That’s right. You’re liable to get messed up, and somebody else is liable to get straightened out, and your life is expendable, my friend; so is mine. True? My life is expendable for the sake of somebody else. As soon as I start trying to live to protect my ego, and to protect my status, and to protect my prestige, then my life has become self-centered, and it’s no good to God or to anybody else.

If I’m not willing to confront the world for the sake of the salvation of those in the world, then I don’t have, really, anything to offer God or anybody else, and I’m only kidding myself. Now, it says in verse 4 that “Many of them who heard the Word believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand.” Now, the word was about should be translated came to be five thousand men. That means this is the total of men; at this point, this is the membership roll of the church. This is the male volume, anyway.

And there are two words for men in the Greek, two really most dominant words: anthrōpon or anthrōpos, and that word has to do with man generically, man as a race. Then the other one is andros, or here, ton andrōn, plural. This means man as opposed to female, and it would be best translated males. And so, what it says is this, “And the number of the men came to be,” or “the number of the males came to be five thousand.” That means, in addition to that, they were probably at least another five thousand women, and children.

That’s a large church for such a fast beginning, and you never hear another listing of how many from here on out. It grew so fast from this point, that it got past the possibility of keeping an accurate count. But many believed, and that was the reaction. Now, that was worth the price that Peter paid. It’s always worth the price to confront the world, that God may do His work. If we never confront the world, we’d blow it, because it is to the world that we are sent with the gospel.

You say, “Well, I might lose my job.” Praise the Lord, so lose your job – who cares about your job? I mean, God can handle you. He can provide everything you need, and promises that He will. Now, this doesn’t mean you’re to be a lousy employee, and waste all your time preaching the gospel; you better reread Ephesians. You’re to work like you ought to, and give an honest day’s work for an honest day’s earning. But wherever you are in this world, they ought to know that you stand for Jesus Christ.

Today’s Church in the West also has many lukewarm believers:

If trial – watch it – and persecution on a personal level is God’s way of maturing a Christian – and it is, if you read James 1 – then trial and persecution on a whole church-wide level is God’s way of maturing His whole church, and building it up.

Persecution always results in growth – mark that. That has to be the beginning thing, because that’s your commitment to do what’s right, even if persecution is involved. Persecution results in growth for many reasons. Number one, it strips off all of the dead weight. If you’re a part of a group of people that are having to lay their lives on the line for Jesus Christ, then we’re only going to have people in that group who are willing to do that, right?

And part of the problem of the church today are all the tares that’s sown among the wheat, and the easiest way to get rid of the tares is just to make the wheat pay the price, or make the church pay the price of total discipleship. And the tares will just drop off, because they’re not really that committed, and don’t want to get that involved. And so, as a church is persecuted, it is purified. The waste is stripped off, false believers leave, the strong are left, and God works freely through them.

… In James, chapter 1, you know, he says, “Count it all joy when you fall into trials and temptations.”

That’s a wonderful opportunity to grow. That’s the way you grow, is by going through the test, you see. If we live godly in the world, we will suffer persecution. If we suffer persecution, we ought to be happy, because persecution will make us grow, and it will reach others for Christ, and that’s what we’re all about. True? But somewhere, you’ve got to make the commitment that you’re willing to do that; make your life expendable, rather than to hide and protect yourself. So, we look forward to persecution with great anxiety and great joy, for righteousness’ sake.

… Second principle – in dealing with persecution, be submissive to it – secondly, be filled with the Spirit, verse 8: “Then Peter” – what’s the next word? – “filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them.” Now, you see, the key to anything in the Christian life is the power of the Holy Spirit, right? And Peter at this point has yielded to the Spirit of God. It’s an aorist passive. It indicates, perhaps, that he was already ready, because he was already filled with the Spirit.

… The Spirit – the filling of the Spirit is simply when a believer walks in obedience to the Word and the Spirit, you see. Peter had already taken the steps to be Spirit-filled, because he was obedient. He had preached, and he had submitted as God had brought the persecution, and that was under the control of the Spirit, at that point. That’s why it’s an aorist passive; it had already been done. It is simply submission, is all it is.

Submission to the triune God is the only way to salvation.

May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.

Thoughts on the Resurrection — and humanity

Many of us think that Easter is but one day.

There we would be mistaken. Eastertide runs all the way to Pentecost Sunday, which comes 50 days later. Sunday Lectionary readings continue to point us to the holy mystery of Christ’s resurrection and the promise of eternal bodily resurrection on the Last Day.

On Easter Day, a number of articles appeared in the press discussing the most important feast in the Church calendar. If Christ had not risen from the dead, then our hope as Christians is in vain.

Christ’s disciples did not understand or believe that He would actually rise from the dead on the third day. It was incomprehensible to them, even though Jesus had said this would happen. Furthermore, He raised his good friend Lazarus from the dead several days beforehand. The Critic explored this in light of Mark’s Gospel, ‘This vision glorious’, concerning the women who found our Lord’s tomb empty (emphases mine):

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid (Mark 16:8)

This is the description in Saint Mark’s Gospel of the response of the women at the empty Tomb on the first Easter Day. It is, scholars think, the earliest of the four Gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We might think that it lacks Easter joy. “Fled … trembled … amazed … afraid”: these are not words that immediately come to mind when wishing someone a “Happy Easter”. Indeed, the fact that these women were initially silent in the face of the empty Tomb — and, for good measure, an angelic vision declaring “he is risen; he is not here” — overturns any assumption that the Resurrection of Jesus was received as a straightforward “all is good, no need to worry” affirmation.

As we realise when reading Saint Mark’s account of the Resurrection of Jesus alongside those in the other gospels, there is nothing straightforward, easily comprehended about the Resurrection. The accounts by the four Evangelists do not at all neatly, comfortably sit beside each other. The timelines, the characters, the events cannot be straightforwardly pieced together, as if we were watching the concluding episode of a television series, or reading the final chapter of an airport novel. 

The various timelines, characters, and events in the accounts given of the Resurrection in the four Gospels are infinitely richer and more demanding. They are witnessing to and seeking to convey to us something of the explosion of divine presence, light, and life that occurred at that Tomb on the first Easter Day. Little wonder that the four Gospel accounts are anything but straightforward; little wonder that they can appear confused, even contradictory. Language, experience, recollection — all these are stretched far beyond what they can possibly contain on the first Easter Day. The One who is eternal Light and Life, the mighty Creator of all that is, touches and fills the Tomb with creative, life-giving power. 

Neat, comfortable, easily comprehended accounts of the empty Tomb would utterly fail to convey the explosive outpouring of this creative, life-giving power. No straightforward affirmation, the Resurrection of Jesus brings us, with those women at the Tomb, to be silenced in awe and reverence before the revelation of God’s life-giving presence and saving purposes …

The current — and long-running — trend to see Christianity as a social justice project undermines the Resurrection:

There is little that quite so undermines the proclamation of the Resurrection of Jesus, the Easter faith, than regarding it as an affirmation of a political or cultural project. Neatly fitting the Resurrection into political or cultural visions, as a convenient, helpful prop, is to profoundly misunderstand (if not deny) the faith of Easter. It is to entirely set aside Saint Mark’s account of the reaction of the women at the empty Tomb, rendering their reaction unnecessary and inappropriate rather than the authentic witness to God’s presence and act in the Resurrection. 

Let us reflect on this, not just on Easter, which seems an eternity ago for some, but during the rest of Eastertide:

… let us heed the response of the women at the empty Tomb, recognising in that response the witness to the out-pouring of Eternal Light and Life, bringing to humanity — broken, confused, and foolish as we are — participation in the Resurrection life, anticipated now and having its fullness in the life of the world to come …

May Easter Day renew us — amidst whatever tombs, whatever defeats and failures and fears we know — in this enduring hope, this vision glorious.

Another theme which runs from the Crucifixion through to the Resurrection is that of forgiveness, which is so difficult. It can be for me, anyway, particularly in serious situations when people who know how to help have been unhelpful.

It is easier to hold on to grudges against such people than it is to forgive them.

Another article in The Critic, ‘Try Christianity’, explores our difficulty in forgiving others, something that Jesus did so readily, yet He suffered much more hurt than we do.

Let’s start with apologies, something else few of us do:

… the pen of P. G. Wodehouse still manages to express a multitude of sentiments from the pews. On this occasion I’m thinking specifically of a line from The Man Upstairs: “It is a good rule of life never to apologise. The right sort of people don’t want apologies, and the wrong sort of people want to take a mean advantage of them.” In his narration, Wodehouse has summed up how many Anglicans, perhaps even many English Christians, think about God, sin, confession and forgiveness.

While Wodehouse has a point, I would venture that his view on apologies pertains to most people, not just English Christians.

Furthermore, our reluctance to forgive varies among cultures. For some, the mantra is, ‘Don’t get mad, get even’.

The article points us, using the words of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in the first paragraph below, to our Lord’s example that we remember on Good Friday:

… we are confronted by this God-Man who allows himself to be vulnerable, who confidently demands contrition, and whose property is always to have mercy …

Many of us still believe and act on the conviction that contrition and forgiveness is really rather complicated and perhaps should be avoided. Or that it can only be extended when the one wronged has returned to a position of power and the enfeebled supplicant comes begging. Examples are superfluous here — you will know when your hackles are raised by injustice or snobbery or idiocy. 

The quality of mercy is so alien to the wounded creature that it simply must be a miracle. Today that quality is one which we see in the most maligned of persons, the Man of Nazareth, hanging on the cross. “A man of sorrows”, Isaiah called him, “acquainted with grief — despised and rejected.” When soldiers struck and mocked him he returned “Father, forgive them.” When the thief next to him asked for clemency, he granted it.

Even when we assent to a conceptual understanding of Christian forgiveness we qualify it. As Cosimo de Medici wryly put it, “We read that we ought to forgive our enemies; but we do not read that we ought to forgive our friends.” However, Jesus’ business on earth was not finished until he had assured his friend Peter, the one who denied him, of his consistency.  

Today we remember that Jesus of Nazareth decided that forgiveness was worth dying for. And his life and death stand as an example and challenge to us still.

Well, one would not have seen either of these two themes in the media between Good Friday and Easter, March 29 and March 31, 2024.

A third article in The Critic examined the BBC’s online headlines on March 29:

… it is Good Friday, and the front page of the BBC website appears to have precisely no references to the occasion. The “culture” section contains articles about Beyoncé, the Oscars (that holy ceremony!), Godzilla x Kong and “What we know about the accusations against Diddy”. Stirring stuff. 

Buried deep on the site’s “Topics” section is a “Religion” page. Recent articles include “Rastafarian faith mentor dies, aged 73” (RIP to him) and “UK’s first Turkish mosque faces threat to its future”. Nothing about Easter — though there is a guide to celebrating Holi, which is nice.

A fourth article in The Critic points the finger of blame at the established Church for promoting social justice ideology, ‘The Church of England is practising a secular religion’:

Church attendance is of course declining. One in five worshippers has disappeared since 2019 alone. Is the Church of England spending more and more money on dubious forms of “anti-racism” under the delusion that it will attract young leftists to its services on Sundays? Or perhaps this quasi-theological endeavour is just a more winnable cause than encouraging religious belief and practice. Justin Welby cannot fill his churches but he can fill his heart with a sense of righteousness. 

This isn’t good enough — not for anyone. An obsessive interest in the sacred values of equality diversity and inclusion can distract believers from the divine, but it also threatens the social functions of the Church of England. The Church is one of the last major foundations of tradition left in the United Kingdom, along with the monarchy. The identitarian left has been tearing at the stitches holding us together for a number of years. To imitate its most fanatical tendencies is to encourage divisiveness rather than inclusion.

The Church of England should stop enabling these phenomena. Granted, to place the blame for its diminished status entirely on “woke Welby” would be naive. The problem predates the current Archbishop of Canterbury. A Telegraph analysis shows that church attendance has more than halved since 1987. However, the embrace of secular religion is exacerbating rather than ameliorating its decline.

This year, the Easter services at Canterbury Cathedral featured the Lord’s Prayer recited in Urdu or Swahili, led by native speakers of those languages. On the face of it, it’s something inclusive. Yet, people in every non-English speaking country recite the Lord’s Prayer in their own tongues. When, on holiday, I used to attend services at the Reformed Church of France, I joined everyone in reciting it in French. Therefore, what’s the big deal?

The Telegraph covered the story (as did GB News) in ‘Canterbury Cathedral reads Lord’s Prayer in Urdu and Swahili during Easter service’:

At the 10am service shown on the BBC, The Very Rev Dr David Monteith, Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, invited each member of the congregation to say the Lord’s Prayer in their own language, while it was led in Urdu on the microphone by a member from Pakistan. The subtitles on the screen were in English.

At an earlier service, aired on Radio 4, the prayer was led in Swahili.

The Dean said: “We invite congregations to say the Lord’s Prayer in their own first language at most of our communion services …

“From time to time, we invite someone to lead in their preferred language of prayer – today it’s in Congo Swahili as he was ordained in Zaire, and by a member of the Community of St Anselm from Pakistan …”

Then came Justin Welby’s sermon, which had nothing to do with the Resurrection, the core tenet of the Christian faith:

Shortly after the Lord’s Prayer was said, the Most Rev Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, used his Easter sermon at the cathedral to condemn “the evil of people smugglers” in the wake of a row over the Clapham chemical attacker being granted asylum.

The article also points out:

Several Church of England dioceses faced backlash after appointing individuals or teams to address racial inequality in their regions amid concerns they would alienate ordinary worshippers.

However, dissent is also present elsewhere in the world. Anglican church groupings outside the UK are at odds with Welby:

The Archbishop has been struggling to unite the Anglican Communion because of the row on same-sex blessings.

The conservative Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), which represents churches on every continent and the majority of Anglicans worldwide, has previously said that it expects the organisation to “formally disassociate” from both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England.

However, it was not only Justin Welby pulling the identity politics strings. In the United States, Joe Biden’s administration declared Easter Sunday, of all days, Trans Visibility Day.

And here I thought that Joe Biden was a Catholic.

The Telegraph had an article on the story, ‘Joe Biden has betrayed Christian America’. The most telling sentence was this one:

And certainly he had dozens of other dates on the transgender awareness calendar, including a whole week in November, he could have chosen instead.

Returning to the UK, on April 3, The Telegraph‘s Madeline Grant wrote about Richard Dawkins having his cake and eating it in ‘Christianity’s decline has unleashed terrible new gods’:

… Professor Dawkins’ admission that he considers himself a “cultural Christian”, who is, at the very least, ambivalent about Anglicanism’s decline is an undeniably contradictory position for a man who in the past campaigned relentlessly against any role for Christianity in public life, railing against faith schools and charitable status for churches.

Before we start preparing the baptismal font, it’s worth noting that Dawkins says he remains “happy” with the UK’s declining Christian faith, and that those beliefs are “nonsense”. But he also says that he enjoys living in a Christian society. This betrays a certain level of cultural free-riding. The survival of society’s Christian undercurrent depends on others buying into the “nonsense” even if he doesn’t.

Grant gives us an example of the ‘terrible new gods’ — Scotland’s new Hate Crime Act which came into force on April 1:

By the New Atheist logic, it ought to be the most rational place in the UK since de-Christianisation has occurred there at a faster rate. Membership of the national Church of Scotland has fallen by 35 per cent in 10 years and the Scottish Churches Trust warns that 700 Christian places of worship will probably close in the next few years. A Scottish friend recently explained that every place where he’d come to faith – where he was christened, where his father was buried – had been shut or sold. This is not only a national tragedy, but a personal one.

New Atheism assumed that, as people abandoned Christianity they would embrace a sort of enlightened, secular position. The death of Christian Scotland shows this was wrong. Faith there has been replaced by derangement and the birthplace of the Scottish enlightenment – which rose out of Christian principles – now worships intolerant new gods.

The SNP’s draconian hate crime legislation is a totemic example. Merely stating facts of biology might earn you a visit from the Scottish police. But perhaps Christianity has shaped even this. It cannot be a coincidence that Scotland, home of John Knox, is now at the forefront of the denigration of women. The SNP’s new blasphemy laws are just the latest blast of that trumpet … 

… Much of what atheists ascribed to vague concepts of “reason” emerged out of the faith which informed the West’s intellectual, moral, and, yes, scientific life – a cultural oxygen we breathe but never see …

… The world isn’t morally neutral, and never has been.

Recognising Christianity’s cultural impact is the first step. The bigger task facing the West is living out these values in an age when they are increasingly under threat.

On Easter Day, The Telegraph‘s Tim Stanley, an agnostic turned Roman Catholic, wrote about the horror of what assisted dying — euthanasia — legislation could bring to the UK. At the end, he had this to say about the impact that widespread unbelief has had on Holy Week and Easter:

Christ died on Good Friday, but for much of the zeitgeist he has never risen again, setting the context for this debate that is minus the hope that once brightened the lives of Westerners even in war or plague.

I thank God I am a Christian. I would have to fake it if I weren’t. In an atheistic culture, beyond the here and now, there is little to live for – and when the here and now become unbearable, nowhere to turn but death.

It is up to us as individuals, with or without the help of the Church and the media, to keep the spirit of forgiveness and the hope of bodily resurrection alive. How do we do that? By studying the Bible, verse by verse.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 10:6-12

The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Genesis 10:6-12

The Hamites

⁶ The sons of Ham:

Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.

⁷ The sons of Cush:

Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteka.

The sons of Raamah:

Sheba and Dedan.

⁸ Cush was the father^[a] of Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth. ⁹ He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; that is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ ¹⁰ The first centres of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in^[b] Shinar.^{[c] 11} From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir,^[d] Calah ¹² and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah – which is the great city.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Last week’s post discussed the sons and descendants of Japheth, who travelled to and settled the lands of Indo-European peoples.

Now we look at Ham’s sons and descendants, one of whom was Canaan, upon whom Noah put a curse. This was because of his unbelief. Whether it was apparent at the time or whether Noah prophesied it, we do not know. Canaan was also the name of the Israelites’ Promised Land; as part of the curse, God directed them to battle the Canaanites for it.

Ham had four sons: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan (verse 6).

Cush’s sons are named: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteka, as are Raamah’s: Sheba and Dedan (verse 7).

Next week’s reading will return to those verses but, for now, John MacArthur discusses Ham’s son Cush (emphases mine):

Ham had four sons: Cush, Mezraim, Put, and Canaan. Cush has five sons and two grandsons from Raamah, named Sheba and Dedan … From Cush come five sons, two grandsons …

Now, just a couple of things. Cush is the Bible’s name for Ethiopia. So, Ham’s people went south … Who populated Africa? Who populated the southern part of the Middle East and east of that? … There was also a Cush in Arabia.

All the sons of Cush went east. How do you know that? If you would look at the sons of Cush in verse 7 … all of those names can be identified with places in Arabia … Put is Libya in North Africa, west of Egypt. And Canaan, the fourth son, was the ancestor of the various tribes that settled in the Promised Land. And those various tribes include the Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgashite, the Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite, the Arvadite, the Zemarite, the Hamathite, and all those families of Canaanites that were scattered all over everywhere.

So, the Canaanites were people who descended from Canaan, but there were all kinds of families of them. All kinds of families.

Our two commentators put their focus on the verses that follow.

In addition to the sons named in verse 7, Cush also fathered Nimrod, who became a mighty warrior on the earth (verse 8).

In fact, Nimrod was a mighty warrior before the Lord God, and it was even said: ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord’ (verse 9).

Matthew Henry provides an excellent biography of Nimrod, beginning with animals and moving on to men, explaining how God saw him:

I. Nimrod was a great hunter; with this he began, and for this became famous to a proverb. Every great hunter is, in remembrance of him, called a Nimrod. 1. Some think he did good with his hunting, served his country by ridding it of the wild beasts which infested it, and so insinuated himself into the affections of his neighbours, and got to be their prince. Those that exercise authority either are, or at least would be called, benefactors, Luke 22 25. 2. Others think that under pretence of hunting he gathered men under his command, in pursuit of another game he had to play, which was to make himself master of the country and to bring them into subjection. He was a mighty hunter, that is, he was a violent invader of his neighbours’ rights and properties, and a persecutor of innocent men, carrying all before him, and endeavouring to make all his own by force and violence. He thought himself a mighty prince, but before the Lord (that is, in God’s account) he was but a mighty hunter. Note, Great conquerors are but great hunters. Alexander and Cesar would not make such a figure in scripture-history as they do in common history; the former is represented in prophecy but as a he-goat pushing, Dan 8 5. Nimrod was a mighty hunter against the Lord, so the LXX; that is, (1.) He set up idolatry, as Jeroboam did, for the confirming of his usurped dominion. That he might set up a new government, he set up a new religion upon the ruin of the primitive constitution of both. Babel was the mother of harlots. Or, (2.) He carried on his oppression and violence in defiance of God himself, daring Heaven with his impieties, as if he and his huntsmen could out-brave the Almighty, and were a match for the Lord of hosts and all his armies. As if it were a small thing to weary men, he thinks to weary my God also, Isa 7 13.

The first centres of his kingdom were Babylon, Uruk, Akkad and Kalneh, in^[b] Shinar^[c] (verse 10).

Henry continues:

II. Nimrod was a great ruler: The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, v. 10. Some way or other, by arts or arms, he got into power, either being chosen to it or forcing his way to it; and so laid the foundations of a monarchy, which was afterwards a head of gold, and the terror of the mighty, and bade fair to be universal. It does not appear that he had any right to rule by birth; but either his fitness for government recommended him, as some think, to an election, or by power and policy he advanced gradually, and perhaps insensibly, into the throne. See the antiquity of civil government, and particularly that form of it which lodges the sovereignty in a single person. If Nimrod and his neighbours began, other nations soon learned to incorporate under one head for their common safety and welfare, which, however it began, proved so great a blessing to the world that things were reckoned to go ill indeed when there was no king in Israel.

From that initial kingdom — ‘land’ — he went into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir,^[d] Calah (verse 11) as well as Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah – which is the great city (verse 12).

Henry concludes:

III. Nimrod was a great builder. Probably he was architect in the building of Babel, and there he began his kingdom; but, when his project to rule all the sons of Noah was baffled by the confusion of tongues, out of that land he went forth into Assyria (so the margin reads it, v. 11) and built Nineveh, etc., that, having built these cities, he might command them and rule over them. Observe, in Nimrod, the nature of ambition. 1. It is boundless. Much would have more, and still cries, Give, give. 2. It is restless. Nimrod, when he had four cities under his command, could not be content till he had four more. 3. It is expensive. Nimrod will rather be at the charge of rearing cities than not have the honour of ruling them. The spirit of building is the common effect of a spirit of pride. 4. It is daring, and will stick at nothing. Nimrod’s name signifies rebellion, which (if indeed he did abuse his power to the oppression of his neighbours) teaches us that tyrants to men are rebels to God, and their rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

MacArthur does not think Nimrod ever hunted animals, only men:

Now, when it says he was a mighty hunter, it doesn’t mean he was a hunter of animals. He was a killer of men. A better way to translate that is he was a mighty warrior. He was a mighty soldier.

Readers can make up their own minds. I rather like the animal bit, because what better way to insinuate oneself into the affections of others than by killing dangerous beasts? Afterwards, one has grateful people acquiescing to whatever one wants.

MacArthur tells us more about Nimrod’s kingdom and Babylon:

This great-grandson of Noah, grandson of righteous Ham, wielded deadly power, ruled ruthlessly right in the middle of the Euphrates valley, and no doubt conquered all kinds of people, and consolidated families and people groups and tribes into his great Babel. Great in power, great in sin, great in idolatry, great in defiance of God. This was the first real city of man in the new world; built for man’s glory. It was a preview of a later city called Babylon, which a preview of a final Babylon that will be built by the Antichrist at the end of human history.

Nimrod built Babel. Nebuchadnezzar, a Nimrod-like man, built Babylon. And the Antichrist will build the final Babylon. By the way, Nimrod’s name in Hebrew? Rebel. Rebel. And all of the places of his kingdom named … verses 10 to 12. See all those names? They stretch from the northernmost point of the Mesopotamian valley at Nineveh, down to the Persian Gulf and the southernmost point at Iraq. And all the area in between. This was a massive kingdom.

The story of the Hamites continues next week.

Next time — Genesis 10:13-20

Third Sunday of Easter, Year B — exegesis on the Gospel, Luke 24:36-48

The Third Sunday of Easter is April 14, 2024.

Readings for Year B can be found here.

The Gospel is as follows (emphases mine):

Luke 24:36-48

24:36 While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

24:37 They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost.

24:38 He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?

24:39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

24:40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

24:41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”

24:42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,

24:43 and he took it and ate in their presence.

24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you–that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

24:45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures,

24:46 and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day,

24:47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

24:48 You are witnesses of these things.

Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

The verses in Luke 24 preceding today’s — Luke 24:13-35 — are the account of the road to Emmaus, the reading for the Third Sunday of Easter in Year A.

Last week we had our Lord’s encounter with Thomas the Apostle — John 20:19-31 — who initially doubted then believed. That took place a week after today’s appearance by the risen Christ, which took place on the day of His resurrection.

Each Gospel has an account of the day of the Resurrection. Matthew Henry tells us:

Five times Christ was seen the same day that he rose: by Mary Magdalene alone in the garden (John 20 14), by the women as they were going to tell the disciples (Matt 28 9), by Peter alone, by the two disciples going to Emmaus, and now at night by the eleven, of which we have an account in these verses, as also John 20 19.

‘The eleven’ was the way of referring to the Apostles after Judas’s betrayal and subsequent suicide. Yet, Thomas was absent from the encounter described in today’s verses. He did not show up until the following week, John 20:19-31.

Of these various appearances, John MacArthur says that even those closest to Jesus doubted whether He could rise from the dead:

The resurrection is so critical that each of the four gospel writers focus on the reality of the resurrection. And as I’ve been telling you, they focus on proofs. They all four look at the empty tomb as an evidence of the resurrection, a pretty good one. They all four look at the angelic testimony, the testimony of an unmistakable angel from heaven. They all look at the witness of the women who saw Jesus personally: Mary Magdalene and the other women. And they all include as an evidence of the reality of the resurrection the unbelief of the disciples and the apostles, because one of the arguments is going to be, and always has been through history, the resurrection didn’t happen, but the followers of Jesus wanted it to happen so badly that they virtually actualized it in their own minds. They made it in to a reality because of such strong wish that it would come to pass. It was as if it happened because they wanted it so badly. All four gospel writers tell us there wasn’t one person among the disciples or the apostles who even believed Jesus would rise from the dead. They not only didn’t want it, they didn’t expect it, they didn’t even believe it.

Each of the gospel writers then looks at these evidences – each of them from a little different angle, looking at different incidents of those things, but all looking at these evidences. Each of them give eyewitness accounts where unbelief was turned to faith. Each of them tells us how people were transformed when they met the risen Christ, whether it was John telling us about Mary Magdalene, or Matthew telling us about the women on the road, or Luke telling us about His appearance to Simon, or Luke telling us here about His appearance, as does John, in the upper room to the gathered eleven and the others. They all show us what a massive transformation took place when the risen Christ appeared.

These appearances, these experiences sealed the faith of the apostles, who then went out preaching the resurrection with proof. And they saw many believe, and the church established on the day of Pentecost with three thousand, and then five thousand, and tens of thousands more as the church began to move to what it is even this day, two thousand years later.

While those gathered were talking about what happened on the road to Emmaus, Jesus Himself stood among the ten Apostles and said to them, ‘Peace be with you’ (verse 36).

Wishing someone peace was a common greeting among the Jews of the day. However, Matthew Henry explains that Jesus had a deeper meaning in this context, that of forgiveness:

Observe, 1. The comfort Christ spoke to them: Peace be unto you. This intimates in general that it was a kind visit which Christ now paid them, a visit of love and friendship. Though they had very unkindly deserted him in his sufferings, yet he takes the first opportunity of seeing them together; for he deals not with us as we deserve. They did not credit those who had seen him; therefore he comes himself, that they might not continue in their disconsolate incredulity. He had promised that after his resurrection he would see them in Galilee; but so desirous was he to see them, and satisfy them, that he anticipated the appointment and sees them at Jerusalem. Note, Christ is often better than his word, but never worse. Now his first word to them was, Peace be to you; not in a way of compliment, but of consolation. This was a common form of salutation among the Jews, and Christ would thus express his usual familiarity with them, though he had now entered into his state of exaltation. Many, when they are advanced, forget their old friends and take state upon them; but we see Christ as free with them as ever. Thus Christ would at the first word intimate to them that he did not come to quarrel with Peter for denying him and the rest for running away from him; no, he came peaceably, to signify to them that he had forgiven them, and was reconciled to them.

Recall that only the Apostle John was present at the Crucifixion and was with Mary, our Lord’s earthly mother, at the foot of the Cross.

On the greeting, MacArthur adds another aspect:

I think it was probably more than that as well; I think it was peace in the ultimate sense. He came as the Prince of Peace. He came to bring peace to men of good will. And through the resurrection, He accomplished that peace. It’s peace every way you could look at it.

That peace is being one with God, a peace that can be attained only through a belief in His Son, the risen Christ.

They were startled and terrified, thinking that they had seen a ghost (verse 37), or ‘spirit’, in some translations.

Henry looks at the Greek used:

2. The fright which they put themselves into upon it (v. 37): They were terrified, supposing that they had seen a spirit, because he came in among them without any noise, and was in the midst of them ere they were aware. The word used (Matt 14 26), when they said It is a spirit, is phantasma, it is a spectre, an apparition; but the word here used is pneuma, the word that properly signifies a spirit; they supposed it to be a spirit not clothed with a real body. Though we have an alliance and correspondence with the world of spirits, and are hastening to it, yet while we are here in this world of sense and matter it is a terror to us to have a spirit so far change its own nature as to become visible to us, and conversable with us, for it is something, and bodes something, very extraordinary.

After the Resurrection, Christ had His glorified body, something all believers will have when they join Him in glory forever on the Last Day.

That said, MacArthur reminds us that His glorified body was not the shock element here:

Mary just thought He was the gardener, right? And the women on the road just said, “We met Him and it was Him.” And the disciples said, “He just walked up, and we started talking together,” and there was nothing apparently, dramatically, shockingly supernatural about Him, His appearance. The resurrect[ed], glorified body of Christ was adaptable.

The shock was His sudden appearance:

He just “whoosh” is there in a locked room; that’s the shock …

And they were startled, ptoeō is the Greek verb. It means “to be suddenly startled.” And then emphobos from which we get phobias, fears. It means “to be in a continued state of fear.”

They were stunned and startled and shocked into a condition of terror. That is a natural reaction. If you’re sitting there and we’re having this service, and somebody instantly appeared there, you’d be startled too, or here, or anywhere. It wouldn’t really be a matter of what they look like, it would just be a matter of “where did they come from?” that would generate the shock.

They thought they must be seeing a ghost. Now they’d never seen a ghost. But maybe there was then like there is now this belief that ghosts exist; or certainly spirits exist, demonic spirits exist, angelic spirits exist. It couldn’t be a material being. It couldn’t be a human, being because where would He come from; humans can’t do that. So it was a fairly reasonable conclusion to say that “this must be a spirit; this must be some kind of a vision.”

Jesus asked why they were afraid and why doubts arose in their hearts (verse 38).

Henry nails it on the head with regard to being troubled:

Observe here, (1.) That when at any time we are troubled, thoughts are apt to rise in our hearts that do us hurt. Sometimes the trouble is the effect of the thoughts that arise in our hearts; our griefs and fears take rise from those things that are the creatures of our own fancy. Sometimes the thoughts arising in the heart are the effect of the trouble, without are fightings and then within are fears. Those that are melancholy and troubled in mind have thoughts arising in their hearts which reflect dishonour upon God, and create disquiet to themselves. I am cut off from thy sight. The Lord has forsaken and forgotten me. (2.) That many of the troublesome thoughts with which our minds are disquieted arise from our mistakes concerning Christ. They here thought that they had seen a spirit, when they saw Christ, and that put them into this fright. We forget that Christ is our elder brother, and look upon him to be at as great a distance from us as the world of spirits is from this world, and therewith terrify ourselves. When Christ is by his Spirit convincing and humbling us, when he is by his providence trying and converting us, we mistake him, as if he designed our hurt, and this troubles us. (3.) That all the troublesome thoughts which rise in our hearts at any time are known to the Lord Jesus, even at the first rise of them, and they are displeasing to him. He chid his disciples for such thoughts, to teach us to chide ourselves for them. Why art thou cast down, O my soul? Why art thou troubled? Why do thoughts arise that are neither true nor good, that have neither foundation nor fruit, but hinder our joy in God, unfit us for our duty, give advantage to Satan, and deprive us of the comforts laid up for us?

MacArthur adds another pertinent observation:

What He’s doing is demanding that they look at the evidence; trustworthy people. “Use your minds.”

Jesus told them to look at His hands and His feet — the wounds were still there, even in His glorified state — and said that a ghost does not have the flesh and bones that He has (verse 39).

Henry points out that Jesus asked the Apostles to use their senses to discern whether He was real or a spirit:

He lays down this principle—that a spirit has not flesh and bones; it is not compounded of gross matter, shaped into various members, and consisting of divers heterogeneous parts, as our bodies are. He does not tell us what a spirit is (it is time enough to know that when we go to the world of spirits), but what it is not: It has not flesh and bones. Now hence he infers, “It is I myself, whom you have been so intimately acquainted with, and have had such familiar conversation with; it is I myself, whom you have reason to rejoice in, and not to be afraid of.” Those who know Christ aright, and know him as theirs, will have no reason to be terrified at his appearances, at his approaches. [1.] He appeals to their sight, shows them his hands and his feet, which were pierced with the nails. Christ retained the marks of them in his glorified body, that they might be proofs that it was he himself; and he was willing that they should be seen. He afterwards showed them to Thomas, for he is not ashamed of his sufferings for us; little reason then have we to be ashamed of them, or of ours for him. As he showed his wounds here to his disciples, for the enforcing of his instructions to them, so he showed them to his Father, for the enforcing of his intercessions with him. He appears in heaven as a Lamb that had been slain (Rev 5 6); his blood speaks, Heb 12 24. He makes intercession in the virtue of his satisfaction; he says to the Father, as here to the disciples, Behold my hands and my feet, Zech 13 6, 7. [2.] He appeals to their touch: Handle me, and see. He would not let Mary Magdalene touch him at that time, John 20 17. But the disciples here are entrusted to do it, that they who were to preach his resurrection, and to suffer for doing so, might be themselves abundantly satisfied concerning it. He bade them handle him, that they might be convinced that he was not a spirit. If there were really no spirits, or apparitions of spirits (as by this and other instances it is plain that the disciples did believe there were), this had been a proper time for Christ to have undeceived them, by telling them there were no such things; but he seems to take it for granted that there have been and may be apparitions of spirits, else what need was there of so much pains to prove that he was not one?

Jesus then showed them His hands and feet (verse 40) as further proof.

MacArthur says:

The nature of the glorified body is that it can be whatever it wants to be, whatever it needs to be. They aren’t bones like the bones before His death, they are the structure that keeps His actual corporeal form together. There’s flesh, but it’s not like His former flesh. It’s something different, it’s eternal; it cannot die.

Well, He’s asking them to look, to touch. “And when He had said this,” – verse 40 – “He showed them His hands and His feet.”

Henry reminds us of ancient heresies that misinterpreted Christ’s glorified nature. Sadly, these are with us again today:

There were many heretics in the primitive times, atheists I rather think they were, who said that Christ had never any substantial body, but that it was a mere phantasm, which was neither really born nor truly suffered. Such wild notions as these, we are told, the Valentinians and Manichees had, and the followers of Simon Magus; they were called Doketai and Phantysiastai.

Returning to today’s Gospel, the Apostles experienced a mix of emotions. They were joyful, yet still disbelieving and wondering, as Jesus asked whether they had anything to eat (verse 41).

Henry explains their emotional state:

It was their infirmity that they believed not, that yet they believed not, eti apistounton auton—they as yet being unbelievers. This very much corroborates the truth of Christ’s resurrection that the disciples were so slow to believe it. Instead of stealing away his body, and saying, He is risen, when he is not, as the chief priests suggested they would do, they are ready to say again and again, He is not risen, when he is. Their being incredulous of it at first, and insisting upon the utmost proofs of it, show that when afterwards they did believe it, and venture their all upon it, it was not but upon the fullest demonstration of the thing that could be. But, though it was their infirmity, yet it was an excusable one; for it was not from any contempt of the evidence offered them that they believed not: but, First, They believed not for joy, as Jacob, when he was told that Joseph was alive; they thought it too good news to be true. When the faith and hope are therefore weak because the love and desires are strong, that weak faith shall be helped, and not rejected. Secondly, They wondered; they thought it not only too good, but too great, to be true, forgetting both the scriptures and the power of God.

MacArthur says similarly, citing the phraseology from his Bible version:

… in verse 41, it’s so interesting: “And while they still could not believe it for joy,” – what is that? What do you mean you can’t believe it for joy? We have a phrase for that: “Something is too good to be true.” That was it.

You know, they have no expectation of this, and now it’s dawning on them that this is actually the risen Christ, and it is true, and it’s too good to be true. It’s like the old, “I’m pinching myself because this can’t be happening to me.” There’s a conflicted mind here. This is not possible, this is not expected; but here it is.

Henry looks at our Lord’s request for something to eat, or ‘meat’, as his version states:

For their further conviction and encouragement, he called for some meat. He sat down to meat with the two disciples at Emmaus, but it is not said that he did eat with them; now, lest that should be made an objection, he here did actually eat with them and the rest, to show that his body was really and truly returned to life, though he did not eat and drink, and converse constantly, with them, as he had done (and as Lazarus did after his resurrection, who not only returned to life, but to his former state of life, and to die again), because it was not agreeable to the economy of the state he was risen to.

The Apostles gave him a piece of broiled fish (verse 42) — some versions, such as Henry’s, add ‘honeycomb’ — which He took and ate in their presence (verse 43).

Henry says:

They gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honey-comb, v. 42. The honey-comb, perhaps, was used as sauce to the broiled fish, for Canaan was a land flowing with honey. This was mean fare; yet, if it be the fare of the disciples, their Master will fare as they do, because in the kingdom of our Father they shall fare as he does, shall eat and drink with him in his kingdom.

MacArthur dispels the myth that Jerusalem had no access to fish:

… the critics say, “Well, this proves the inaccuracy of the Bible, because fish were not available in Jerusalem.” Well, that is a stretch. But there are articles actually on how we know this is not true, because there were no fish in Jerusalem, despite the fact that one of the gates leading into the city is called the “Fish Gate,” according to Nehemiah 3:3 and Nehemiah 12:39, because that’s where the fishermen from the sea brought the fish through to the city. And, by the way, there were people of Tyre, according to Nehemiah, who lived in Jerusalem who were fish importers. Of course there were fish there, and they had cooked it and they gave it to Him, and He ate it.

MacArthur explains how Jesus in His glorified body could eat:

Now how are we to understand this body? It can be seen. It can be heard, because it can speak. It can be touched. It can eat. It’s a combination of what is natural and supernatural.

Here’s the way to understand it. His supernatural, glorified body was able to conform to any realm and any reality. If it needed to be earthly, it could be earthly. If it needed to be heavenly, it could be heavenly. If it needed to be physical, it could be physical. If it needed to be spiritual, it could be spiritual. If it needed to be transcendent, it could be transcendent. If it needed to be earthy, it could be earthy.

It could stand one moment on the Mount of Olives, have a conversation with the disciples, and in an instant, disappear into a cloud and go into the infinite heaven beyond the end of the infinite universe into the presence of God infinitely faster than the speed of light. It could do a quantum leap …

… that’s the power of God, and that power is displayed in the body of the Lord Jesus Christ. He can be outside and be inside; He can be in Emmaus, He can be here; and yet He can eat a fish if He needs to. Its adaptability is what the mark of the glorified body is. 

Jesus then reminded the Apostles of Scripture and what He had told them before He died: ‘that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled’ (verse 44).

Henry explains:

The insight he gave them into the word of God, which they had heard and read, by which faith in the resurrection of Christ is wrought in them, and all the difficulties are cleared. (1.) He refers them to the word which they had heard from him when he was with them, and puts them in mind of that as the angel had done (v. 44): These are the words which I said unto you in private, many a time, while I was yet with you. We should better understand what Christ does, if we did but better remember what he hath said, and had but the art of comparing them together. (2.) He refers them to the word they had read in the Old Testament, to which the word they had heard from him directed them: All things must be fulfilled which were written. Christ had given them this general hint for the regulating of their expectations—that whatever they found written concerning the Messiah, in the Old Testament, must be fulfilled in him, what was written concerning his sufferings as well as what was written concerning his kingdom; these God had joined together in the prediction, and it could not be thought that they should be put asunder in the event. All things must be fulfilled, even the hardest, even the heaviest, even the vinegar; he could not die till he had that, because he could not till then say, It is finished. The several parts of the Old Testament are here mentioned, as containing each of them things concerning Christ: The law of Moses, that is, the Pentateuch, or the five books written by Moses,—the prophets, containing not only the books that are purely prophetical, but those historical books that were written by prophetical men,—the Psalms, containing the other writings, which they called the Hagiographa. See in what various ways of writing God did of old reveal his will; but all proceeded from one and the self-same Spirit, who by them gave notice of the coming and kingdom of the Messiah; for to him bore all the prophets witness.

He opened their minds to understand what the prophets had foretold (verse 45).

Henry gives us an excellent analysis:

In his discourse with the two disciples he took the veil from off the text, by opening the scriptures; here he took the veil from off the heart, by opening the mind. Observe here, [1.] That Jesus Christ by his Spirit operates on the minds of men, on the minds of all that are his. He has access to our spirits, and can immediately influence them. It is observable how he did now after his resurrection give a specimen of those two great operations of his Spirit upon the spirits of men, his enlightening the intellectual faculties with a divine light, when he opened the understandings of his disciples, and his invigorating the active powers with a divine heat, when he made their hearts burn within them. [2.] Even good men need to have their understandings opened; for though they are not darkness, as they were by nature, yet in many things they are in the dark. David prays, Open mine eyes. Give me understanding. And Paul, who knows so much of Christ, sees his need to learn more. [3.] Christ’s way of working faith in the soul, and gaining the throne there, is by opening the understanding to discern the evidence of those things that are to be believed. Thus he comes into the soul by the door, while Satan, as a thief and a robber, climbs up some other way. [4.] The design of opening the understanding is that we may understand the scriptures; not that we may be wise above what is written, but that we may be wiser in what is written, and may be made wise to salvation by it. The Spirit in the word and the Spirit in the heart say the same thing. Christ’s scholars never learn above their bibles in this world; but they need to be learning still more and more out of their bibles, and to grow more ready and mighty in the scriptures. That we may have right thoughts of Christ, and have our mistakes concerning him rectified, there needs no more than to be made to understand the scriptures.

How true that is.

Jesus reminded the Apostles of what the Old Testament says — ‘it is written’ — that ‘the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day’ (verse 46), and ‘that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem’ (verse 47).

Henry says:

Thus it was written in the sealed book of the divine counsels from eternity, the volume of that book of the covenant of redemption; and thus it was written in the open book of the Old Testament, among the things revealed; and therefore thus it behoved Christ to suffer, for the divine counsels must be performed, and care taken that no word of God fall to the ground.

Repentance is a constant theme running through both Old and New Testaments. Old Testament prophets died for preaching that message. So did Christ. The prophets and our Lord died in Jerusalem.

MacArthur gives us one of many examples of the need to repent from the Old Testament then moves on to the continuing theme with faith in Christ:

Verse 47: “So that repentance for the forgiveness of sins can be proclaimed in His name.” What is the provision that transforms? It is the forgiveness of sins. The gospel message to be proclaimed across the world, folks, is just one simple message: repent and ask for the forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ. That’s it.

We say, “You know, we want people to be saved.” And the obvious question is, “Saved from what?” From their sins, and the punishment of those sins that is everlasting in hell. This is our only message. We don’t have a social message. There are social implications in the gospel, because godly people behave differently. We don’t have an economic message. We don’t have an educational message. We have one message: forgiveness of sins. That’s it. And that’s what was laid out at the beginning.

Let me show you something, just quickly, and we’ll end with this, but this is a good place to make a break. Back in chapter 1, verse 77 … in the prophecy of Zachariah, which sets the course of the Book. “He is coming” – this Son of God, the Messiah – “to give to His people the knowledge of salvation.” Okay? How they going to get that? How are they going to be saved? “By the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God.”

The Christian gospel is this: God is merciful, God will forgive your sins; and that provision is in Christ. That’s the way it starts in the book of Luke, and that’s the way it ends. So when John the Baptist comes along in chapter 3, who is the forerunner to the Messiah and the child born to Zechariah, verse 3 of chapter 3, “He came into all the district around the Jordan preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”

Or chapter 4, Jesus comes on the scene. And Jesus is preaching repentance, and He gives one message in Nazareth in the synagogue, and verse 18 He quotes from Isaiah 61: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me. He’s anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,” – those who are captive to sin – “sight to the blind” – those that are blinded by sin – “set free the oppressed,” – those that are oppressed by sin …

‘All nations’ in verse 47 pertains to the Gentiles.

Henry tells us:

They are here told, [1.] That they must preach this among all nations. They must disperse themselves, like the sons of Noah after the flood, some one way and some another, and carry this light along with them wherever they go. The prophets had preached repentance and remission to the Jews, but the apostles must preach them to all the world. None are exempted from the obligations the gospel lays upon men to repent, nor are any excluded from those inestimable benefits which are included in the remission of sins, but those that by their unbelief and impenitency put a bar in their own door.

Henry explains why Jesus told the Apostles to begin preaching in Jerusalem:

And why must they begin there? First, Because thus it was written, and therefore it behoved them to take this method. The word of the Lord must go forth from Jerusalem, Isa 2 3. And see Joel 2 32; 3 16; Obad 21; Zech 14 8. Secondly, Because there the matters of fact on which the gospel was founded were transacted; and therefore there they were first attested, where, if there had been any just cause for it, they might be best contested and disproved. So strong, so bright, is the first shining forth of the glory of the risen Redeemer that it dares face those daring enemies of his that had put him to an ignominious death, and sets them at defiance. “Begin at Jerusalem, that the chief priests may try their strength to crush the gospel, and may rage to see themselves disappointed.” Thirdly, Because he would give us a further example of forgiving enemies. Jerusalem had put the greatest affronts imaginable upon him (both the rulers and the multitude), for which that city might justly have been excepted by name out of the act of indemnity; but no, so far from that, the first offer of gospel grace is made to Jerusalem, and thousands there are in a little time brought to partake of that grace.

This was Luke’s version of the Great Commission, more fully expressed in Matthew 28:18-20:

¹⁸ Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’

Jesus told the Apostles, ‘You are witnesses of these things’ (verse 48).

MacArthur draws our attention to Peter’s sermons in the Book of Acts, which attest to this witness:

It’s about all the personal proclamation of the gospel that goes on in that early church.

Peter’s first sermon, he says in verse 32, “This God, this Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.” Chapter 3, verse 15: “You put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.” They were eyewitnesses, incredible eyewitnesses; and there were hundreds of them.

Chapter 5: “He is the one to whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins; and we are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit,” he says. Chapter 10 of Acts, verse 39, the same emphasis on personal witness: “We are witnesses of all the things He did both in and of the Jews in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, we are witnesses. We are witnesses that God raised Him up on the third day. And He became visible not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand, who ate and drank with Him. We are witnesses.”

And there were others in Acts who gave the same testimony:

Chapter 13, verse 31; chapter 22, verses 15 and 20; chapter 26:16; they’re all saying, “We’re witnesses. We’re witnesses. We’re witnesses.” And they wrote down the eyewitness account in Scripture; and we are witnesses to the accuracy and inspiration of the eyewitness account; and God still advances His kingdom through personal witness. It’s still, in my mind, the most powerful tool for evangelism, because it’s undergirded by the credibility of a transformed life. This is God’s plan, God’s agency: human witness.

The next verse, which the Lectionary omits is about the first Pentecost, the descent of the Holy Spirit:

⁴⁹ I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.’

Here, too, is a prophecy that would be fulfilled. Henry reminds us:

Christ’s ambassadors must stay till they have their powers, and not venture upon their embassy till they have received full instructions and credentials. Though, one would think, never was such haste as now for the preaching of the gospel, yet the preachers must tarry till they be endued with power from on high, and tarry at Jerusalem, though a place of danger, because there this promise of the Father was to find them, Joel 2 28.

May all reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.